DCS Bf 109K-4

[Narushima]

Both the P-51 and the Dora have a huge advantage against the K-4. Better dive/zoom performance and better top speed at SL. This means that they can disengage the fight at will, and re-engage when they have the energy advantage. And if the K-4 pilot is foolish enough to follow them in a dive, then he has already lost.

[Solty]

Both the P-51 and the Dora have a huge advantage against the K-4. Better dive/zoom performance and better top speed at SL. This means that they can disengage the fight at will, and re-engage when they have the energy advantage. And if the K-4 pilot is foolish enough to follow them in a dive, then he has already lost.

 

As reports say, the zoom ability of the 109 is equal to the P-51s and it is only a little bit worse in a dive. And those reports were about the G6. Remember that it can go out of critical dives easier as it can trimm the elevator.

 

it's not so much the plane as it is the pilot, and happenstance

I am not afraid for my self, but for my teammates. I have delt with this plane before, I can deal with it every day here.

 

But to say that pilot can purely influence the fight is just naive.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Solty

[WinterH]

Although 109 is one of my favorite aircraft ever (seriously it just may be THE favorite, if I was crazy rich, I'd most likely have one built up for myself), when I objectively compare it to P-51D, it isn't as one sided as you may think Solty.

 

Yeah, 109 Kurfüst has those advantages, but some of them have key requirements that doesn't make them as useful as they sound :

- Yes, it's theoretical maximum speed is higher, but that is at high altitude. In typical altitudes where DCS dogfights tend to happen, especially online, P-51D would be about as fast, possibly faster.

- About acceleration, you need to remember that often in energy fights, diving is at least as much of an acceration instrument as available power and aerodynamic, and Mustang tends to accelerate better in long dives.

- While 109 is an overall better turner, at higher speeds where you should keep Mustang anyway, Mustang's turning ability may be par, or even better.

- Ditto for roll, yes 109 may roll better at lower speeds, but at speeds one need to keep Mustang in a fight, it rolls great, and most certainly better than Bf-109. In fact, roll rate is one of the not so stellar points of Bf-109 models.

- While all centered gun layout of 109 is great, and 30mm packs wallop, 13mm s are a bit anemic, and 30mm has low rate of fire and very quick and severe bullet drop. Guns on Mustang can hit very far, and K-14 sight provides an importan advantage for deflection shots.

 

So while I agree that 109K has some important advantages that can be used effectively, I'd add that, so does the Mustang, especially where dogfights tend to happen in DCS. I don't think it would be as one sided as you believe.

 

In every other WW II sim I spent time in, P-51 was modeled so capricious, it was almost unusable. If the sim you refer is IL-2, yeah, I believe most 109 models were modeled rather questionable too, but I think P-51 got it even worse than 109 in that particular sim. First time I flew a Mustang in DCS I said to myself, "yeah, this is more in line with what such an influential fighter would have been". So while I believe a properly utilized Bf-109K4 would indeed be force to be reckoned with in DCS, I don't think at all that it will completely outclass and dominate other warbirds.

[Krupi]

Although 109 is one of my favorite aircraft ever (seriously it just may be THE favorite, if I was crazy rich, I'd most likely have one built up for myself), when I objectively compare it to P-51D, it isn't as one sided as you may think Solty.

 

Yeah, 109 Kurfüst has those advantages, but some of them have key requirements that doesn't make them as useful as they sound :

- Yes, it's theoretical maximum speed is higher, but that is at high altitude. In typical altitudes where DCS dogfights tend to happen, especially online, P-51D would be about as fast, possibly faster.

- About acceleration, you need to remember that often in energy fights, diving is at least as much of an acceration instrument as available power and aerodynamic, and Mustang tends to accelerate better in long dives.

- While 109 is an overall better turner, at higher speeds where you should keep Mustang anyway, Mustang's turning ability may be par, or even better.

- Ditto for roll, yes 109 may roll better at lower speeds, but at speeds one need to keep Mustang in a fight, it rolls great, and most certainly better than Bf-109. In fact, roll rate is one of the not so stellar points of Bf-109 models.

- While all centered gun layout of 109 is great, and 30mm packs wallop, 13mm s are a bit anemic, and 30mm has low rate of fire and very quick and severe bullet drop. Guns on Mustang can hit very far, and K-14 sight provides an importan advantage for deflection shots.

