GrapeJam

You use one test as an indication of all tests again? Yeah, 84 mph IAS clean at 8000 feet is going to be totally the same at SL. Anyway, when was the last time we see TAS lower than IAS? IAS stalling with altitude stated= unreliable, but take off distance is, ok. Nevermind power to weight ratio play a big part in take off distance.

And the weight of the sand filter is....."-" Mean while BF 109 G6/trop is 100kg heavier than normal G6. You're not telling me the K4's wings with 2 huge bulges are the paragons of cleanliness that benefit clmax, are you? According to virtualpilot.fi it was done by pilot Pekka Kokko on 5.6.1943, Kurfurst did a translation of that test so you may ask him This was the tested 109

Sources? The tested Finnish G2 didn't have gun pods. And funnily enough, G2 with gunpods is still more than 100 kg lighter than the K4.

The P51D has bad power to weight ratio, it can't sustain the turn rate like the K4, it's simple. 35% fuel load bring the turning capability closer, but the K4 as strong torque to the left so it doesn't turn well to the right, Turn time = combination of turn radius (stall speed) and sustain turn rate (power to weight ratio, mostly)

The 170km/h stall speed belonged to Finnish test, which was a normal G2 As for the "USAF" test (British to be exact), incase you didn't know the tropicalized version is, well, tropicalized, and has worse performance than normal version, has quite a bit worse performance and 100kg or so heavier.

Finnish 109s weren't "captured" they were delivered mostly brand new from Germany because Finland was Germany's allies for most of WW2 duration.

Yeah, but what's the K4's weight in DCS? Light? The P51D in DCS at full weight is 4566kg, 10066lbs, the weight's perfectly accurate. Yeah, what's the Me262 thrust to weight ratio again?

Anyway, why is the K4's weight still at 3182kg? Even if this figure is without MW50(which weighted 77kg), adding it up, the K4 would still weight only 3259 kg, 97kg lighter than it should be.

Yeah, except the G2 in Soviet test wasn't limited to 1.3 ata.

No, I'm just using the Yak 3 as an example that the slats don't increase lift as much as some here think.

And you're sure Finnish test wasn't turning to the right? Really 21.5s, 22s, it makes very little difference, 0.5s is a perfectly acceptable margine of error. And the G2 in Finnish test had no gun pods, it was also limited to 1.3 ata.

Fine compared to what? The Germans captured a pristine Ash 82FN engine before? * is forszah, War Emergency Power. Are you going to tell me that Soviet instruments were so bad that it had a 60km/h disparancy at SL? The G2 had 2 rows: 1 with gun pods and one without, the one without gunpod had a turn time of 20,5-21,5s.

Yeah, the La-5FN which made only 510km/h at SL instead of 583km/h, seeped CO2 into cockpit(a flaw that was presented only in the first La5, and was later fixed on the La5F onward) and the engine ran so rough that the test pilot temporarily lost his hearing. Anyway, funnily enough, Soviet's test of the G2 has roughly the same turn time as Finnish test, speed was also correct so that test actually hold credibility.

Considering that the Yak 3 had a wingloading of 183kg/m2, which is 5 kg lower than the G2. Airfoil: Clark YH, which has similar clmax to the 109's airfoil, about the same powerloading, has no slats, yet totally own the 109G2 in turning I seriously think he's overestimating the effect of the slats.

Funny thing that I've never heard of heavier version but with much higher power to weight ratio turn as well as the lighter version. I think Germans experten would disagree with you.

Is that why the G2 only managed a sustain turn time of 20s at SL? And I'm fully expecting you to bring up Soviet test of the P51(which only managed 483km/h, for a production plane that achieved 548km/h at SL. Compared to this: Don't tell me the 4 LMGs that don't stick out much plus 500lbc can cause such a degrade in performance. And even then the prototype which was even more underpowered managed 316mph at SL. Power off, who knows. But I do think compared to the late variant both should be pretty close. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MT215/109G2_MT215_en.html But also remember that the Finns climbed at high speed, more cooling, plus cold weather = less radiator drag, better climb rate.

The K4 is 400kg heavier than the G2.

Oh c'mon, do you think stall speed in TAS gets lower with higher altitude or something? Plus air war on the Eastern front was all low altitude, usually tree top level so there's a good change it's at SL. British test of captured G2/trop had stall speed of 112mph IAS clean, seems pretty agreeable to me. Regarding the climbrate, Finland's pretty cold so it should increase engine's power at low altitude because of denser air.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ 170km/h (105mph), even assuming that this is TAS, that's very close to the P51D's stall speed at 9500lbs in CAS. And I doubt the 400kg heavier K4 would fair better.

And who will do all these?

Also, the P51D's reaching 575km/h at SL with auto-radiator now, it seems there's an overheating problem across the board with all planes, this cause the radiator to opens more and degrade speed further. I'm actually now not so sure if there was any speed increase as I got that speed out of a 5 degrees slight dive, leveled up then throttled back then increased throttle again and was able to get around 605km/h for some time, the engine just dies too quickly with radiator closed to test speed in pure level flight.

Yeah, and who will do this test?

Yeah, let's take 2 planes that will definitely be unarmed, most likely not flown at full power and compare them as the definite proof of war time performance.

You're aware that this is the tactical chart for commander planning right? It should cover every possible configuration. You're not cherry picking anything alright. And yeah, the handbook from march 1944 is should definitely be more accurate than revised editions published in 1952 and 1955, and not by the country of origin, and said country kept their planes so well that the Mustang IV only managed to reach 354 mph TAS at SL instead of 375 TAS in American Test. Never mind that the P51D-5 is quite a bit different from the later P51D block that we have in game. Flaps up or take off flaps?

Bear in mind thought, the P51D in the test had bomb racks on so clean it should be even faster, as bomb racks shave off around 8 mph at SL.