KenobiOrder

Except they do not. Yo-Yo was clear in the turning thread that the P-51 out turns the FW190. For starters, your assumption on ClMax is at odds with his: "You do not take in account different CL especially at the speed the best turn ratio is. Mustang has better CL max at low M-numbers and much preferrable at medium."

Anything for the 190? Id imagine it burns more fuel at power given both the higher power and higher drag.

I have read it. And you are wrong.

Except yo-yo's FM has the P-51D out turning the 190. Yo-Yo never agreed with you that the 190 was a better turner, or are we all supposed to completely forget the previous 190 vs P-51 thread so conveniently? Also, interesting how your combat weight for the P-51 is so unusually heavy. Generally combat weight for the Mustang was weight without the fuselage tank, so nowhere near 9800lbs. A P-51 with just the wing tanks would weight about 9600lbs. In DCS it weights 9550. Putting fuel in the fuselage tank made the P-51 less than ideal in a dogfight, hence why they always burned this fuel off first. It would make alot more sense if you pitted the planes at equivalent fuel weight in time. Since I dont think we have figures for fuel burn rate at WEP the next best thing would be equal amounts of fuel. So for a Fw190D with max Fuel you would have about 9400 lbs as you said. For a P-51 we would have a plane weighing about 9300lbs. This would give approximate wing loadings of 47.7lbs and 39.5 lbs. With your weights we'd be comparing a P-51 carrying 400lbs more fuel than a 190 can total, and with about 33 gallons in the notorious fuselage tank to boot. Hardly fair.

Except that in every sim previous to DCS except vanilla Il2 (which was rubbish) the P-51D is usually about a second or so behind 109s, and a second faster than 190s, roughly.

Putting all the flaps down is probably the best thing you can do if your losing a sea level turn fight with a 109. I mean, if hes already getting around on you, conserving E isnt going to help. However, if you put down additional flaps and he doesnt, youll easily come around on a 109. If he also puts them down at least you will be equal enough to have a fair chance. Mind you, Im only suggesting this if your already committed to a low and slow duel.

The current 190 still seems to be over-performing even after the patch. Climb-rate appears to still be about 25m/s instead of 21-22m/s. (down from 28-29m/s) Its resistance to damage has greatly improved as you said though. As for catching 109s on the deck, I think that you can. Ive measured 363mph SL in the P-51 and 356mph in the K4 at 1.8ata. Regarding the turn at SL, the 109 is slightly (but decisively) better w/o flaps. With both planes max flaps I cant tell a difference.

I generally agree with this especially the last bit. The climb rate of the current K4, particularly with the lack of corresponding boost for the P-51, is a serous problem. After the last few patches the rate of climb is now down to about 5200 feet per minute, still well above the 4400 or so we should be seeing. Right now the K4 can space-ship away from any bad situation it gets itself into. If the performance was accurate climbing out would only be a option in specific situations with large starting separation, or well timed spiral climbs. With 150 grade they would be about parity with each other an it wouldn't be an option at all. Presuming that ED continues to tweak the 109's power down to a realistic level, we can expect that the turn rate of they two planes will get even closer than it already is.

I was referring to 109s in general, not just the K(the only one that is faster). And K and P-51D is about the same, it depends on altitude.

More specifically, thrust to drag. Which the P-51 wins, and greatly effect turning.

And like I said, their opinions are based on planes being flown under entirely different conditions. And skip holm + Mark hanna does not equal most pilots. ----they are just the most well known on the internet. We could go down this rabbit hole all day with pilot anecdotes.

A P-51 at 75inches managed about 4400fpm, not 4000. As for the K4, 4400fpm was the predicted performance, which is reasonable given that the G-14 with almost as much power managed 4100. 4800 fpm would probably be reasonable in game though, given that previous sims have always placed the K4 somewhere between 4400 and 4800fpm. As already acknowledged by ED, the 6000fpm that the current FM achieves is not correct. Not that there is any dispute as to which plane had a better climb (109), but it should not be able to space shuttle off like it does now. As for Skip Holm, his comments need to have a avalanche of salt placed on them. For one, today's restored aircraft do not fly anywhere close to full power, nor are his impressions of turn measured. What is more, the consensus among modern aviators you seemed to imply does not exist. Many other P-51 pilots, one example being Chris Fahey, have stated that the P-51 and 109 are not that far apart in turn (although the 109 does have a small advantage).

The flaps are more effective. I have not measured it but at SL I did several private duels with a friend where we both had our flaps all the way out. Neither of use could gain any noticeable purchase even after 5-6 turns. Although I stand by that with neither plane using flaps the 109 has a small advantage at low speed at low alts. With flaps down for both planes it is as near-as-makes-no-difference equal. Also the Pony is much easier to handle as you have both mentioned. The 109 can be very deceptive about where it wants to go. Sometimes it feels like you have alot more turn but you dont, and you end up pulling to hard and losing ground because the mini-stall has retarded your turn.

The Russians copied alot of things, not just the B-29. You can start with the sidewinder. Or the suspension on the T-34.

The P-51 only out-turns the 109 over 20,000ft. They seem fairly equal between 20-10, but below 10k the 109 has a small--but certain--advantage.

I think that's what everyone wants to know. What the target climb rate is Right now it way too fast

How much is a little bit? 23.5? 24 27... Right now we're sitting on 31 so....

371mph seems about right given that the two lines aren't far off for sl. It would be interesting to seen what happens at high alt. However, this indicates it not thrust that's the issue but mass...or something else. Perhaps it's artificially limited?

Which line are you going off of, If memory serves the dark black line is for the experimental dunblatt prop, which was not put on production aircraft. It wouldnt make a big difference at SL, but at high altitude it makes the top speed go from 441 to 454.

If it is too much power this might be affecting more than just the climb rate. More power would probably mean too high of top speed, and turn rate.....in fact it would affect just about every aspect of the FM presumably.

Thanks :)

Yeah its definitely I big deal. I mean, this isnt even close to the IRL climb rate. Depending on the cause of the issue it might affect other performance aspects as well. Is it producing too much power or thrust or something? Or is the aircraft weight wrong? I dont mean the weight as shown in game, but perhaps its displayed correctly but the game is calculating it as much lighter or something?

I hope this gets addressed before It goes out of beta....

Not sure I follow.

Yes indeed. I do hope this gets some dev attention and gets fixed A 109 that climbs like a F-86 isn't fun at all.