gomwolf

Actually, that is not right, turning speed can be same with lighter one, if weight and power both rised. When weight going up, stall speed direct proportion with it. However total CLmax does not change, if there is no change shape.

I cannot understand why yak and other aircrafts came out in this thread. What is going on? Whatever This is P-51D and Bf109K-4 Lowspeed turning performance result. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKu0HvQ0DKU?feature=player_detailpage I don't know how to embeding video in this page. That youtube tag does not working. Test configuration is basic configuration of mission editor. 65% fuel for P-51D and 100% fuel for Bf109K-4. I want to keep speed and altitude in turning but, I couldn't. Especially Bf109K-4 easily get high speed and easily stall at high AoA. I noticed altitude and speed when finished turning. At first thread, I told Bf109K-4 and P-51D have same turning perfromance but it was incorrect. Bf109K-4 can turn one circle to around 19.5 sec, and P-51D 21.5sec. Bf109K-4 can turn fester than P-51D in DCS. Now please talking about historical and aerodynamical something.

That G-2 was not finnish tested aircraft. USSAF or RAF tested it northern africa. Why German sent Bf109G-2/Trop to finnish? It is tropicalized aircraft.

That is exceptionally bad result between captured aircraft test and captured aircraft was shotdowned once. I couldn't believe it could be perfect performance.

Ah... It is definitly not I intented. For finish arguement about in game performace, I will test it after work. (I am living in asia. 6am here now.) And make it as a video and upload it here.

Need more careful control now. I think it is good change. However temperature control looks same before . In handbook of Bf109K-4 in wartime, Bf109K-4 can use MW50 10min continuosly. I don't think DCS ignored it.(Actually I didn't test it. I just fly it 1hours in this morning.) When I control throttle carelessly, auto propeller pitch being disordered easier than before.

1. Of course I already know relationship between AoA and drag. 2. I am not complaining about Bf109 is not maneuverable enough. 3. My kill ratio is not bad like you think. Even I play with 350 ping. You completely does not understand my point. The reason I written this thread is not talking about pilot skill or complain about FM of DCS. If I want complain about DCS, I told it more clearly and does not care anymore like the other thread about MK108 because my english is not good. I just want discuss about historical aircraft performance in flight sim forum.

Hummm.. It is my fault. I didn't explain it first. I started this thread with turning performance of Bf109K-4 and P-51D in this game, because here is DCS forum. However my intent of this thread is turning performance of Bf109K-4 and P-51D "in history". Of course, here is DCS forum and if you want to talking about in game performance, that is no problem, but I just want you guys know my intent when you writing something.

Are your point of former thread is the reason of high AoA turn is not good choice in air combat manerver? So I explain the maneuvers I prefer and why I didn't use energy fighting in this game. I think it is right answer about your opinion, but you don't.

Hmmm... Afaik there is enough thrust in there, flap is good for sustain turn. stalling earlier when lowered flap is natural. There is no problem because flap make CLmax high but it make stall angle smaller. This link shows effect of flap. http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_002b_10.gif There are lots of situation in sustain turn fight, but AoA in sustain turn is not quite big. It cannot over stall angle I think. Because its low speed(around 200mph 3~4G).

That is good point. I think induce drag of both aircraft almost equal. Both aircraft use taper-wing and P-51 have longer wingspan but Bf109 have round wingtip. I don't have documents about it but I think I can find something.

Ah... I know what you said. At first, you said about winglaoding with 100 gal fuel. Any that calculation was worng. And now you trying to say P-51 spend more fuel when It combat. Even start comfiguration was reduced 100 to 90(45gal each wing). When I playing game, sometime I did combat over enemy base cuz they do not come to our side. Sometimes they come to our base. You just want to get every situation you want but it does not happen. This is last answer for you.

:huh: Actually, this thread for the performance(one more actually, not even in game performance) not my skill. Here is my answer. First, yes I love scissors, rolling scissors, high and low yo-yo, continuous loof, and that kinds of interwinding manevers. If I can get good point for BnZ, I did it. However, in most case I play this game with more than 350 ping and in DCS as you know wing structure of Bf109 is too weak for it. I lost my wing several times for it. Second, I agree that difficulty of maintaining turn with Bf109 in high speed is quite good. I really satisfied about stick movement in high stick force situation. However I think Bf109K-4 in history does not fluttering seriously at low speed turning like game and have better stall performance.

:huh: Actually, this thread for the performance(one more actually, not even in game performance) not my skill. Here is my answer. First, yes I love scissors, rolling scissors, high and low yo-yo, continuous loof, and that kinds of interwinding manevers. If I can get good point for BnZ, I did it. However, in most case I play this game with more than 350 ping and in DCS as you know wing structure of Bf109 is too weak for it. I lost my wing several times for it. Second, I agree that difficulty of maintaining turn with Bf109 in high speed is quite good. I really satisfied about stick movement in high stick force situation. However I think Bf109K-4 in history does not have serious fluttering at low speed turning like game and have better stall performance.

:doh: 1. Even P-51D climb with empty weight(3,465kg-1630HP), still Bf109K-4 with maximum fuel(3,362kg-1823HP) have better P/M ratio. It means better climb rate. 2. If I can get any situation I want, I can kill any pilot even ace pilot like t4trouble. Not only me every person can do that. 3. Stop teasing me anymore. I don't have time to waste for a groundless dimishing. There are some good advice and opinions I have to care.

