Why's the E-7 sooooo sloooooooooowwwwww?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Seriously, I don'T manage more than 475 at SL and 550 at 5000m.

What am I doing wrong?

Shouldn't I be able to expect more like the 500 at SL and 570 at 5000m?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I manage 510kph in the Macchi with the same engine.

[BeastyBaiter]

I don't have a detailed flight test report on the E7, but I do for the E3. According to the report, it had a top speed of 467km/h TAS at sea level. This is German test data. Honestly, I don't know what you were expecting. If you check the various other planes, most struggle to break 500km/h IAS on the summer maps. The numbers under these conditions much more closely match official test data (as they should).

[FuriousMeow]

I manage 510kph in the Macchi with the same engine.

 

Same engine, different airframe. Why do so many have this idea that the same engine with a different airframe is going to produce the same results? It won't.

 

Also the different prop control devices, the different propellers in use - those also alter performance. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Finkeren]

I manage 510kph in the Macchi with the same engine.

The Macchi is overall a good deal faster than the E7 due to a cleaner design. Nothing wrong as far as I can tell.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Sound about correct. Does the Macchi have a low alt compresor stage? The Bf109 E series was not best performing at low but mod alts (where the majority of early WW2 battles were carried on).

 

I though the Macchi had a license build DB601E and not 601N?

[JtD]

475@0 and 550@5000 are about correct, if you managed them at combat power, not emergency. There are higher figures around, but also lower ones.

[LukeFF]

 

 

I though the Macchi had a license build DB601E and not 601N?

 

DB-601Aa 

[Finkeren]

It all just goes to show, that the top speed of these planes evolved incredibly fast over the course of the war. The E-7 is 1940 plane and by those standards it was very fast indeed. Even the old I-16 type 24 was fast enough at 525 km/h in 1939, but in 1941, not so much.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Every test conducted with a working machine got 490-500 kph with closed radiators.

German internal tests with all kinds of different configurations regularly gave 467-475 WITH 3/4 OPEN Radiators at 1.3ata/2400rpm

 

The French tested 109s and got about 40kph difference between the Open and closed radiator settinngs, of 530 open and 570 closed at best altitude while they got 490 at 2500 radiators open, confirming the results at SL of the german tests around 470kph. However they also show the difference in results between radiators settings and thus far closer to 500kph than we currently have in the autumn map.

 

 

 

Observe RADIATORS 3/4 OPEN

Edited October 29, 2015 by Klaus_Mann

[Matt]

Geschlossen means closed, not open.

[Nonolem]

The text below the french report says that there is an uncertainty in these measurements. +-15 km/h at 570 km/h (overall 2-3% ).

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Geschlossen means closed, not open.

Yep, the Wishful reading got me there.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Geschlossen means closed, not open.

Fact remains that this was a factory-whore with all kinds of modifications done and these often were faulty airframes and slower than production machines. Often these were recalled machines sent back to the factory, this probably beinng one.

[83_Gen_Jeroen]

The E-7 can also carry small bombs and in that way is not a pure Bf filghter, but a hybrid fighter/ground attack. Design of the wings must be different for carrying the weight of the bombs and that goes at the expense of fighter capabilities. 

[Finkeren]

The E-7 can also carry small bombs and in that way is not a pure Bf filghter, but a hybrid fighter/ground attack. Design of the wings must be different for carrying the weight of the bombs and that goes at the expense of fighter capabilities. 

 

Sorry, but that's not the case. The E-7 was most definately designed as a fighter. True, for our theatre it was mostly used as a fighter-bomber, and for that we have field mods including extra armour for the underside of the engine and cockpit (which weighs down the aircraft a good deal BTW) but in a "clean configuration it's absolutely a fighter - just a 1940 model.

 

And no, the wings weren't redesigned to carry bombs. No Bf 109 ever carried bombs under the wings, and even if they had, there is no reason to believe, that it would've required strengthening of the wings. Aircraft wings are pretty damn sturdy and are built to carry many times the weight of the entire aircraft, else you couldn't pull out of a steep dive.

