GrapeJam

I said the Ki -84 with maneuvering flaps, in combat scenario, couldn't outturn the Spitfire IX. Do you count having landing gears down as combat scenario? STR is more than just powerloading, else the K4 would be able to outturn a Zero in a sustain turn fight. Energy loss during maneuver also play a part, has it ever accured to you that the D9's much higher wing loading will make it lose energy more than it can gain sufficiently in a turn fight with the much lower wing loading Mustang?

A2A is a sim, just like DCS, and some would say that A2A is more accurate than DCS. Because landing speed -/- stall speed, and nobody turn fight with gears down. Considering that the both planes climb rate are very close, propellers design is out of question.

I'm still waiting for your sources on the FW 190D9's stall speed. A2A is also IAS and it gave 107mph IAS clean stalling speed at 8550lbs. For all we know , the FW 190's landing gears can help it to have more lift than the Mustang. And you're certainly welcome to try to turn fight with landing gears down. Both the Ki84 and the Spitfire IX had near identical powerloading. But powerloading only helps in sustaining the turn, not instaneous turn which is what we're talking about. I think a huge paradox's just happened.

Landing speed =/= stall speed, landing speed can be defined to be higher than necessary for some nation, stall speed on the other hand is absolute. And landing speed is absolutely not a reliable way to judge turning ability, the plane in landing configuration has flaps and gears fully down, do you really wanna turn fight in that configuration? Take an example: The Ki 84 has a stall speed of 102mph clean but in landing configuration has a much lower stall speed than the Spitfire IX, of only 78mph but in a test between the two planes in a turn fight combat scenario, even with maneuvering flaps out the Ki84 couldn't outturn the Spitfire.

Sources?

Considering that at full load 10000lbs the P51D(with wings rack) has a power off stall speed of 106mph IAS clean, and the FW 190D9(in clean conditon) at 8550lbs(meaning no guns no ammo) has a stall speed pf 107mph IAS clean(if A2A is to believe), nope, no way the Dora should outturn the P51D.

A plane that achieves 625km/h at SL with a 2250hp engine is cleaner than a plane that achieves the same speed but with a 1850hp engine.... Yeah..... Hope that was your April's fool contribution.

No I wasn't really talking about sustained turn speed, I'm just interested in where this 3200 kg figure came from. Since the common weight figure of the K4 is 3350kg-3400kg. And the K4's overclimbing at 31m/s and the 200kg missing weight maybe one of the reasons that contribute to it's overperformance.

I'm interested to see where did this 3200kg figure come from, the lowest weight figure I've seen for the K4 is 3362kg, Kurfurst's site was 3400kg during test. This is from Kurfurst' site: http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html

Nope, the P51D at standard combat load(sans rear tank) actually has slightly lower wing loading than the K4(206kg/m2 vs 211kg/m2)

With the current power setting (1.80 with b4 + MW50) and 9-12159 propeller it should have 22m/s climb rate at SL max.

The problem was you started your spiral downward, and the P51's biggest weakness is getting energy in sustained maneuver but it accelerates downward very fast, see the problem?

Solty didn't even have to shoot you to get the kill, if an enemy crashes while being chased, it's still a kill, think of it as a "maneuver kill". ;) And beside, you got yourself into this position by not going vertical up instead, and no matter how you looked at it, even that the end you were only making it worse for yourself.

Nevertheless, the plane should be trimmed for level flight, that was the standard configuration irl.

Pretty sure doing hard maneuver with a wing full of holes isn't the best thing for structure integrity.

Right, missed anything about the part where they got the funding for the P63, and the P59 at that? And if you think lobbyism and corruption didn't exist in the 3rd reich, you might wanna look at the issue about Messersmidth, Focke Wulf and the DB engine ;) Right. And you think that your "SWAG" is more accurate than Focke Wulf's own estimation based on what's available, ok. And this game engine certainly does not emulate real life condition as well as, well, real life. Meanwhile the P51's missing 20 km/h at SL while having correct climb rate, probably a look at the game's engine is needed.

No, I meant the Me 209 fighter in 1943. Other than being warded the contract to develope the P63(the P39 underperformed than estimated performance), then the Soviets bought a couple of thousands P63s from them, and then went on to build and produced the UH1 Iroquois Helicopter (Also known as the Huey), the V22 Osprey, just a few examples on top of my head, no. Like I've said before, tests were still being run up to the end of the 3rd Reich, read Hans Lerche's book. It makes no sense for Focke Wulf to retain the same climb figure in march 1945 when more than 1 thousand D9 were already produced, fly tested and sent into combat. if it wasn't accurate.

Oh you might wanna read Hans-Werner Lerche's book on that ;)

Yeah, like Messersmitdh's extremely pessimistic calculated performance of the Me 209, Me 309. The Bell charts that I've shown were also for buyers btw. If anything it's general rule that estimated performances tend to be optimistic. And if Focke Wulf's estimation is so accurate (less than 0.5% variance) why should you think there should be such a large disparagement of the D9's calculated performance versus real product. In fact, by march 1945 there were plenty of flying D9s in combat already, it would make no sense for Focke Wulf to keep the same test figure in their march 1945 test document if it wasn't accurate.

The APS/13 tail warning radar system weighted a whooping 25lbs. I don't know where did you get this "300lbs" figure. http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/contributions/stories/134-the-electronic-war-and-the-tempest

And how can you be so sure that Focke Wulf's performance does not factor in exhaust thrust, if, I say if, the tests reports don't mention anything about exhaust thrust?

So you use one example of a company that is being pessimistic in one performance calculation test as the proof that Focke Wulf's also pessimistic in their calculation? Really? I can show loads of calculated being "optimistic", in fact calculated performance is usually optimistic than actual production version. Compared to this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/P-63A_42-69417_TSCEP5E-1938.pdf http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/43717-spitfire-mk-ix-too-slow/?p=612281 Do we need to talk about the Horten's calculated claim of the Ho 229 being able to reach 1000km/h, or Soviet planes calculated tests alway have higher performance than the actual production planes?

Yeah, except when said company is in country that is being daily bombed, on the verge of defeat, is desperate for anything better than what they currently have(the Dora itself is a creation of desperation in waiting for the Ta 152). Please use actual common sense. I'd like to see where is it explicitly stated that exhaust thrust was not included.

Well, the plane got 250 extra hp, cleaner aerodynamics,is 150kg lighter, of course it's gonna accelerate faster.

May I ask compared to what plane?