Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Captain Krunch on September 30, 1999, 01:39:00 AM
-
The 109 may or may not have problems maneuvering at speeds above 400IAS but that has NOTHING to do with compression and everything to do with wing design. Actual "compression" doesn't begin until a plane reaches about 80% the speed of sound and air starts disrupting over the roundish wings. Some planes like the P-38 compressed earlier because of excessive wing camber but most WW2 aircraft didn't. Side bar for a second... when your Zeke starts getting stiff at 300ias IT ISN'T COMPRESSING... IT'S BAD WING DESIGN!!!!
Ok... now all of this assumes flight sims are correctly representing ww2 planes to begin with. I have no idea how planes really flew at 400ias under differing air density, altitude, temperature, etc. I don't think anybody really does.
-
I think the high speed maneuvering problems the Bf 109 series suffered from were caused by limited maximum stick forces (caused partly by the cramped cockpit of the Bf 109), as opposed to 'bad wing design'.
-
Heck, it might have been the stick. I should have said bad design, not bad wing design.
On the flip side...
who really knows? Ever ridden in a car that you thought was great and your friends said stunk or visa versa? Fifty year old opinions from pilots are incomplete under the best circumstances not to mention as subjective as they are scientific.
The only thing we know for certain is that in reality it was a match for any craft it faced.... not to mention the fact it downed more enemy fighter aircraft than any other plane during ww2. If the Luftwaffe wouldn't have been forced to use trainees on the frontline during the last 2 years the numbers might have been even more favorable. My guess is that it was kick bellybutton in it's own little way.
-
I can't quote where it is from, but I know someone who can find it.
It was an article written by a U.S.A.F. pilot who flew the P-51D, P-38 (J or L, can't remember), Bf 109 (G+), and Fw 190A.
When commenting on the Bf 109, he stated that the stick felt like it was 'mounted in cement' at higher speeds, and that he didn't have enough room in the cockpit to get enough leverage to move the stick at said high speeds...at least not enough movement to actually maneuver.
I'll try and track the article down. The guy who has a copy goes by the handle =jagr= in WB.
-
Wulf, Eric Brown flew all those planes (and more) and he said the same thing about the Me 109G. It was a 1935 airplane with a 1943 engine.
BTW Eric Brown was a test pilot until the '70s and he has more carrier traps than any pilot in history. I tend to trust his opinions for two reasons:
1. He flew every WW2 fighter type I can think of (excepting Soviet types).
2. He was an engineer and a test pilot. He knew airplanes.
3. In his books he is referring to the flight test reports that he wrote for the AFDU. He is going from his own documentation and adding his personal recollections.
-
Actually it was a Bf109 G6/U2 that mistakenly landed on the wrong side (heheheheh) July 1944.
And yup, Brown said that the *stick* froze at speeds over 400mph. That doesn't really mean compression, just that the stick needs alot more force to move it than other planes might have at that speed. Obviously AH models this.
-
This is sorta off topic but I remember reading that the Spit did the exact same thing over 400ias. I wonder if they share design elements? hmmm I guess they were both reasonably old designs.
Ya know, maybe in real WW2 combat this wouldn't come into play so much. A lot of action took place in and around bombers at 15,000 to 30,000 feet. Any time you dropped below 10,000 I bet your mortality rate jumped exponentially. hehe
-
Only the Spitfire's ailerons were a problem. The elevator was very light. Pulling out of dives wasn't really a problem as pilots would use that tactic against the 109.
-
How the heck can you be so sure? You wrote that like you fly Spit's against 109's on a regular basis. <g>
Although I don't have the Spit book in front of me I SPECIFICALLY remember the author stating it was virtually impossible to pull the stick back over 400ias. I don't know if that's true or not, I'm just trusting what this guy wrote because I don't have much choice, hehe.
As for the book... I think It's at my buddies house, I'll see if I can get the actual quote out of it. When it was published in the 80's this guy was a member of The House of Lords or Parliment or Knighted or something. I can't remember which, but he was some sort of big-wig. He was a Spit test pilot during the war and helped develop the plane from the very beginning.
-
I've read the same thing as Wells.
Remember that this is all relative. ALL WW2 fighters (well maybe not the F4U) had greatly increased elevator forces at high speeds.
