GrapeJam

Also British test of captured FW 190A3: http://www.a2asimulations.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm And this FW 190A3's weight was 8600lbs.

No, that was meant to demonstrate how much the 190's stall speed gets lower with flaps. Who said they did? But you seems to think it's related alot, no. Landing speed is not absolute, it's a decided number, it can be quite bit higher or barely higher than the stall speed. Stall speed on the other hand is indisputable. And I'm pretty sure earlier you were dragging landing distance into this. You also seem to ignore the effect of lower drag in turning prowess. And as I told you, not a single Mustang outside of wind tunnel test achieved laminar effect(and the wind tunnel test was a model, not a real plane)

More likely than you think, Eric Brown flew the FW 190A4/U8 and he stated in clean condition the landing speed was 127mph, but in landing condition it was a mere 102mph. This 190 had the 2 outer cannon removed so it should have the same weight as the standard A4(4100kg) I've presented the stall speed figures actually available. Nope, landing speed is no stall speed. Now look at the Mustang vs the D9, the Mustang's much cleaner than the D9 plus it was also heavier than the D9 and thus it does not lose speed as easy and thus needed a longer landing distance. Initial acceleration wasn't also the best either. The same can be said for stall speed with full flaps down ;) Also in case you didn't know, the P51's wings weren't true laminar, in fact they tested the hell out of the front line planes and couldn't get the laminar effect at all, it achieved it's speed thanks to it's extremely clean airframe: http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html http://wp1113056.server-he.de/ABL/20-forschung/laminarfluegel/laminarfluegel_en.htm

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

Try tuning your stick sensitivity down you'll certainly notice it.

Most of Finnish 109Gs later on were rebuilt 2nd hand 109Gs used by the Germans.

You'ven't test dived the Mustang, have you? Because I assure you, there's elevator stiffness near Vmax. How about both? No really, try standpulling, you don't pull 4 springs as fast and as far as 2 springs.

Considering that British Thunderbolt III had lower service ceiling than 109G, excuse me if I'm skeptical about British capability to maintain and operate foreign aircrafts. Hey even P51As sent to the Soviets were also in pretty poor shape. Their "new" Spitfires transported to Australia also operated rather poorly(and I'm not talking about kill ratio) Would you like your 109 to be modeled after some hand me down Finnish 109?

Because maximum power setting varies a lot. Modern aircrafts engine are gimped to increase engine life. The only valid way is to use power off stall speed than add power and calculate based on it. Yeah, calculated. And then you look at this real test. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html Noticed the plane in "calculated" test was 7mph lower at SL(and the P51D in real test had wings racks) and climbed 200fpm slower? Also, the "stall speed" in calculated test didn't even state what condition it was in, for all we know it could be power off stall speed with full flaps and gears down. Look at my stall speed chart, it's the almost the same.

Why use this when you can use the official source? Which is mine. Also stall speed is lower with power on. And calculating clmax based on power on stall speed is a poor way as power setting varies, power off stall speed is the only valid way.

Yeah, but the pic is to correct to stall speed you've obtained. Not regard the clmax.

The strange thing is is according to Naca Report 829, page 29 stated that the P51D at full weight (5 tons) had a clmax of 1.28. The K4 in tunnel test had a clmax of 1.48. Also the P51 stall speed at 9000lbs IAS is 101mph, even in CAS it's 107mph. So your figures're off, frigging off.

[quote=gomwolf;2368039 Few days ago, I asked stall speed of Bf109G to Messerschmitte Flugmuseum. Flugmuseum have three airworth Bf109s(G-4, G-6, G-10) and have lots of flight experience. I got answer about that. Thanks Flugmuseum. Aircraft - Bf109G-4 Weigt - 5,842lb/2,650kg Altitude - 6,000ft/1828m Flap and undercarriage retracted Stall Speed - 86mph/140kph Wingarea - 16.1m² I calculated CLmax of Bf109G based on this answer and standard atmosphere. Standart atmospheric density of 2,000m is 1.0068kg/m³. When it conversion to kgf×s²/m⁴ is 0.102kgf×s²/m⁴. Didn't see anything wrong with the weight? And even then modern example are unarmed so I'd take the stall speed of modern example with a grain of salt.