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

And no, the wings weren't redesigned to carry bombs. No Bf 109 ever carried bombs under the wings, and even if they had, there is no reason to believe, that it would've required strengthening of the wings. Aircraft wings are pretty damn sturdy and are built to carry many times the weight of the entire aircraft, else you couldn't pull out of a steep dive.

 

 

I do not recall any bombs being carried on the wings, but it appears that they could carry significant weight.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

The E-7 can also carry small bombs and in that way is not a pure Bf filghter, but a hybrid fighter/ground attack. Design of the wings must be different for carrying the weight of the bombs and that goes at the expense of fighter capabilities. 

 

Hey bro, the E-7 started as a "pure fighter."

 

The Emil was pretty much in obsolescence so they re-purposed the existing frames in a non-"pure fighter" role. 

[Finkeren]

 

I do not recall any bombs being carried on the wings, but it appears that they could carry significant weight.

 

Absolutely. I don't remember any stress limits for the 109, but some WW2 fighters had airframes that could withstand 10 - 15G. If the wings can handle that, they can certainly handle a few hundred kg of bombs.

[Dakpilot]

Usually it is the mounting point areas that need to be strengthened, must also be remembered that even though the wing may withstand 10-15G, it now would have to withstand that with bombs having that G acting on them as well 

 

obviously an extreme example but you see my point?  flying in turbulent weather can have big G forces, much the same as a pilots weight being multiplied under G load the same would happen to the ordnance

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 29, 2015 by Dakpilot

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

Usually it is the mounting point areas that need to be strengthened, must also be remembered that even though the wing may withstand 10-15G, it now would have to withstand that with bombs having that G acting on them as well

 

The tanks would have weighted a bit; not sure if there were maneuvering limits placed on an aircraft so equiped.

[Matt]

Talking about strengthening, E-7 tends to lose the whole wing quite easily due to battle damage. Is that only my impression or did anybody else notice that as well?

[Dakpilot]

Well it WAS a design feature of the 109 to have easily removable wings...    ​(reason for the undercarriage mount placement)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[83_Gen_Jeroen]

I was assuming the E-7 had a stengthened structure, but was not sure about it.

 

Not being  stengthened would sure give manouvering limitations.

Going into a steep dive and then pull up or taking a sharp fast turn should be avoided, even when carrying the extra weight not directly under the wings, it would still generate extra resistance. 

If an encounter with an enemy fighter could not be avoided, best thing to do was drop all extra weight before going into battle.

 

Also doing a dive bomb attack would be limited. Even if it was obvious you were gonne miss the target, you had to drop otherwise you could not pull safely out of the dive.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Usually it is the mounting point areas that need to be strengthened, must also be remembered that even though the wing may withstand 10-15G, it now would have to withstand that with bombs having that G acting on them as well 

 

obviously an extreme example but you see my point?  flying in turbulent weather can have big G forces, much the same as a pilots weight being multiplied under G load the same would happen to the ordnance

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Usually you don't exert G when you are strapped up with bombs, if faeces hit the fan, you dump them. Even modern fighters can't do max G safely with bombs loaded on the wings (e.g. F-16 is limited to 5.5G from 9G and AoA is limited to 17 degrees from 25)

Edited October 29, 2015 by RoflSeal

[Dakpilot]

Usually you don't exert G when you are strapped up with bombs, if faeces hit the fan, you dump them. Even modern fighters can't do max G safely with bombs loaded on the wings (e.g. F-16 is limited to 5.5G from 9G and AoA is limited to 17 degrees from 25)

 

Fully agree.

 

Which is why I said "obviously an extreme example, but you see my point"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

This 109 tank configuration looks like a one-off for very, very long haul though. Stuff like taking the planes from the factory to an airfield in the rear, where you'll surely find no combat, and then to the front without the tanks.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Did a second test for the autumn map, 485kph at 1.3 ata and 2400rpm.

[Finkeren]

Did a second test for the autumn map, 485kph at 1.3 ata and 2400rpm.

 

That seems fine.

 

I just got it to 495 km/h on Notleistung with closed radiators, which is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the test results.

[mb339pan]

109 E7 have DB 601A developing 1085hp

 

Macchi202 have DB 601Aa (built under license from Alfa Romeo) and develops 1150hp