But the accounts (combat pilots and test pilots) I have read say the Spitfire had a bigger problem with the ailerons than with the elevator.
-
I'll see if I can get a copy of the Spit book on Monday. As for it being heavier on the ailerons than elevator... could be, I have no way to know.
BUT IN ANY CASE......
This kind of thing isn't terribly important above 15,000 feet where most flying and fighting occured. It's not until you get down to the lower altitudes that your IAS becomes a problem... and heck, if you are flying at low alt your chances of being shot down go up ASTRONOMICALLY no matter what plane you're in. You don't have a lot of choices at 5,000 feet when 2 enemies dive onto your 6.... even in a 262.
-
If you're in a 262 at 5000 feet and have two bandits diving on you..you have fewer chances than in any other plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)....bad example <G>.
And yes...the spit had a very light elevator, but suffered from heavy ailerons.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
-
The Spitfire ailerons were quite stiff at speed. This was the result of the elliptical wing design, not the ailerons per se. They tried many ways to alleviate this, using non-fabric skins on the ailerons, and even clipping the wings, but the results were never satisfactory. Further research revealed that the wing design was the result.
One has to remember that when the Brits built the Spitfire, they were mainly focusing on a fighter that performed well in the horizontal plane, not so much the vertical. I would suppose that WWI and the resultant dominance of aerial dogfights played a large part in this.
-
My understanding is that Spitfire aileron problems were a result of insufficient torsional stiffness in the wing structure. At high speeds, the aileron forces were enough to twist the wing and counteract the rolling moment of the aileron.
-
Ok, I've got a Spit book, but I'm not sure if it's the same one. It's called, "SPITFIRE" by Alfred Price. Some of it's really good, other stuff is pure war propoganda trying to be shaped into historical fact.
One thing I learned was that the Spit had the LEAST "compressable" airframe of any airplane during ww2. It's thin wings allowed air to flow over much faster without causing disruption. I never knew that.
Ok... to the elevator. According to this book it wasn't what you'd call "light" by any stretch of the imagination. HOWEVER... it was measurably lighter than the 109's. By rolling, then diving and then pulling out as sharp as possible a Spit could evade a pursuing 109. But it went on to say, "Of course these advantages could only be exploited if the Spitfire was flown to her limits."
Later on it compared maneuverability more closely and gave them both poor marks above 400ias. At the end of the paragraph it stated that... above 400ias, "The Spitfire ceased to have any clear advantage in manoeuverabilty"
That's only one book, and not exactly complete at that, but it's reasonably interesting. It rated the Spit and 109, "an even match"
-
"did not"
"did too"
"did not!"
"did too!"
<g>
Ever wonder why they went to hydraulically boosted flight controls?
To stop arguments like these, probably ! ;-)
-
Not me Toad! <g>
I'm the first one to admit that I'm not on solid ground. Not a one of us has any real experience so we end up getting our knowledge from books and The History Channel. PLEASE!!! Some of the errors we've all seen a million times are obvious (109G-6 tops out at 386 MPH) but there are probably a zillion others we'd never spot. I don't think we'll really know the truth until we build a time machine. Until then we will just have to do our best, hehehe.
-
I think you can trust the basic numbers in the aircraft flight manual. While I've only flown (and owned) a few differnt US WWII trainers, I've found they perform very closely to what "the book" says they will do.
Of course, these trainers were "stock"...pretty much the way they were initially designed and came out of the factory.
The actual fighters and bombers underwent continual changes on the production line and in the field to improve the performance over the initial design specs.
My father was a 345th Air Apache and the tales he tells of modifying B-25 C's, G's and H's in the field are both interesting and amusing. (He nearly stalled a -C that had 8 .50's in the nose and 4 more in blisters on the side of the cockpit by holding the gun button down too long while strafing an airfield. You'll never find that info in the manual <g> ).
Still, if all the aircraft were modeled according to the AFM issued to the pilots who had to fly them, we'd have a reasonably "level playing field". I don't think anyone lied to their pilots about what the hardware would do...it wouldn't pay off in the end.
I'm just happy to have something that I can "fly" that feels OK without paying $600,000 and without using 50 gallons an hour!! LOL!
