Kurfürst

I have flown the 109 something for like 95% of the time since the beta test phase of the original Il-2 Sturmovik... granted there has been a piloting hiatus in the last several years and I probably got more rusty than I would be happy to admit, but are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I have no idea what B&Z is...? I did that 99% of the time. P.S. This means I have already read countless threads on how weight makes diving/zooming better... :doh:

The problem is that you cannot really asses the P-51D's combat qualities based on one-on-one dogfights. The P-51D's good points were to be found in a multiple plane fight, such as good visibility, good guns and high speed etc - as well in the operational aspect (range and relative cheapness). People who want to make the best use of it by going solo against a 109K-4 or a Spit IX, which are lightweight interceptors with the roughly the same horsepower but a ton less in weight are just going to frustrate themselves. No amount of boost can make up for the weight handicap, ie. that these interceptors are literally a ton lighter than the Mustang, and correspondingly they WILL have the upper hand in a maneuvering dogfight, since the factor that governs almost all of the important specs that come handy for that, power-to-weight ratio and movement inertia, will always favor the lightweight interceptor. Same goes for the 190D btw. Its heavier plane. Bottom line - don't try to beat the opposing swordsman with a rapier in his own game with your broadsword.

From the test results several members have kindly provided, it doesn't seem to be 'broken', in fact the results are quite close to RL data.. the problem as so often is that the RL data is taken at the raw, face value, without considering the flight regimes it appies to, whereas actually it has very precise conditions at which they are valid. I.e. to replicate the RL data in the sim, you have to fly the exact same parameters the data is for - same altitude, same TAS (some of the confusion is actually due to the IAS / TAS getting mixed up) and no rudder assistance.

Elaborate.

Nope. At 500-620km/h TAS the 109F-2 rolls about 80-90 deg/sec, at 3 km altitude. No comparison was made with the 190, which should roll about twice as good than that at these speeds. Its not a source issue, its a read-what-was-posted-as-it-was-posted issue.

Doh! :doh: Thats what I wanted to write, but evidently I have utterly failed at it... thanks for spotting and correcting! :thumbup:

Pro Job, MR. Korn. :thumbup:

TAS or IAS? I think D.S. meant IAS. Peak roll rate should be at in the speed range of 500-620 km/h TAS, a little above 80 deg/sec - or roughly 450 km /h IAS. Perhaps very, very slightly greater because this is for the roll of the 109F, and if not else the G/K wings were stiffer and there should be less loss due to wing elasticity. Also try 3000 m meter altitude for testing, because this is where the figures are for (as are the NACA 868 aggregate of various roll tests). Rolling rate slowly decreases with altitude and vica versa. At 10 000 meter the difference is quite noticeable.

Eagle Dynamics FB page has something of interest. ;)

:thumbup: Let me know if you need anything which I might have. The 410 is something I would very much to try if there is possibility.. its a fantastic, intriguing aircraft. Also I have stuff available on Hungarian 210Ca heavy fighter with 40mm Bofors and 15 cm Nebelwerfer tubes.

Must try out tonight! :)

Would be nice, but... we always have those in eeeeevery sim, the Ju 88 at least. Now, if we would have a Me 410 - a perfect counterpart to a Mosquito too, which I am sure sooner or later we will have - nobody did a 410 yet. I'd guess the rear cocpit/ armament arrangement would be nightmarish to model though.

Found the reference for the spinning characteristics in an old txt file of a forum post - albeit with the source clearly given. The pilot was Karl Baur, Chief Test Pilot for Messerschmitt.but nevertheless, here is what he said on 109 spins. Word came from the Luftwaffe out of Antwerp early in the spring of 1943 that many pilots had experienced spin problems with the Me109 G and had to bail out. Numerous airplanes had been lost. Karl Baur's first reaction: "This is almost a foolproof airplane. How do these guys accomplish that?" The Me 109 had a relatively high wing loading (32.2 lb/sq ft) and therefore stalled readily under heavy G forces but the stall was gentle and the aircraft exhibited good control under G forces. If the stick was eased forward the aircraft immediately unstalled with no tendency to flick over on its back and spin. While not totally spin proof it took a fairly ham fisted pilot to get into trouble in the Me 109. It took Karl several nerve wracking flights before he was able to get a Me 109 into a spin. Finally, after he had tried every possible dog fight maneuver, he had it figured out. It was during those split seconds before going into a vertical dive that it was possible to get this airplane to spin. Only rough flying inexperienced pilots were able to do it. Karl's solution to the problem was very simple. He advised: "Drop the landing gear boys, and the spin will end immediately." The dropped landing gear would appear to lower the airspeed and reduce the severity of the yaw (the movement around the normal axis of the aircraft, i.e. direction stability). Once the aircraft is not spinning (yawning) around its center of gravity the aircraft being in a nose down attitude accelerates and becomes unstalled. Source p.86 of: A Pilot's Pilot Karl Baur Chief Test Pilot for Messerschmitt by Isolde Baur