 

So while I agree that 109K has some important advantages that can be used effectively, I'd add that, so does the Mustang, especially where dogfights tend to happen in DCS. I don't think it would be as one sided as you believe.

 

In every other WW II sim I spent time in, P-51 was modeled so capricious, it was almost unusable. If the sim you refer is IL-2, yeah, I believe most 109 models were modeled rather questionable too, but I think P-51 got it even worse than 109 in that particular sim. First time I flew a Mustang in DCS I said to myself, "yeah, this is more in line with what such an influential fighter would have been". So while I believe a properly utilized Bf-109K4 would indeed be force to be reckoned with in DCS, I don't think at all that it will completely outclass and dominate other warbirds.

 

+1

 

DCS Turned me from a P-51 hater "of sorts" to one of my favourite, still prefer the P-47 :)

 

Of course no aircraft will ever reach my top spot Fw 190 for the win :D I can't wait for the Anton to arrive I love me some good old ground pounding.

[Solty]

@Winter H

 

I can only hope that you are right. And yes I was refering to IL2 and later War Thunder.

[Narushima]

As reports say, the zoom ability of the 109 is equal to the P-51s and it is only a little bit worse in a dive. And those reports were about the G6. Remember that it can go out of critical dives easier as it can trimm the elevator.

 

Only if that P-51 was flying at 8000lb, otherwise, no.

 

The P-51 is heavier and aerodynamically cleaner and should have little problems in out-diving and out-zooming the 109 at higher speeds. At lower speeds, the 109's superior acceleration would of course give it better initial dive acceleration, but only until about 350-400 km/h. Same for zooming ability.

[gavagai]

Zoom climbs are not like the kinetic energy of a swinging pendulum. In every flight sim I have ever flown, the aircraft with the best power:weight ratio wins the zoom climb contest.

[Narushima]

Zoom climbs are not like the kinetic energy of a swinging pendulum. In every flight sim I have ever flown, the aircraft with the best power:weight ratio wins the zoom climb contest.

 

Which is wrong. Il-2 was notoriusly bad at this. In that game a Hurricane could zoom with a Dora. It was as if weight was a non factor in diving and zoom climbing in that game.

 

Anyway, it's simple physics. More mass = more energy. You know E=MC^2 and all that.

 

This is precisely what Robert S. Johnson demonstrated in mock combat against a Spitfire IX in his P-47

 

We flew together in formation, and then I decided to see just what this airplane had to its credit.

I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the SPit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the big Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward, soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back; the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.

 

But my advantage was only the zoom--once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could that plane CLIMB! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match in the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.

 

This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt; if I attempted to hold a tight turn the Spitfire would slip right inside me. I knew, also, that he could easily outclimb my fighter. I stayed out of those sucker traps. First rule in this kind of a fight; don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb; keep him at your own level.

 

We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could outroll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a thrid. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes.

 

Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow--and I was a long way ahead of him by now--when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it--for in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing staight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit.

The Spitfire had a decisive power loading advantage, yet he was completely unable to follow the Jug in a zoom or a dive. Edited September 2, 2014 by Narushima

[leafer]

But to say that pilot can purely influence the fight is just naive.

 

Oh..ya oughta read Scream of Eagles. Old experienced pilot in his F86 repeatedly spanked 2 jet jocks in their super sonic fire breathers. The account told at the beginning of the first chapter; you can read it at amazon.

[Solty]

Oh..ya oughta read Scream of Eagles. Old experienced pilot in his F86 repeatedly spanked 2 jet jocks in their super sonic fire breathers. The account told at the beginning of the first chapter; you can read it at amazon.

IRL, not in a game.

 

90% of people will be able to keep up with you as they have houndrets of hours clocked in in their comfortable homes, where they do what they love. Shoot down other planes.

 

Aircombat is complex and idiots or people who have no idea how to fly and do not have the will to fly are not to be seen in such environment. I find myself an average pilot. I can do well in every situation, but I am not able to predict every move of my enemy 3 merges away. Check some pilots of IL2

 

 

I can tell you now, that 90% of people you or I will fight are going to be good players and 2% are going to be so good that you would ask yourself if you should realy even try to fly.:joystick: The rest will probably have only 1 flight and never come back or just practice to the level of good pilot in no-time.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Solty

[wolfstriked]

Which is wrong. Il-2 was notoriusly bad at this. In that game a Hurricane could zoom with a Dora. It was as if weight was a non factor in diving and zoom climbing in that game.

