gomwolf

I really want to see war time wind tunnel test report about Bf109K-4. Where I can find that report?

1. I really want to know how to stall in level flight with maximum power. How could you do that? 2. That is why i do not use that official chart, but that calculation was almost right, it was tested in real life in 80's and the answer was almost same. If you want denying reliability of my source, find other chart stalling speed with power on and calculate CLmax. If it is far differ with my value, I will accept my calculation about P-51D is wrong.

There is no aircraft without power in air combat. Why do you want calculate CLmax for combat without power chart? I cannot understand about it. See this wartime document. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51d-na-46-130.html Stalling speed is 95.3mph at 9071lb. Calculate it. Almost same value with my calculation. This is official wartime document of North American. If test environment is correct answer of calculation is same. Even it is not wartime official document.

http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/images/EM7.gif This link is the EM chart of P-51D with engine power on. I calculated CLmax with TAS in this EM chart. If you want I can give you another source.

You picture is engine off chart... And I want to see that K-4 wind tunnel chart. Where can I find that?

In CLmax calculation weight cannot affect CLmax value. Because stall speed changed by weight configuration. When you see same part of P-51D's calculation, you will found weight of P-51D is 8900lb.

Even if there is P-51D have lower weight to 9200lb(4173Kg) there is no big difference P/M ratio At sea level - 291W/kg At 20,000ft - 250W /kg At 33 ,000ft - 180W/kg wingloading is quite lower than Bf109. P-51D can turn one circle faster than heavyer, but less CLmax and P/M ratio of aircraft, small stall angle and more drag at out of drag bucket of laminar flow airfoil is still huge onstacle. P-51D cannot sustain turn high AOA. Because it make P-51D stall.

First. Yes you are right. I am not living in english using country and I am not good at english. And don't worry. I know that is not offense. I understand what are you saying now, but still I have to say same word. Full power does not mean only high speed. Full power mean better thrust to weight ratio and better power load. In turn fight, if P-51D and Bf109K-4 engage at more than 500kph, P-51D can get some advantage cause stiff stick force of Bf109, but in sustain turn more power mean deose not mean more high speed. It means more power loading in turning performance. Limit power or not Bf109 have better factors in turning performance than P-51D. Mark hanna said in that article P-51 can get altitude and avoid combat with Bf109. If P-51D have power limit It is impossible. Because Bf109G-10 have better climb rate than P-51D. It is the evidence mark hanna compare Bf109G-10 with wartime configuration P-51D.

I cannot understand about it... Afaik leading-edge slat make aircraft can fly more slower speed. Stall speed calculation formula is [stall speed = √(2weight)/(density×CLmax×Wingarea)]. So leading-edge slat raise total CLmax. Am I wrong?

1. Bf109 have higher CLmax and leading edge slat. P-51D have laminar flow airfoil that have small stall angle. I cannot thing this is right. 2. I read some Bf109G test report that written by RAF and USAAF. All report admitted stall charactoristic of Bf109 is good.

Actually, I am talking about just circle turning performance. At first I told P-51D maybe better than Bf109K-4 in this game, because I tested it. One circle turn start at 400kph altitude 1,000m. I cannot checkt turn radious but turn time was almost same. However Bf109 have flutter. And of caurse, I know some other maneuvering.

It is quite diffeerent experience with me. I alway do yoyo maneuver when turnfight with P-51D. Without it, I never took P-51Ds six. When I meet good skilled pilot like u4trouble or many other pilots, turning fight will be really hard things.

Oops. It is my mistake. Thanks for correction. Recalculation Bf109G-4 2650×2/[(140×3.6)^2×0.125×16.1]=1.741 I think Bf109K-4 around 1.7 P-51D Same as above. It was came from EM chart. 1.63

1. Actually, Bf109K-4 limit its power to kampfleistung (1.45ata 2,600U/min - 30min limitation) it still have better power to mass ratio than P-51D' WEP. At sea level - 1450PS = 1066Kw - P/W Ratio = 317W/kg At 6,800m - 1285PS = 945Kw - P/W ratio = 281W/kg At 10,000m - same with above 2. I cannot understand how can you talk WEP ws not used in history with confidence. There is lots of documents, interview, and memoirs talks about WEP in real combat. 3. Afaik, Mark Hanna flown 5 mustangs at least and two of them was wartime configuration(only without ammo).