Higher wing loading largely just means higher stall speed, not different stalling characteristics. With power on conditions, even that is not 100% true since more powerful engines generate more air over the wings -> lower stall speeds. Its not total spin proof, but as close you can get. Heinrich Beauvais, the chief test pilot even tried to spin the thing in the middle of the war , when some pilots. He called them crazy, stating that the thing was as spin proof as it could be (btw this was how it beat the Heinkel rival in the original procurement). Finally the only way he could make it spin was some crazy configuration, as in legs and flaps out and applying full stick near stall...

"There is no tendency to spin" http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109E_UKtrials/Morgan.html

Wonderful video David! Reminds me of good old Il-2 times... :)

The MK 108 shell is just a big, slow HE grenade - unlike the Hog's giant AP round - and should not do anything but superficial scratches to armored targets, altough the visuals and explosions would be still impressive. Here's a link to cold war live trials of the famed Swedish S-tank, at one point they are shooting it with a 30mm ADEN gun from a DRAKEN. The HE rounds, tellingly referred to as Mine shells, should be more or less the same as the MK 108, since the ADEN cannon was based on a WW2 German cannon, the MAuser MG 213, firing the the same M-Shells as the MK 108. http://youtu.be/MiWCpIJ5dBw?t=8m49s

Phrasing. :p Here's a picture of a properly modeled Spit in the meantime. :D

This is not quite correct - if it was not possible to pull 5 gs, why were pilots reporting blacking out? The stick force per g is fairly constant over the speed range until really high mach numbers are reached, meaning the pilot can pull the same amount of g up to very high speeds with the same force as he can at low speeds. The pilot will perceive it as a stick force increase, since the pressure on the surfaces will increase with airspeed, and he can move the surfaces less, but at the same time he will get more g per deflection for exactly the same reason. The stick force gradient (stick force per g) will increase at high Mach numbers (exact amounts are known, as this was tested during the war and available to devs). Curiously, even though the stick force per g is lower on the 190, it increases slower on the 109 compared to the 190 with the increase of Mach number, probably on account of the thinner tail airfols used. Long story short, there should be no reduction in the 109s actual pitch maneuverability unless you reach very high speeds in the order of 0,75-,80 Mach and above - at these changes your stick for per g would increase and you may find some reduction in pitch maneuverability at the same stick forces. What you do not perceive in a sim as opposed to real aircraft is the increased physical resistance of the stick to generate the same control surface movements. Smells fishy though.. still, we are in beta.

So... I heard this is fixed already and ca. 10 g loads are now possible, right? :) :thumbup:

I do not get all the fuss - any mw boosted 109 will be better in one on one dogfight in dcs conditions, imho the g-14 would be even better at lower altitudes, and the g-14/AS practically the same as our current early k-4. There were plenty of 109K to find in the air, they were not rare by anyone's standard.. In multi plane combat and team tactics these manaouvre advatages of the 109 diminish in importance quickly... So Use this to Your advatage as real P-51D pilots did..

It appears that you have made The mistake of getting lost in one single detail and the fact that Regensburg kept producing G-6 (by this time, often equipped with MW-50 so in practice almost identical to G-14) while every other factory quickly changed over to other, more advanced types. The reason behind it was probably that 109K production, which was to start in the early summer of 1944 already, was delayed in Regensburg so they did not shut down the G-6 production line just yet. But it was thequite opposite to the situation in other Me 109 factories, as the production figures clearly show - for all practical purposed, in July 1944 G-6 production switched to G-14 and later, G-10 and K-4. Be sure not to mix up the exception with the rule in the future! ;)

G-6 production was quickly replaced by g-14 in mid-1944... And By start of 1945, there were just a few dozen G-6s in service - about 2/3s were high alt k4, g10 and AS types, the rest g14. K4 already amounted to about 200 in Service by october. Strcitly speaking For normandy of course k4 is too early, but so is 51D, all of these are secodn half of 1944 planes. For late 1944, planeset is mostly ok, even though most typical 109 would be g14 or g14/as.

The point was that the MK 103 could be fitted to the 109... The mot version IIRC had a slimmer barell fitting so IT would fit into the blast tube - and as far as gun dimensions go, the critical measurement was the relative placement of the feeding mechanism of the gun.

Nope, Galland is right while your simplistic assimptions are wrong - the MK 103 (with a modified 103mot variation) was to be and could be fitted to the Bf 109K-8/10 variant. It fitted just nice, the actual problem was not cocpit space but how to slim down the barrel into the blast tube. It would also appear that the MK 103 in the 109 would be provided with 85 rounds.