 

Anyway, it's simple physics. More mass = more energy. You know E=MC^2 and all that.

 

This is precisely what Robert S. Johnson demonstrated in mock combat against a Spitfire IX in his P-47

 

The Spitfire had a decisive power loading advantage, yet he was completely unable to follow the Jug in a zoom or a dive.

 

I tested IL2 zoom climbs by flying each plane at a certain speed and turning off the engine and they all zoomed the same amount.

[Rangi]

 

Anyway, it's simple physics. More mass = more energy. You know E=MC^2 and all that.

 

.

 

if this was a joke disregard, but unless you are splitting the aircraft apart at the atomic level, the above equation is irrelevant. you might be better off using Newtons laws of motion like F=ma.

 

sorry but the pedant in me couldn't let it go....

[Narushima]

if this was a joke disregard, but unless you are splitting the aircraft apart at the atomic level, the above equation is irrelevant. you might be better off using Newtons laws of motion like F=ma.

 

sorry but the pedant in me couldn't let it go....

 

It was a joke :smilewink:

[fastfreddie]

+1

 

DCS Turned me from a P-51 hater "of sorts" to one of my favourite, still prefer the P-47 :)

 

Of course no aircraft will ever reach my top spot Fw 190 for the win :D I can't wait for the Anton to arrive I love me some good old ground pounding.

 

Before the Dora came out I was kinda up in the air how I felt about the Mustang. Now I think its the best plane out there right now. I still fly my Dora all the time trying to master certain maneuvers and gunnery that were easier in the Mustang.

 

Did you guys change the mandatory graphics settings on your server? My frame rate has dropped to shit this week on the DoW server. I'll be building a new system soon so that hopefully won't be a problem anymore.

[SlipBall]

As reports say, the zoom ability of the 109 is equal to the P-51s and it is only a little bit worse in a dive. And those reports were about the G6. Remember that it can go out of critical dives easier as it can trimm the elevator.

 

 

I am not afraid for my self, but for my teammates. I have delt with this plane before, I can deal with it every day here.

 

But to say that pilot can purely influence the fight is just naive.

 

 

Are you familiar with Erich Hartmann and his encounters with the P-51?...it is very much the pilot & happenstance my friend

.

Edited September 3, 2014 by GT 5.0

[gavagai]

Which is wrong. Il-2 was notoriusly bad at this. In that game a Hurricane could zoom with a Dora. It was as if weight was a non factor in diving and zoom climbing in that game.

 

Anyway, it's simple physics. More mass = more energy. You know E=MC^2 and all that.

 

The Johnson quote is pretty famous, but we can't decide these things on an anecdote. It is not just in Il-2 1946 that a better power:weight ratio usually means a better zoom climb.

 

If I have two pendulums, one with a 100g wooden ball at the end of the string, and the other with a 200g metal ball, they will have the same amplitude at the end of their swing. Because of friction the metal ball's amplitude will decrease more slowly, but initially they will be the same. Therefore we can see that just because the metal ball has more energy because of its weight we do not expect it to gain more altitude than the system with less energy.

 

For the zoom climb with have two things in addition to kinetic/potential energy and the force of gravity:

 

force of atmospheric friction

force of thrust

 

throw me bone so we can call the lift from the wings negligible since the aircraft will be pointed almost straight up, though an aircraft might bleed a lot of energy in its transition to zooming from level flight if it has high wing loading.

 

Already it is a much more complicated system than a pendulum. The y-axis vector component of thrust is opposite gravity, and gravity is without a doubt the most important limiting factor on a zoom climb. With a better thrust:weight ratio it is as if you make the force of gravity weaker, and my common sense tells me that is a bigger advantage than the marginally cleaner airframe.

 

So, I think we need to reconsider this belief that heavy aircraft like the P-47 had a significant zoom climb advantage and that the flight sims are wrong.:)

[VincentLaw]

There are basically three factors that influence vertical climb rate when your nose is pointed straight up: Thrust, weight, and drag.

 

Suppose you have two nearly identical airplanes with the same geometry and the same T/W ratio, let's say 1.2. The difference between these airplanes will be their masses. For our experiment, airplane A will be 500 kg, and airplane B will be 1000 kg.