1. Hanna have flown Bf109G-10. Hans Ditter finished restoration of Bf109G-10 in 1995. It was Ha-1112-M1L D-FDME before restoration, but it was completely rebuilted as a Bf109G-10 in 1995. It was named Schwarz 2 at that time and Mark Hanna flown it. If you read full article you can find the sentence about restoration of Schwarz 2. That aircraft renamed as Gelbe 3, now. It is managing by Flugmuseum Messerschmitte of EADS. 2. I don't know about server setting.(in most case, I play this game in ACG, 9./JG27, DOW server) How can I check it? 3. In 31st jan 1945, there is 314 Bf109K-4 in the front. Luftwaffe have 933 high altitude version(Bf109G-14/AS, Bf109G-10, Bf109K-4) Bf109. It is not big part, but not small. There is some Bf109K-4 was in the battlefield in 1944. This is the link of original full article. http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf

Before say something, I don't have big complaints about FM on DCS. It is quite better than other sims like IL-2 BOS. It is pretty good. This thread is just my opinions with some calculations. to OutOnTheOP In most situation, P-51D going to engage with that fuel configuration(180gal). P-51D internal tanks can carry 271gallon of fuels. It is wing tank(186gal)+rear tank(85gal). Historically P-51D carry two 75gal external tanks. So total 421gallons of fuel. When they escort bombers to bombing area, or do some other missions, most P-51D pilots want to spend rear fuel tanks when they going to engage with enemy fighters, because problem of center of gravity. However they have to go back to base, too. So in most case, P-51D going to combat with 180gal of fuel. It is the reason of most of P-51D were tested at 9,600~9,700lb configuration, too. In turning combat, even high speed, the airfoil of P-51D occured more drag than Bf109. It is natural disadvantage of laminar flow wing. to Echo38 That comment is not for P-51D but Bf109G-10. When he tested Bf109G-10, he could only 1.4ata and 2700U/min limitation for engine safe. As I wrote, thrust to weight ratio is important factor in turning performance. In this situation, Bf109 have disadvantage, but he said Bf109 still better. Mark Hanna is most famous airshow pilots in the world in 1980~1990s. He took lots of WWII aircraft. He flyed with more than 5 Mustangs. His words have enough reliability. And that Bf109G-10 is restored by Hans Ditter. It is one of the most perfectly restored aircraft in the world. Most big difference with original one is that Bf109 cannot use MW50 for engine safe.

I hitted four 30mm shots to a enemy player aircraft before. He still could fly.