-
Some of the errors we've all seen a million times are obvious (109G-6 tops out at 386 MPH)
Hmmmm, how fast does a 109g-6 with MW50 go at 22,000 ft?
Sometimes things assumed to be errors are actually correct.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
-
Kats, I only have nanoseconds to respond but...
109G-6 has a top speed of 386mph at 22,640 with MW50 engaged. If you consider that the MW50 is improving top speed by around 5 to 10% you are talking about a plane that normally tops out at 347 to 365 MPH. That's roughly equivalant to a 1940 109D/E and much slower than a 109F.
The first thing you'll read about the G versus F version is that Messerschmidt sacrificed maneuverability for top speed. When you look at the MAJOR horsepower to weight improvement the G-6 offers over the F you can see those guys weren't kidding. Not only does the G have an extra 350HP, but it has a nearly 20 percent better horsepower to weight ratio than the F. However according to every history book you'll ever see it was all for naught. The G is actually slower than the F.... not to mention it can't maneuver as well either. Not exactly a compromise if you ask me. I don't buy it. It probably did go 386 MPH at 22,000 feet but that's without MW50 engaged.
According to popular history every single 109 produced during it's 7 year run (?)including all G models was fast.... except one.... the G-6.
-
Read this: http://members.aol.com/bf109gust/webhtmls/flying.html (http://members.aol.com/bf109gust/webhtmls/flying.html)
-
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
captain crunch, let me divulge a little information to you my friend. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) MW 50 was a boosting substance used below the rated altitude of the DB 605A. Thus at 22,000ft, it was pointless to engage it. A 109G-6 with MW 50 and a 109G-6 without MW 50 would have the same maximum true air speed. MW 50 only boosted speeds at lower altitudes, for instance the 109G did 317mph on the deck without MW 50, 340mph with.
For high altitude work, GM-1 boost was used if available. The top speed for a 109G with GM-1 boost was 406mph at 27k ft.
------------------
-
Umm ... anyone notice that the 109 modelled is in fact a G -10?
Jane's WWII aircraft state that the G-10 was the fastest of the G series at its operational height ... I've also noticed that it doesn't compress that quickly now ... or is that my imagination?
Cheers
Teapot
-
I've read where some 109 Experten trimmed the rudder so that in normal cruising atitude and speed they were forced to push forword on the stick to maintain level flight. At higher speeds this helped remove the mash in the 109's stick. It works in WBs as well, not sure about here yet as I can't get the game too load.
The game must not like TNT graphics???
[This message has been edited by Drum (edited 10-17-1999).]
-
Mthinks it was the elev. they trimmed. There was no rudder trim from cockpit. Also in an article by Martin Caidin, he mentioned that both sides who flew the 109E, were unanimous that above 400 moving ailerons & elev. demanded extra ordinary strength & rolling manoeuvers were beyond the average pilot.
FWIW,
Good Hunting!
-
-ik-
No need to get snooty about WW2 popular history. 90% of the readers on this list are WW2 adicts that understand MW50... including myself.
-
There seems to be awful lot of confusion about the Bf 109 trims so here goes. The in-flight adjustable rudder trim became available with G-6 as some of them received the larger rudder ( straight rudder hinge line ). Which was also found on some G-14 and G-10 and was standard by the time of K-4.
//fats
-
fats
Are you certain about the rudder trim? I seem to have read somewhere that the tab was a balance tab to reduce rudder control forces. In all the drawings that I could find, there seem to be 2 fixed tabs above and below the balance tab for rudder trim. Are you talking about a different version of the rudder?
-
ok I'm NO EXPERT.... now that out of the way.. 2 cases of friends letting me in on info... first case is my brother inlaw he was a tank commander in a abrams (M1-a?) anyway.. he said dont beleave a damn thing they state in the tech manuals... they have pushed and passed just about everything in there.. namely speed... its list at 45 mph or something like that... he was telling me about doing speeds near 70 and was not on exactly what youd call level ground... another of my friends tells me that in training dont beleave the manuals cause the people who build them put up low #s to keep expectations down and then when they test them they are more easily WOW'ed... and also another thing thats told to them... you can trust but dont swear your life on your eqipment as you need to remember its made by the lowest bidder. <just a few things to chew on>
-
I'm with you Aircat.