 

Airplane A:

m = 500 kg

W = 500*9.81 = 4905 N

T = 1.2*4905 = 5886 N

 

Airplane B:

m = 1000 kg

W = 1000*9.81 = 9801 N

T = 1.2*9801 = 11772 N

 

Since these airplanes have the same T/W ratio, then they would have identical climb rates in a vacuum, but once you throw air drag into the mix things change a little. Since the external surfaces of the two airplanes are identical, they will have the same drag at the same speed. Let's say they both flying at the speed necessary to get 1000 N of drag force.

 

F = T - (W+D)

 

Airplane A

D = 1000 N

F = 5886 - (4905 + 1000) = -19 N

a = -19 / 500 = -0.038 m/s^2

 

Airplane B

D = 1000 N

F = 11772 - (4905 + 1000) = 971 N

a = 0.971 m/s^2

 

Clearly there is a discrepancy here. Airplane A is losing speed while airplane B is actually getting faster. Airplane B will easily out climb airplane A even though they have the same T/W ratio. The difference is that airplane B is heavier.

 

However... this is just a trick of numbers. Being heavier does not make airplanes better. In fact, quite the opposite. The less excess weight your airplane has, the better off it is. If being heavier really made things go up better, then you would hear about how NASA tries to add as much ballast to their rockets as possible (hint: they don't).

 

So why did the heavier airplane seem better? stronger engines do better against drag. Now imagine if you had the engine from airplane B, with the weight of airplane A.

Edited September 3, 2014 by VincentLaw

[Narushima]

The Johnson quote is pretty famous, but we can't decide these things on an anecdote. It is not just in Il-2 1946 that a better power:weight ratio usually means a better zoom climb.

 

If I have two pendulums, one with a 100g wooden ball at the end of the string, and the other with a 200g metal ball, they will have the same amplitude at the end of their swing. Because of friction the metal ball's amplitude will decrease more slowly, but initially they will be the same. Therefore we can see that just because the metal ball has more energy because of its weight we do not expect it to gain more altitude than the system with less energy.

 

For the zoom climb with have two things in addition to kinetic/potential energy and the force of gravity:

 

force of atmospheric friction

force of thrust

 

throw me bone so we can call the lift from the wings negligible since the aircraft will be pointed almost straight up, though an aircraft might bleed a lot of energy in its transition to zooming from level flight if it has high wing loading.

 

Already it is a much more complicated system than a pendulum. The y-axis vector component of thrust is opposite gravity, and gravity is without a doubt the most important limiting factor on a zoom climb. With a better thrust:weight ratio it is as if you make the force of gravity weaker, and my common sense tells me that is a bigger advantage than the marginally cleaner airframe.

 

So, I think we need to reconsider this belief that heavy aircraft like the P-47 had a significant zoom climb advantage and that the flight sims are wrong.:)

 

A pendulum never get's close to the speeds aircraft do. It never approaches terminal velocity.

 

This man explains it perfectly:

 

Watch the video and all shall become clear :)

[Pandacat]

109k is coming, nice progress, ED

 

I really like the progress so far. It seems that ED has suddenly picked up their speed in churning out WWII warbirds. Keep up the good work:thumbup:

[JG4_Sputnik]

yep, its nice to see those awesome birds finally come along :)

Now I wait for the Thunderbolt and Me262!!

[BitMaster]

A pendulum never get's close to the speeds aircraft do. It never approaches terminal velocity.

 

This man explains it perfectly:

 

Watch the video and all shall become clear :)

 

 

Well, I am not quite on the same point of view regarding the pendulum in all aspects.

 

Compared, in RL, the pendulum will never have the chance to swing with minimal elongation but ultra high speed BUT you can calculate how fast it moves by using the equation for pendulums.

They always trespass the same distance, regardless of their amplitude, which means it will be very very very very fast just before the stand still. Thus, a pendulum can reach almost any speed but c

in theory. It a question of how precise you can measure and how long and high you can pull the string.

 

 

Higher mass fighters have 1 big advantage in boom & zoom when it comes to acceleration, they just dive out if their is enough altitude and 2nd, a higher mass by comparable outlines will let you fight aerodynamical resistance a touch better than with lighter mass, it won't be much but when a 109 and a 51 go vertical...it can decide who falls down first and becomes the victim.

