Narushima

What I mean was, that the 109 had quirks which made it quite difficult for new pilots. Especially later models, that had insane engine torque. Same with the spitfire really. There are reports of German pilots being shot out of the sky like flies of Normandy simply because they couldn't even fly their G-6 in a straight line. The 109 was a newbie killer. The 190 on the other hand, was extremely easy to fly. Apparently it was easier to fly than the trainer aircraft the LW used. Required almost no trim, was stable, very responsive, used electric motors to move the flaps and trim, etc... The A-8 was the exception. It had stability problems due to added armour, making it very nose heavy. This was mitigated with the ETC rack, so they just never took it off. D-9 didn't have those issues though.

Mustang != Dora. Each plane had different handling. The 109 for example, which was initially designed for much lower speeds, had great difficulties later on. The K-4 was an extreme handful to fly. The 190 was the complete opposite though. It was designed to be the work horse of the LW. Rugged, stable, easy to maintain and especially easy to fly. http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/dora/?PAGEN_2=2

Right, got it.

They'll probably be fixed for 400km/h cruise. I believe that was the factory setting. Though the 190 required very little trim. It was quite stable at all speeds.

Then take it up with whoever is in charge of the project. I didn't decide which plane will be in the game, I only made a couple of charts comparing them.

The D-13 had worse performance than the D-9 at lower altitude. So if a D-13 without MW-50 and worse performance than a D-9 could win against a tempest, what could a D-9 with MW-50 do... EDIT: Also, like I said, no tests were done to make that graph. The guy used old tests for some aircraft and put them together to make a graph based on his opinion.

Couldn't you just make your own thread and spam posts about the tempest there?

That's not an actual source. It's from an article done for a magazine somewhere in the 50s. No actual aircraft were tested to make these graphs, it's all just an opinion piece from a single RAF officer.

The D-13 actually did win the engagement. The German pilot was able to gain the upper hand. Later on the British observers concluded that the fighters were sufficiently evenly matched that the fight would be decided by pilot skills, and both pilots agreed. What you have to note though is that the fight happened at low altitude (bellow 3000m) and the D-13 did not have MW-50 installed. Though it's useless to discuss this here, seeing how there won't be a Tempest in DCS any time soon. EDIT: Forgot to post this. The German pilot's (Major Heinz Lange) take on the dogfight Note that he thought he was flying the D-9. It was revealed to him later that it was in fact a D-13.

What? Why are you bringing the Tempest and prototypes into this? Do you have a compulsive need every time you seem me post something about the Dora? We get it, you love the Tempest, make your own thread about it. My chart is correct. I've researched several HISTORICAL charts to find what the speed of the D-9 was at 1.8 ata. This is without engine gaps sealed and without ETC racks. I don't care what Williams says on his site because he's biased and often time likes to present British aircraft in their best configuration against the German in their worst. Stick to historical primary sources.

Comparison of late war FW 190 models: Power at sea level: FW 190 D-9 2100PS FW 190 A-9 2400PS FW 190 A-8 2000PS The D-9 was a quantum leap in terms of aerodynamics and high altitude performance compared to the A models. And to think it could have been operational in late 1942/early 1943 were it not blocked by the RLM.

Above 5000m MW-50 starts losing it's effectiveness. See here:

10 minutes at a time, with reduced power to cool down the engine for 5 minutes in between. The D-9 carried enough MW-50 for 45 minutes (though in practice it was more like 40 minutes). You have enough MW-50 to run it 4x10 minutes. You would run out of fuel before you'd run out of MW-50.

Some of you people don't understand that a days pay for me is what you might make in an hour. Not all of us are lucky to have been born in a country with very high paying jobs. You might think you don't deserve your rewards for the money you've paid. Well that's your problem. Buy some more then. Give the codes to someone you know wouldn't buy them, but might just play the game if they get them for free. More players = more publicity and more players on the server. I on the other hand expect to get what I paid for.

Agreed. I can see VEAO doing it after the initial 4. I think ED has enough on their plate until at least 2016 :D

Can we not turn this topic into a ww2 aviation fuel discussion? I'd prefer if we stick to aircraft comparisons. Thank you =)

Take note, the Dora did not have MW-50. Also, the article is wrong. The fight did not happen at 3000m, but was capped up to 3000m. Also take note that this was a D-13, which has worse performance than the D-9 at low altitudes., Also, the D-13 actually won the fight.

Bar of death! Oh well, at least it's coming. Soon. So very soon.

From my experience, Il-2 1946 FMs are really bad. A hurricane can zoom climb with a D-9. A spit 5 has no problems diving with an 190 A-5. Etc... Best not to use that game to judge actual aircraft performance. I believe DCS level of modelling will be the closest to the real thing.

Thing is that chart doesn't represent the actual roll capabilities of an aircraft. Maximum rate of roll is not the only thing you should look at. There's also roll inertia and wing twist. A plane might have a high roll rate, but it can't utilise it if it has high roll inertia, meaning it takes a while to start and finish that roll. Then there's wing twist, which reduces the roll rate even further at higher speeds. None of those you can see on the chart. This way it's entirely possible for a P-47 to out-roll a Spitfire, because at higher speeds the spitfire would have problems with wing twisting. EDIT: Almost forgot. Control cables also reduced roll rate due to elasticity. Early ones had the same wings as the Spit IX.

And from your link 426 mph = 685 km/h, significantly less than the K-4.

Yup. The front wheel cowers alone gave the K-4 ~10km/h extra top speed. Also, both aircraft came with under-wing gondolas, which could be removed.

Weight has very little effect on top speed. This is because induced drag decreases with speed, and is almost insignificant at top speeds of WW2 aircraft. For example, the P-51 when lightened by 900kg only had an increase in top speed of 6,5km/h. G-10 was about 200kg lighter than the K-4. The K-4, on the other hand had a cleaner airframe, so naturally it was also faster.

Dive limit doesn't mean squat, because those weren't actual limits of the aircraft. Both 190 and 109 could go substantially above their dive limits, and could recover with the help of trim (all moving horizontal stabilizer). Drag isn't the only factor in a dive. There's also thrust, from the engine. So even though the Mustang is cleaner, the Dora still has substantially more power. That's why it's faster under 6000m.

Depends on the 109 or 190 really. I wouldn't say they could out-dive a Dora so easily. Especially not a mustang, that weights the same, and has comparable speeds at low altitude. K-4 would also be a decent diver. It's the cleanest and heaviest 109, thought still not in the same weight class then the above mention aircraft. You also have to take compressibility effects into consideration. At 800km/h IAS you're no longer chasing the opposing aircraft, you're trying not to become a pancake.