Every time an organization (military, governmental or civilian) opens it's mouth it's usually misrepresenting the truth.... sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident. I'd bet that 90% or MORE of the numbers that we base ww2 reality on are either incomplete, misleading, erroneous or lies. Screwed up information isn't an aberation, it's the status quo... ever watch the news or read a newspaper? <g>
There is an old saying that goes, "nothing is ever as good or as bad as you expect it to be."
I think this applies to WW2 fighter aircraft in a huge way. The 109 gets bagged on as an outdated ride. Maybe it was.... I don't know. All I really know is that in average hands it could rack up record kills during any phase of the war and on any front. When it came to factors that mattered in real air combat it certainly had what it took. What are those factors? Other than top speed I have no idea. Every standard model of 109 was fast, sometimes the fastest plane in the air. Oh yes <g>, except for one model, the 109G-6. The same G-6 that has the most improved power loading (relative to it's predacessor) of ANY 109 model. In fact it's not even close, the power loading almost shoots off the chart compared to the F.
-
crunch, could you please post the numbers and source which lead you to say the 109G-6's powerloading shot off the charts compared to the 109F? If you're talking about a 109G-6 with MW50, well then I agree. But remember that MW50 would not effect top speed at altitude. From everything i've read the 109G-6 with MW 50 was significantly (about 30mph) faster than the 109F at lower altitudes.
------------------
-
Ooops, sorry about that "rudder" trim mix-up. Your right, that should have read elevator trim.
-
Sink:
I belive you're correct, it's a Flettner tab. The two fixed trim tabs weren't always present though.
//fats
-
The 109 issue...here's what theory predicts. The estimated speeds at altitude will be slightly underestimated because the difference in IAS is not factored into the thrust calculation. Thrust will be slightly higher as the IAS is lower.
I'm assuming that 1475 hp and 317 mph are correct sea level figures for the G.
With DB605A (data from Jane's):
1355 hp @ 5700m = 280 mph IAS (374 mph)
If MW50 provided a 4% increase in power for a constant boost, then we get this...
with MW50,
1409 hp @ 5700m = 284 mph IAS (379 mph)
With the 605AS engine (higher critical altitude):
1200 hp @ 7800m = 257 mph IAS (392 mph)
with MW50,
1248 hp @ 7800m = 260 mph IAS (397 mph)
IF GM-1 restores power at 7800m to the sea level figure of 1475 hp
1475 hp @ 7800m = 275 mph IAS (420 mph) <---109G-10?
If both MW50 and GM-1 are used and power is restored to a whopping 1800 hp at 7800m.
1800 hp @ 7800m = 294 mph IAS (449 mph) <---K4?
I need to do more research into GM-1 and how effective it was at restoring power.
-
Wells: the last two figures where you point G-10 and K-4 has nothing to do with the reason they reach coincidentally similar top speeds, after all; both have vitually the same engine (and different from the DB605A) and the K-4 has better aerodynamics than the G-10 - giving it the better speed.
Bf109K-4(G-10)
Powerplant: DB605ASCM(DB605DC, 2000hp at ?) producing 2030hp at 500m, 1800hp at 5000m.
Speed: 378mph at S/L(342mph), 452mph at 6000m(426mph at 7000m), 435mph at 7500m.
Climb: 5000m in 3 minutes, 10000m in 6.7 minutes, 12000m in 10.2 minutes! Fast enough?
GM-1 increases the oxygen available for combustion over the percentage in "normal" air. (N20 = 33% O) So GM-1 would work the same at any altitude(unless O % decreases with altitude?), but MW50 must be more efficient at low altitude. I think...
I want GM-1 so I can get those damn B-17's. And the Spitfire should have LF and HF versions too, not the current weak F version (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Here's fun. Me 109 Wk. Nr.9228, coded TH+TF. A Me 109F model with modifications; fitted with Me 109G wings, ailerons limited to 50% travel, catapult seat and various recording cameras and instruments.