 

More potential energy through higher mass is only useful when you don't do the full swing from UP-down-UP ( see the dive out option ) but useless if you go back up ( with the exception/advantage explained above ). The extra potential energy you initially had compared to a lighter fighter at same altitude is being used up to accelerate the extra mass again back up. In the end, the work done is ZERO for both, no gain or loss for either one but loss in friction.

 

I tend to opt for the higher mass, gives you some kind of confidence to have an option out against lighter fighters at a certain altitude. The P-47 is my private choice #1 Fighter

 

Bit

[BitMaster]

There are basically three factors that influence vertical climb rate when your nose is pointed straight up: Thrust, weight, and drag.

 

Suppose you have two nearly identical airplanes with the same geometry and the same T/W ratio, let's say 1.2. The difference between these airplanes will be their masses. For our experiment, airplane A will be 500 kg, and airplane B will be 1000 kg.

 

Airplane A:

m = 500 kg

W = 500*9.81 = 4905 N

T = 1.2*4905 = 5886 N

 

Airplane B:

m = 1000 kg

W = 1000*9.81 = 9801 N

T = 1.2*9801 = 11772 N

 

Since these airplanes have the same T/W ratio, then they would have identical climb rates in a vacuum, but once you throw air drag into the mix things change a little. Since the external surfaces of the two airplanes are identical, they will have the same drag at the same speed. Let's say they both flying at the speed necessary to get 1000 N of drag force.

 

F = T - (W+D)

 

Airplane A

D = 1000 N

F = 5886 - (4905 + 1000) = -19 N

a = -19 / 500 = -0.038 m/s^2

 

Airplane B

D = 1000 N

F = 11772 - (4905 + 1000) = 971 N

a = 0.971 m/s^2

 

Clearly there is a discrepancy here. Airplane A is losing speed while airplane B is actually getting faster. Airplane B will easily out climb airplane A even though they have the same T/W ratio. The difference is that airplane B is heavier.

 

However... this is just a trick of numbers. Being heavier does not make airplanes better. In fact, quite the opposite. The less excess weight your airplane has, the better off it is. If being heavier really made things go up better, then you would hear about how NASA tries to add as much ballast to their rockets as possible (hint: they don't).

 

So why did the heavier airplane seem better? stronger engines do better against drag. Now imagine if you had the engine from airplane B, with the weight of airplane A.

 

 

Maybe NASA doesn't add weight to their planes but any Glider plane Pilot does, depending on the atmospheric conditions he will fly in. If you fly too light you can't fight the wind.

 

It does have it's justification to add weight to inherit more kinetic energy in aviation.

 

Too light flies shitty !!! If you undercut a certain mass it won't be beneficial as long as you don't have an extra-overpowered engine to compensate ( its should have no torque effect, you can't hold against it with anything if you are too light !).

 

 

Bit

[Friedric]

i bought it , even i got one at backers page , i just like to support ED -:)

[gavagai]

Clearly there is a discrepancy here.

 

The weight of airplane B was 9801N, not 4905N, but you have the correct value (971N) so it must be a typo.

 

What you've shown here is that between two jet fighters with T:W ratios greater than 1, the jet with the larger absolute difference between thrust and weight is better.:smilewink:

 

The actual powerloading figures are much more disparate. For example

 

P-47D: 5.2lb/hp

Spit9: 4.8lb/hp with a Merlin 61 and 4.4lb/hp with a Merlin 63.

 

If we do the same, but with 5 times the mass for each (T/W is still equal):

 

Airplane A:

m = 2500 kg

W = 24525 N

T = 5886 N

 

Airplane B:

m = 5000 kg

W = 49050 N

T = 11772 N

 

F = T - (W+D)

 

Airplane A

D = 1000 N

F = 5886 - (24525 + 1000) = -19639 N

 

 

Airplane B

D = 1000 N

F = 11772 - (49050 + 1000) = -38278 N

 

So, my inference is that when T/W is less than 1, the lighter aircraft is better when T/W is equal.

Edited September 3, 2014 by gavagai

[gavagai]

A pendulum never get's close to the speeds aircraft do. It never approaches terminal velocity.

 

Depends on the length of the string. Anyway, you said:

 

Anyway, it's simple physics. More mass = more energy.

 

Which is exactly the principle that governs a pendulum.