Actually, there is little weird thing on FM of DCS. In this game P-51D have almost same turning performance(Maybe P-51D little better) with Bf109K-4. Actually, Bf109K-4 is too easily stall I think. I have some doubts about this. Show these comments. Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire. -Günther Rall. Luftwaffe Experte. So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. -Mark Hanna. Airshow pilot of Old Flying Machine Company. After flight with Bf109G-10 "Schwarz 2". 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. So... CLmax=(2650*2)/[(140/3.6)²*0.102*16.1]=2.134 Bf109K-4 have bulge on cowling and wing roots, so little lower than it. I think CLmax of Bf109K-4 is around 1.96. On P-51D, I found a EM chart tested by Society of Experimental Test. I found some other Documents, but there is no altitude, flap, and undercarriage situation informed. Aircraft - P-51D 45-11586 Weight - 8,900lb/4,036kg altitude - 10,000ft/3,048m Flap and undercarriage retracted Stall Speed - 111mph/178.6kph Wingarea - 235ft²/21.83 Density on 3,000m is 0.092kgf×s²/m⁴ So... CLmax=(4036*2)/[(178.6/3.6)²*0.092*21.83]=1.63 It is not perfect calculation. Stall speed could be changed by weather situation. However it show us Bf109K-4 have far higher CLmax than P-51D. In sustain turn, thrust to weight ratio is important, too. However I cannot found any information about prop effiecency of Bf109K-4 and P-51D. So I will compare power to mass ratio. Bf109K-4 with DB605DB(2800U/min, 1.8ata) Gross weight - 7414lb/3,363kg(One MK108 with 65 ammo + Two MG131 with 600 ammo, full fuel) Maximum Engine Power(10min limit) at Sea level - 1,850PS = 1,360kW at 6,000m - 1,600PS = 1,176kW at 10,000m - 950PS = 698kW Power to Mass ratio at Sea level - 404W/kg at 6,000m - 349W/kg at 10,000m - 207W/kg P-51D with V-1650-7(3000RPM, 67"HG) Gross weight - 9,611lb/4,359kg(Six M2 Browning with 1860 ammo, 180gal fuel) Maximum Engine Power(5min limit) at Sea level - 1,630HP = 1,216kW at 20,000ft - 1,400HP = 1,044kW at 33,000ft - 1,010HP = 753kW Power to Mass ratio at Sea level - 278W/kg at 20,000ft - 239W/kg at 33,000ft - 172W/kg In all altitude, Bf109K-4 have far better power to mass ratio. Onlything better on P-51D is wing loading. wing loading of P-51D is 199kg/m² at gross weight 9,611lb, Bf109K-4 is 208kg/m²3,363kg. Actually, it is not big difference. In addition, airfoil of P-51D is NACA45-100. It is laminar flow airfoil. It is quit good at level speed, but it have small stall angle. I cannot show this with curve, becaus my javafoil cannot make polar curve of NAA/NACA 45-100 rightly. Drag bucket of NAA/NACA 45/100 is -0.35<Cl<0.8. AOA of same section is -4<α<6. It have less drag(0.005) at drag bucket than NACA 2R1 14.2(airfoil of Bf109). However, out of drag bucket NACA 45/100 drag is going higher, it have more drag(0.02) than NACA 2R1 14.2. My final conclusion is Bf109K-4 have better maneuverability than P-51D. Of course, P-51D have lower stick force in high speed, but below 550kph(341mph) Bf109K-4 have better maneuverability than P-51D. Any opinion and advice will be welcomed.

I think it is time zone problem. I can play this game in online at 3am~2pm in my timezone. So in weekend, my life circle destroying everyday.

Thanks for inform. I am really expecting this.

There was updated on today?

There is some Bf109K-4 were used MG151/20 as a motorcannon on propeller hub in history. I really hope it will be realized in DCS. MK108 is powerful weapon but it is really useless in fighter combat. Too little ammo, critically bad trajectory, no tracer, no ammo counter, and actually MK108 in this game is too weak. I saw a P-51D was hitted by four 30mm, but still flying in multiplay. Bf109K-4 with MG151/20 as a motorcannon is historically correct. I think there is no reason avoid it. Eagle Dynamics please consider this.

I cannot agree with this thread. Yes. Lots of russians will be happy, but I saw lots of games were destoryed for balance with VVS aircrafts. Even IL-2 1946 4.08 have the UFO named La-5 series, IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad have ruined by UFO named Yak-1. I saw too many games were destroyed for that. Please, do not destroy this game. It is the last two games we have.(Another one is Team Fusion mod of IL-2 Cliffs of Dover.) It is awesome now, even it does not have WW2 battlefield, ground units, and ships. However VVS aircraft? I cannot think it is good idea.

Same here. And I think weak wing structure is not for Bf109 but P-51. I suggest "Luftwaffe Combat Report" German aces and generals(Galland, Bár, Neumann, Hitshold, Milch) said " P-51 is best American fighter aircraft because of its long range, climb and dive charateristics, firepower and maneuverability. It was very vulnerable to cannon fire. It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers." IMO that means Bf109 was not like that(All of those aces flied with Bf109).

Searching enemy. If you shoot it around bulls eye, you will find enemy soon.