The next four flights followed with a trim setting of 1š15'. With this trim setting, one had to overcome high forces by pushing forward on the stick during the start of the dive. These forces reduced to zero at the recovery point of the dive. By pulling smoothly but firmly, the aircraft recovered safely. During these dives I was able to increase the indicated air speed to more than 700km/h(435mph), but only to a point beyond which a further increase did not seem feasible.
As mentioned above, I had increased the initial altitude for the dives to 10,000 metres (32,809ft), which enabled me to reach maximum speed at an altitude well above 5,000 metres (16,405ft). As a result, I reached more than Mach 0.8, i.e. in excess of 900km/h(559.2mph) true airspeed. Whenever this speed was reached, the aircraft started the rolling motions previously described, giving me the jitters every time. I was travelling at a speed nearly 200km/h(125mph) faster than Fritz Wendel during his (horizontal) record flight with the Me 209. This phenomenon is best described thus: The aircraft would begin to bank slightly to the right, which I was able to counteract using aileron. Without prior warning, the forces reduced and suddenly reversed. The roll to the left then had to be counteracted. Just as I had it under control, it flipped to the other side again. These pendulum type movements continued until the speed had been reduced during recovery. If aileron deflection had not been limited to half the value of normal travel, the overcompensation of the ailerons could have cost me my neck. By modifying the ailerons, Messerschmitt was able to reduce the phenomenon to a tolerable minimum.
On 16th March(1943), I made my twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth dives with the Me 109G Wk. Nr.9228. In my final report I declared the task completed, and summed up as follows: 'Achieved maximum values with an initial altitude of 10.7 Km(35,106ft) above sea level and an in-flight weight of 2,900kg(6,380lbs). The dive was initiated by rolling in at a speed of Va = 240km/h(149.1mph). The elevator trim was set to +1š15' and the engine performance at 100 per cent. The dive angle was approximately 70š-80š(reported by the pilot) maximum indicated airspeed: Va max = 737km/h(459mph) at 4.5km(14,764ft) altitude. Maximum true air speed reached, Vw max = 906km/h(563mph) at 5.8km(19,029ft) altitude. Maximum Mach number reached: M max = 0.805 at 7.0km(22,966ft) altitude.'
Lukas Schmid, from Test Pilots by W.Späte.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 01-05-2000).]
-
i have three pictures published now on my website. They show climb and speed, mostly for the 109K. I know the 109K is better than a 109G10, but i think itīs interesting to see the engine characteristic of the DB605D.
There are also some graphs for gondolas and use of gm1. Gondolas seems to give you about 200ft/minute less climb performance.
So the critical altitude for the DB605D without MW50 is still to low in AH. Should be at least in 8500m (28000ft)for climb, for speed even higher. I made a quick test and i think itīs still in about 20000ft here
With such a low critical altitude our 109G10 here is definitly not a high altitude fighter.
And GM1, yes i want it too!
So have a look. The graphics have a seize of about 100K each. Better print them out.
http://www.stud.mw.tum.de/~sl1/testdata.html (http://www.stud.mw.tum.de/~sl1/testdata.html)
niklas
-
If i recall correctly only Ta 152 sported both GM1 and MW 50 - someone please correct me ?
------------------
(http://www.raf303.org/banner.gif)
Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
www.raf303.org (http://www.raf303.org)
-
I think you're right, fdski, that GM-1 and N02 were not installed on the same planes.
In AH, I would think they should be available as different "loadouts", depending on the action you were expecting.
-
MW50 was supposed to be standard on the 605D engine and I really don't believe that the G-10 could hit 429 mph without GM-1 as well. GM-1 seemed to have raised the power by 300-400 hp or so above critical altitude, so I don't think 1800 hp is attainable. If I use 1534 hp (GM-1 restores power to 1475, then MW50 provides a 4% boost), then speed becomes
279 mph IAS (426 mph TAS) @ 8000m
Is that a coincidence? It's close enough for me.
-
So how come G-6's with GM-1 did 406mph at 8500m? Not 420mph like your calculations show.
What exactly are the differences between these engines (in brackets what info I have - injection/boost, hp, model of Bf109) and does anyone have "normal" and "boosted" hp numbers for them. Somehow I doubt the DB605D only made 1475hp without using any injection/boost...
