GrapeJam

In the A8's pilot manual, the plane takes off with flaps in take off position, does your chart have the planes take off with flaps in neutral or take off position?

So new patch and I've done another round of test, with both coolant and radiator fully closed I managed to reach slightly more than 375mph (605km/h) at SL and 435 mph (700 km/h) at 24k feet. The engine died very quickly and couldn't maintain more than 2 minutes of level flight. Temperature was standard, 20"c. Still, the P51D in my RL test had the radiator set to automatic mode to keep the coolant at 104 "c and oil at 70"c, I'm not sure what the temperature was in that test thought.

:doh: We spend more fuel and time trying to get altitude, understand? Seriously, fly the P51D for once and see if it can outturn the 109 in most scenarios, or it's just your own fault. Or you know what, try to get a firm grasp of English first before getting into discussion. And when nobody has any trouble outturning the P51D except you then you should probably had started by questioning yourself 1st.

Source? You claim alot of thing as hard fact/numbers, yet haven't shown much. So this brings up the question, if the RAF 190 were suffering premature stalls leading to higher stall speed, then how could they turn with a P51B (with a 90mph stall speed IAS power off)? Hmn? Still there was the A-3 in good condition. And how did you know it was the Jabo version that was tested anyway? There was one test with the Jabo done by the US Navy against the F4U and F6F, don't mistake it with that.

Oh God you still don't get it? It means that because of the bad climb rate, we P51D pilots usually use more time to climb, in the meanwhile burning more fuel and lighten our aircraft further. Understand? Seriously you need me to do a ELI5 to you after the earilier post?

So all and all, it's all your speculation, without hard numbers. Meanwhile, all of their FW 190As they've captured have stall speed much higher than the P51D even at full load, I'm questioning this "little to choose from" area. Also it's funny you take 1 report as truth while dismiss the other that doesn't suit your view.

Sources? Unless you meant this: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=gztLnfyj0nIC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=fw+190+a+vs+p51+turning+little+to+choose+from&source=bl&ots=JB_dLnAdbk&sig=ZwIR3RDSzQbcG_nlD2LNlHsn264&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7MpVeakIcz68QWl6oHoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fw%20190%20a%20vs%20p51%20turning%20little%20to%20choose%20from&f=false Then I got you this: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=ccVUI85IcFoC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=march+1944+air+fighting+development+unit+report&source=bl&ots=lXI6ijLPOp&sig=lC9-Iu4Ehx4mmlcsBJYbgR2idVE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FLUpVfa5I8vv8gXtzYD4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=march%201944%20air%20fighting%20development%20unit%20report&f=false And the question is how "slight"?

Pacific theater Mustangs operated with 115/145 octane fuel at 80"hg. Edit: At least 75"hg officially. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Grade_115-145_Fuel_17May45.pdf

:doh: Because of the bad climb rate, thus we spend more time climbing, we start with 35%, around 45 US Gallons in each wing tank and when we enter combat it's usually less than 30 US gallons for each, understand?

What the hell did I just read? And yep, perharps you like ACM a little bit too much by pulling as hard as possible, which ain't good at keeping energy. Yeah, but someone of us who knows the P51D has bad climb rate so we like to spend more time getting altitude. Moot discussion tbh, first you come here and claim something that makes everyone who fly the mustang go "What in the....." and then demand fix for your own mess up, well it's not like the K4 doesn't need fixing, just not at what you want.

You also forgot slats when deployed, and from what I've seen, you like to turn hard and waste a lot of energy. What, you think the P51D fly to the fight without burning any fuel or something? Especially those of us who like to to climb for a bit. Anyway, as I told you, the P51D only outturn the K4 slight at low fuel and very slightly to the right with flaps out. In every other scenario the K4 outturn the P51D handily, you messed up and instead of learning you come here to whine.

Anyway, the P51D at standard load doesn't outturn the K4 in either direction, those that do have 35% fuel loaded(around 100 US Gallons, the same fuel load as the K4), and only to the right, with flaps, but if the K4 also pop flaps then no way the P51D can outturn the K4. In case you didn't know, at 35% fuel the P51D had 24km/m2 lower wings loading than the K4. Also, btw, you're comparing airfoil drag but forgot airframe drag.