In high angle of attack laminar flow wing make huge amount of drag. I play this game with you only little time and you didn't see my combat style. I cannot understand how could you say like know everything about my combat style? http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/fx953.html P-51B with 9200lb performance. Still Bf109K-4 have far better climb rate. I never used the word "claim" or "fix" in this thread except wing structure. At first thread I written, the subject is "Some opinion about maneuverability of Bf109K-4" and I just said "little weird thing on FM on DCS" and "Any Opinion and advice will be welcomed." I don't want to fix it. If I want to fix it with my opinion I said it clearly. If FM manager of DCS think it is right, it will be fixed, but I didn't expect that. Because DEV got other answer about that, and maybe they can open their information about it. If their answers does not destroy the game, basically I do not care about that.

When slat delpoyed, laminar flow airfoil makes huge mount of drag. And I like combat maneuvering than energy combat but have to keep my energy for it. Yep. Bf109K-4 burning fuel like P-51D. And I am not whining here. Everything you don't want to see is not the whining. I am discussing here. I do not say anything about performance of airacrafts in online gameplay except wing structure(I really happy it will be fixed in next update.). The reason I told something in forum is I want more realistic virtual flight experience, and I think this kinds of discussion is good for it. I expected more sources or documents I don't know for opposite or similar opinions like old Aces high forum, but actually it is not going I expected.

I open quite many information for my opinion. How about you giving me some information like drag comparson for your opinion? Here is my answer. 1. Both aircrafts are liquid cooling and stream-lined aircrafts. Mostly same shape. Of course Bf109K-4 have little more drag in airframe like some intakes but, far better P/M ratio can overflow it. 2. Of course I know that. The Weight of P-51D with 180gal of fuel is 9,611lb. Each gal of aviation gasoline is 6lb. Weight of 80gal of fuels are 480lb. So weight P-51D with 100gal(378L) of fuel is 9,131lb and it is 4,141kg. Wingloading of P-51D with 100gal of fuel is 189kg/m² and Bf109K-4 with maximum fuel(400L) is 207kg/m². Wingloading of P-51D with 100gal of fuel is 18kg/m² lower than Bf109K-4 with maximum fuel.

NACA 2R1 14.2(Bf109K-4) Polar Drag NACA 45-100(P-51D) Polar Drag Advantage of drag on P-51D is occured only inside of drag bucket. Outside of it(yep. in turn fighting situation), there is no drag advantage.

I understand. I think trying find more information about that. It was good discussion. Thank you for your opinion.

Oh Thanks. I learned a good attitude in discussion today:smilewink:. There is one thing you have to know. The top speed of Bf109K-4 is 714km/h TAS on 7,500m, it is just 480km/h IAS. In USAAF Material Command report, Stick of Bf109 is stiffed at 500km/h, Mark Hanna said Stick of it is stiffed at 500km/h but still can get 5G easily. Even you do not lose speed quickly you can control Bf109K-4.

One another thing. The stick force problem. There is lots of opinions from german aces to test pilots of allied about stick force of Bf109. Around 500km/h it become stiff I think. However, 714km/h TAS the top speed of Bf109 in 7,500m is only 480km/h IAS. If it was very serious problem, RLM order Messerschmitte to fix it, but it does not happened.

My conclusion about your opinion is even do not cut the power of both aircrafts, still Bf109K-4 have advantage in combat maneuvering. Because one of few advantage in combat maneuvering is stick force in high speed, but there is lots of advantage for Bf109K-4 like CLmax and P/M ratio, less drag in high AoA. Actually, this is not ordinary situation but, if pilot of Bf109K-4 is experte, he could overcome high stick force of Bf109 with his adjustable stabilizer. I know it is not ordinary, but it could. I don't have hard feeling, too. Good evening.(Actually, afternoon here.)

In WW2 aircombat, even engaging occured in high speed flight with maximum power, once air combat maneuver occured speed of aircraft fall down quickly. Because thrust to weight ratio of WW2 aircraft is very low. In modern air combat, T/W ratio of most fighter aircraft is over 1 in sea level so they can remain their cornor speed, but not in WW2. If you play this game, You can find how quickly speed fall down. Actually, there is no WW2 documents about Prop efficiency. Al least, I cannot found that information. One of my friend who studying aerodynamic in doctoral diploma couldn't found that, too. He said "You cannot find that documents cuz I can't. Just think like this. Most of WW2 prop efficiency around 0.7." That is the reason why I do not use thrust to weight ratio in this thread. But you have to think about this. Horsepower of DB605DB is 1,850PS(1,823HP) and P-51D is 1,630HP in sea level. in 6800m 1577HP and 1410HP. If P-51D have far better propeller than Bf109K-4(Of course, I don't think so. Because Climb rate of Bf109K-4 far better than P-51D), so calculate it with prop eff of P-51D is 0.72, and Bf109K-4 is 0.69, weight is 9611lb and 7414lb. Thrust = HP×eff×375/v Sea level P-51D - 1630×0.72×375/374=1176lbf - thrust to weight ratio - 1176/9611=0.122 Bf109K-4 - 1823×0.69×375/370=1274lbf - thrust to weight ratio - 1274/7414=0.171 6800m P-51D - 1410×0.72×375/422=902lbf - thrust to weight ratio - 0.093 Bf109K-4 - 1577×0.69×375/443=921lbf - thrust to weight ratio - 0.124 Still Bf109K-4 better than P-51D, even undervalued prop eff of Bf109K-4.

There is no end of greed to people and it is the mainspring of advancement I think.