Kwiatek

True that slats in 109 dont cover whole wing area but true is also that 109 pilots ( WW2 or modern) report that slats help a lot in turns and stall charactersitic of 109. In DCS 109 fly like slats was only visual effect and has little effect. I suppose 109 slats casue little higher Clmax and also higher critical angle of attack for that plane. Comparing to P-51 laminar wing profil im no wonder that moder pilots whose fly 109 and P-51 said that P-51 dont turn at all comparing to 109. http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm " Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight. A classic! And real fighter, ready to rock and roll! And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below. The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates. Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions. The Me-109 performs very well against the P-51 for takeoff, climb, and moderate cruise, but once the P-51 starts a dive or adds power in a level condition, the P-51 outperforms the Me-109 easily. Pitch control is also delightful and very positive at 250 mph and below. As pitch and accompanying G is increased, the leading edge slats start to deploy. I have not found either aircraft to have any problems with asymmetrical slat deployment, as we see in other aircraft such as an A-4 for instance. The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G. Pitch force tends to get heavy at speeds above 300 mph, but is still easily managed with a little 2-hand pull or left hand re-trimming."

Stick forces are nessesery but K-4 seemed to be quite unstable in pitch dunno if it has anything with stick force casue more heavy stick should mean more stable.

I fly it a bit but still cant like K-4 flight model. For me plane behave like it was too much unstable in pitch, it stall also quite fast ( as for a plane with slats) and roll rate is quite poor at slow speeds.

Dora got some problems in DCS during take off roll expecially at moment when you rise the tail wheel. Something is not exacly natural to me. You have to be very very gentle of these casue plane could do crazy things then. Suprisly landings are far much easier then take off in D-9.

What about these one:

109 K-4 got slats, more lift airfroil and better power loading so im no wonder that should turn better at slowier speeds that P-51. P-51 was not good plane for turning at slow speed at all.

According to most pilots ( ex. Skip Holm or Mark Hanna) whose had chance to fly both P-51 and 109 they said that P-51 dont turn at all comparing to 109 and have no chance in turn fight.

As i though that someting is still not right with load and ultimate G limit. Good that we will see fixes here.

I think still is too easy to broke wing in 109. Comone it is a fighter plane designated to do fast Boom and Zoom attack with high speed dive and pull up. Such fighters could sustain 6-7 G without problems. Ultimated load factor should be about 1.3-1.5 more so no wing broken before 9-10 G. All my wing brokens were in sustained turn at medium speed about 500-600 kph without any blackout symptoms. So i think it was between 6-7 G no more. Even my old Zlin 526 could sustain 6 G without any problems.

Unfortunately my wing broken were very unexpected by me. Doing nothing extremaly only spiral or turn at higher speeds. Dont think anything above 6-7 G. Not any blackout symptoms.

I think 109 wing should easly sustain 6-7 G. It shouldnt really broke before 9-10 G.

Newest version. Still a lot wing broken in 109. Only change i notice not wing tips broken but rather half or whole wing.

I got still wing broken in turns. Not wing tips but whole wing or half wing broken. Today i got 3 or 4 wing broken in turns. BTW for me 109 is flying like it has serious COG problems ( aft COG). It behave little like "cradle". Something like IRL P-51 with aft tank full.

Dunno but what about these chart for D-9 at 4350 kg?

He mention 18 m/s for P-51

At 100% fuel?

Still i think that actual ( real ) performance between D-9 and P-51 is nicely done in DCS. I feel that D-9 got at low alts some climb advetange over P-51 but these is not overdone. Even if we compare known charts D-9 got 4 m/s better climb rate then P-51 at low alts ( which is huge difference). So maby P-51 got also better climb rate in game? ( casue i dont feel like D-9 got 8 m/s better climb rate then P-51 in DCS).

My math says where is logic which ordered to German put on all Fw 190 variants charts data without full performacne of all these planes ( jet trust?) ? Something is not right here for me.

Hmm loking from Yo-Yo calculation jet trust give D-9 at least 4 m/s better climb rate? 21 m/s for D-9 4270 kg at 3250 RPM MW 50 ( German chart) vs 25.3 m/s for D-9 4300 kg ( Yo-Yo calculated)? It looks like very high jet trust boost. BTW something i dont buy also with FW 190 A climb rate. German data claimed for A-3 ( 3850 kg) 16 m/s ( A-3a -export version) - 16.5 m/s ( German version) For A-5 ( 4000 kg) - 15 m/s. I think these data are not calculated but rather come from test flights? It corensponded well casue A-5 got the same engine power but was 150 kg heavier then A-3 thats why it got worse climb rate. What a reason would have Germans to put on all Fw 190 charts data ( speed or climb) with not full performacne ( or without calulated jet trust?)? Dont understand these.

I just wonder how D-9 at 1.8 Ata could have much better climb rate then IRL 109 K-4 at 1.8 Ata. IRL data K-4 got better climb rate then D-9 which is nothing strange casue it got better power to weight ratio with MW 50 power settings. D-9 - 2100 HP/ ~4200 kg - 0.5 HP/Kg K-4 - 1850 HP/ ~3400 kg - 0.54 Hp/Kg. K-4 best climb rate at 1.8 ata was 24,5 m/s. D-9 should be below these.

Dunno how much weight ETC 504 rack but i think difference shouldn't be more then 1-2 m/s without it.

Isn't similar with these?

The main problem is that planes from distance in DCS ( or other sims also) are way to small thats why there are much harder to see then IRL. But still some sims make it better and more realistic way ( e.x. BOS or ROF)

Thx Zabuza these information expecially about normal/alternate control system is missing in DCS F86 manual.

No flaps no airbrake indicator unfortunately.