The A3 didn't have any problem, it had a weight of 3800kg and a stall speed of approximately 110mph clean and 105 mph IAS dirty. Define landing, landing as approach or touch down? If touch down the P51D at 10000lbs was 90 mph IAS.

So you use one test to invalidate all other british tests, even thought all other British test with the 109 all described and validate the use of slats on the 109 accurately? Ok.

Actually in air combat you change altitude alot so you always have to watch out for the altimeter to change mixture and supercharger accordingly, it gets your eyes off target , you can use that time to look around instead. I once thought the lack of automation was fine, too, till I flew Russian planes in Expert mode in BoS.

Yo-yo said currently the plane's slower than it was at release. The problem is he hasn't answered whether this was correct or not.

The speed was read in F2 view so it was TAS, weight was also accordingly.

Let me guess, you play normal and turnfight with Yak? Because even thought VVS planes in BoS are overperforming, they're barely competitive with German planes, still as long as Germans refuse to turnfight and keep the fight in the vertical, VVS planes don't stand a chance. Oh BTW, the 109s in BoS are also overperforming badly, the Yak has UFO flaps but as long as you don't turn fight with it you''ll be fine, and all German planes leave Russian planes in the dust in speed and climbing. There's nothing wrong with adding VVS planes in DCS, while they're fast at low altitude and quite maneuverable at low speed, none of them can dive, also there's no automation so pilot's workload is extremely high.

Well let me guess, you got the idea "why the British found that there basically was no difference in turn performance between a Fw190 Jabo and a P-51B Mustang." from this? https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=gztLnfyj0nIC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=fw+190+a+vs+p51+turning+little+to+choose+from&source=bl&ots=JB_dLnAdbk&sig=ZwIR3RDSzQbcG_nlD2LNlHsn264&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7MpVeakIcz68QWl6oHoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fw%20190%20a%20vs%20p51%20turning%20little%20to%20choose%20from&f=false And then we got this: https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=ccVUI85IcFoC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=march+1944+air+fighting+development+unit+report&source=bl&ots=lXI6ijLPOp&sig=lC9-Iu4Ehx4mmlcsBJYbgR2idVE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FLUpVfa5I8vv8gXtzYD4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=march%201944%20air%20fighting%20development%20unit%20report&f=false And the question is: How much is "slight".

Actually the F51D in my pics took off with flaps, so was the 190 thought.

And the older and much lighter captured FW 190 As were tested and they all had stall speed much higher than the P51D(even at 10000lbs, and with bomb racks on) clean, so what do you think? Here's a captured FW 190A5 with no ammo and it had a stall speed of 118mph IAS clean and 105mph IAS dirty. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Eng-47-1658-D.pdf

This chart is from wwiiaircraftperformance.org, and no it wasn't made by kit carson had no hand in making it, it was made by RAF fighter command ;) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html The 109G was probably fitted with gunpods, as the one the British captured was. And the P51C and B were identical, the difference was the factory where they were manufactured.

What you've provided is landing speed, and which is quite difference from stalling speed, and you used the landing speed to speculate the stalling speed. And so far you've not provided a stalling speed for the D9, at all. This P51B? I'd actually like a link to your test about P51B vs FW 190A in turning actually.

Sources? In case you didn't know, the Finns had a different landing speed for their 109s. Everything from you so far have been nothing more that mere speculation. Yeah, except that FW 190 Jabo weighted 3900 kg with full load.

Currently in game, the P51D's speed in TAS at WEP is not corresponding with the actual TAS in real life test, but correspond with Yo-Yo's chart at military power. Currently the in-game P51D's achieving 363 mph (585 km/h) TAS with auto radiator, 369 mph (595 km/h) with radiator closed, real life test showed that the P51D achieved 375 mph (603.5 km/h) TAS at SL. At 24000 ft the in game P51D achieves only 423mph (680 km/h) TAS, while real life test it achieved 435 mph (700km/h) TAS. P51D's real life speed chart (bear in mind, this plane was tested with bomb racks on): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html Yo-Yo's speed chart at 61 "hg (military power): http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1577405&postcount=7 As you can see, the current in-game P51D's speed at WEP correspond to Yo-yo's speed chart at military power, not the actual speed at WEP in the real life test.