Also Mark Hannah's report: http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf

Well, first the F6F-5's stall speed in landing configuration is actually 5mph lower than the F4U-4, my mistake. Oh BTW, your figure of the F4U-4 stall speed was....guess what?....CAS. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-58310.pdf Larger flaps=/= more effective flaps. Seeing as the 190's stall speed in landing configuration 14 mph lower than clean, compared to the 7mph lower than clean for the P51. Plus the 190's flap actuall change surface size while the Mustang's flaps don't. And as Solty's said, you still haven't presented your stall speed figure for the 190, I've presented mine(A2A is a 200% sim and many would say that it's even more accurate than DCS so there's credibility to that), and even without guns and ammo the D9's higher than the Mustang at full load. Landing speed/take off distance is no indication of stall speed. The B17 at maximum load had a stall speed of 102mph(4mph lower than the Mustang at full load) yet it neeeded a landing distance of ground run alone at 3780 ft, compared to 1970ft of the Mustang at full load. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/B-17/B-17G_Standard_Aircraft_Characteristics.pdf

At standard weight the safety load was 6.75G, with a safety margin of 1.5 and thus ultimate wings failure should be at 10.125 G. I did a test with high speed pullout and the acceleration gauge stopped at 9g when my wings broke. That was my only maneuver BTW.

Nope that was CAS, done by the same people and clearly written in the test document, stop assuming. And 6mph lower stall speed so of course it could outturn the F4U. at low speed anyway, at high speed the F6F-5's stick force was rather heavy, more than twice the stick force of the F4U. And funnily enough, the F4U-4 had a lower stalling speed with gears and flaps out than the F6F-5 ;)

Well first, the Mustang at 35% fuel had a wing loading of 183kg/m2, 22kg/m2 lower than the K4. Second, because of the very strong torque(light plane, powerful engine) to the left the 109 was known to not turn well to the right. And in Soviet test the disparancy between left turn and right turn time got larger and larger as the 109 got more powerful engine.

I don't own the 109, but I find in multiplayer that they don't have any problem outturning my Mustang when I take standard fuel load(and they turn even better than my Mustang at low speed) at 35% fuel I can turn very slightly better than them, and only to the right. Also, the K4 at 1.8 should climb at 22m/s at SL, currently it's climbing at 31m/s.

Err, no, the K4's currently faster because it's overperforming(should only reach 585km/h at SL instead of 605km/h with 1.8 ata and 9-12159 prop) and the Mustang's underperforming(18km/h slower than it should at SL, only reaches 595km/h with radiator closed, the P51D with wing racks reached 605km/h, and wing racks caused a 8km/h speed loss of 8kmph) Plus the K4's currently overclimbign by a whooping 9m/s I'd not be surprised if something's fishy with the engine power.

Considering that the F6F-5 used the same airfoil with the 190, had lower wing loading than the F4U-4(8kg/m2 lower), yet had only 6 mph lower stalling speed clean. I doubt the difference would be significant. The question is: Did you do it correctly? What crumpp said is correct, in theory, in practice it's not easy to achieve it without getting shot. And the Mustang's pretty damn clean so it's pretty great at trading altitude for speed so in a lot of time it can turn downward to gain speed and get into a position to take snap shot at you. (Albeit with depleted energy) And then you also have to take into account which direction the turnfight's taking? Right hand or left hand turn?

Yeah, except the 190's wingloading ain't 1lb/ft2 higher than the Mustang(at combat load of 9720lbs) like the F4U, it's a whole frigging 6 lbs/ft2 higher than the Mustang. To kg/m2 it's a friggin 32kg/m2 difference, compared to the F4U which is a mere 8kg/m2 difference.

It's more than just a game, it's a sim, a 200$ one at that. Oh, so apparently I can't find the direct source meant that it doesn't exist, then using your logic the D9's stall speed also doesn't exist because we've yet to find the direct source. Again "slightly inferior" is a subjective term, the Japanese tested the P51C and found it's turn characteristic to be almost the same as their Ki 84, does that means that it should turn almost as well as the Zero? Similar wingloading? F4U1A wingloading at full load 11432 lbs: 177kg/m2 P51C at normal take off weight at 9800lbs: 203kg/m2 Yep, similar wing loading alright, but i guess "similar" is also subjective. ;) Nope, I've seen this question on every pilot forums, they all asnwered the same thing: lowering landing gears decrease stall speed, not increase. I'd like to see your sources. As a matter of fact every nation has different safety specifications (and landing speed is one of them). The only thing absolute is the stall speed.

Yeah, this spec is on their website, and as a sim I'd expect the spec to be what they aspire their FM to. Read above. "Slightly inferior" is relative. And in case you didn't know the Japanese captured a P51C and during test they also said that the turning characteristic of the P51C is almost the same as the Ki 84. You should ask Hiromachi, the source is from him and as he's Japanese fan I'd take it as believable.

High, the question is: is it high enough to compensate for the much higher wing loading? The stall speed in clean configuration answer that question, without guns and ammo the D9 still has higher stall speed than the P51D at full load.