DB605A (standard, 1475hp, G-0)
DB605A-1 (??, ????hp, G-1)
DB605AM (MW50, 1800hp, G-6)
DB605AS (bigger supercharger, ????hp, G-6)
DB605ASOM (MW50 and 93 octane, 2000hp, G-6)
DB605ASCM (MW50, 2000hp, K-4)
DB605D (??, ????hp, G-10) - was there a plain "D" engine?
DB605DB (GM-1, ????hp, G-10)
DB605DC (??, 2000hp, G-10
DB605DBCM (GM-1, ????hp, K-2)
DB605L (two stage supercharger, 1700hp, 1350hp at 9500m, K-14 = 451mph at 37500ft (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
-
So how come G-6's with GM-1 did 406mph at 8500m? Not 420mph
like your calculations show.
That was a G-2 using the 605A engine. My calcs were for the AS engine, which maintains power a bit higher. I suspect the power output was a bit lower on that test, probably 200 hp or so.
The differences are.
605A - standard engine (1475 hp with 42" Hg)
605AM - MW50, otherwise, same as A
605AS - increased supercharger (higher critical altitude, otherwise, same as A)
605D - MW50 and supercharger from AS as standard equipment.
605DC (96 octane fuel)
605DB (87 octane fuel)
There is nothing in the engine designation to indicate that GM-1 was used. That was in the aircraft designation or part of a R kit. Example: 109F-4Z <-- Z means GM-1 and I forget what R number also corresponded to GM-1, R-2?
-
I think the problem is you don't exactly know what effect GM-1 has on power output? I think it will increase hp at any altitude for the same power settings. Take a look at niklas' website - the speed graphs are very interesting, especially the G-6 top speed...
------------------
When the light was right it was actually possible to see the 30mm(1.18ins) shells in flight. - Heinrich Beauvais(Test Pilots, W.Späte).
-
Wow, that explains everything! What doesn't make sense though, is that the AS on the G5 apparently has a lower? critical altitude. Could those lines be mis-labelled for the G6 and G5? That would make more sense...
It also looks like the high-altitude pressurized fighter (G5) got the AS engine.
-
Your reading it wrong, I think?
_____ _ = 109G6 DB605A (critical alt = 6600m, 620km/h)
_ _ _ _ = 109G5 DB605AS (critical alt = 8300m, 664km/h)
and....
_______ = 109K4 DB605D (with GM-1 = 717km/h at 11700m (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
-
just added another picture. Itīs the same like the diagramm with the 109G5 and 109G6 but now with takeoff and emergency power (100% in AH), also without MW50
http://www.stud.mw.tum.de/~sl1/testdata2.html (http://www.stud.mw.tum.de/~sl1/testdata2.html)
"back" should lead you to the other 3 diagramms
niklas
-
Excellent! I have two questions though:
How long could the engine run at "Start- und Notleistung" settings?
Was there a minimum altitude limit that GM-1 couldn't be used below? I'm wondering why they show GM-1 figures on the graphs only over 10km.
-
Sorry juzz, i donīt have any information about that.
Donīt forget, THIS "takeoff and emergency power" is not the same as WEP in AH, only 100% without WEP. mw50 was called "sondernotleistung", "special emergency power"
But i remember myself that i read somewhere that 1,42ata wasnīt allowed to use in flight, that it was even mechanically blocked in planes without mw50.
The GM1 line shows imo only maxspeed over the critical altitude for the use of GM1. Maybe that you only have to lenghten the line without GM1 up to the point where GM1 starts and youīll get the Maxspeed for the altitude band between these two points.
You have to know that iīm not too much interested to demand with these diagrams "correct" Maxspeed values for AH. Iīm only interested to have a higher critical altitude without wep for our 109g10 here. At the moment, when you fly high in about 23000ft, and you have a merge with a pony, you start to fight in an altitude where your engine suffers already under a significant lack of power, while for the pony 23000ft is still some 1000ft below itīs critical altitude.
I donīt know if HTC is able to simulate with the current FM the different critical altitudes with and without wep. (?)
niklas
-
ups i said something wrong
the critical altitude changed for the 109 in AH. I get maxspeed now in an altitude over 25000ft.
Sorry, i was wrong when i said that the critical altitude for the 109 here is still at 20000ft
niklas