Jump to content

Dora vs Mustang: Turning


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

Hi guys :)

 

Regarding the turning capability of the 190 D-9 and P-51D, I am curious which one turns better ingame?

 

I understand that the two were quite close when it came to maneuvers in the horizontal plane, however from what I can gather looking at comparative testing, pilot accounts and aerodynamic principles the concensus seems to be that the 190 turned slightly better on the deck and evened up at 20,000 ft, after which point the P-51 held the advantage.

 

Is this reflected ingame?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The split flap design should also provide a higher lift increase than the plain flap design, so that makes sense.

 

But let us assume no flaps are used by either aircraft, with the 190D-9 at ~4200 kg and the P-51D at ~4500 kg. Is there no way to test it out against another player?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my experience online. I feel the p51 has a turning advantage over the Dora. I never really had a problem out turning Doras when I had sufficient corner speed

 

 

Edit: Also when I was flying the Dora I had a real challenge turning with the p51s. Generally I'd stall trying to keep up. I'd end up putting the boost on and climbing away. Then come in for re attack


Edited by ff4life4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's odd ff4life4, perhaps the aircraft aren't properly simulated then.

 

The Soviet flight evaluation department (TsAGi) put the lightest P-51 model (P-51A) through it paces and found it would do a 360 deg turn in no less than 23 seconds, whilst by comparison the Dora-9 they tested would do it in 22 seconds (without MW50).

 

I'd expect the P-51D to be able to do a 360 in 24.5 - 25 seconds considering it was almost a ton heavier than the A model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i think it depend of P-51 fuel load. Remember that these is near like flying cystern. If you drop half fuel load P-51 would have much less weight and the same much lower wing loading. P-51 got also more wing area then Fw 190.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's odd ff4life4, perhaps the aircraft aren't properly simulated then.

 

The Soviet flight evaluation department (TsAGi) put the lightest P-51 model (P-51A) through it paces and found it would do a 360 deg turn in no less than 23 seconds, whilst by comparison the Dora-9 they tested would do it in 22 seconds (without MW50).

 

I'd expect the P-51D to be able to do a 360 in 24.5 - 25 seconds considering it was almost a ton heavier than the A model.

 

The soviet tests are complete nonsense. The P-51 in the test was a very early P-51A that had a weak 1150bhp engine, it was equivalent to a XP-51 in american designation. It is not comparable in any way to a P-51B or D, or even the later A model which had a more powerful engine. It was also not in very good condition. The P-51 in game has a 20 second turn at 9550lbs. It can manage 19 seconds at 25% fuel.

The A model 190 was about Equal to the mustang sub 20,000feet. Above that height the mustang was superior. The D was not quite as agile as the A, but was much faster and climbed about twice as well.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human vs human the P-51 wins a turning fight in DCS, quite handily.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep all mustangs are uber! They must not be outclassed by any opposition at any time, it's not possible that anything could live with our wonderful fighter, hip hip hooray!

Starkey, the mustang is a great fighter but it overwhelmed the opposition with sheer numbers 800 to 50, and a lot of the 50 flown by green pilots. This sim is going to be much harder for the allies. I hope the mustangs gets it's 75hg, seriously, the k4 will be a monster.

You might like to note the mustang could only reach 430 odd mph with immaculate clean wings, something probably unheard over Germany in 1944 even with 150 octane and 75hg. It rains a lot in England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep all mustangs are uber! They must not be outclassed by any opposition at any time, it's not possible that anything could live with our wonderful fighter, hip hip hooray!

Starkey, the mustang is a great fighter but it overwhelmed the opposition with sheer numbers 800 to 50, and a lot of the 50 flown by green pilots. This sim is going to be much harder for the allies. I hope the mustangs gets it's 75hg, seriously, the k4 will be a monster.

You might like to note the mustang could only reach 430 odd mph with immaculate clean wings, something probably unheard over Germany in 1944 even with 150 octane and 75hg. It rains a lot in England.

 

Oh my. I have never stated that the P-51 was the greatest fighter ever built, or that there are no fighters capable of opposing it on even terms. These days you cannot say thing positive about the Mustang without being accused of bias or irrational nationalism. The spitfire for one, is a better fighter in every aspect except for range(51 is faster than certain models, but slower than others)

The K4 will be less of a monster than you think. For one, its oft quoted top speed of 454 comes from a estimate assuming a experimental propeller. The real top speed was about 441.

Your comment about the P-51s top speed is complete nonsense. There are tons and tons and tons of tests that show 440+ top speeds for B and D mustangs with less than optimum wings. The P-51D could do 442 with the wing racks on for instance. Furthermore, any imperfections in specific air frames, or improper polishing or maintenance of the air-frame would also have affected every other ww2 fighter in the same fashion.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people turning with the Dora are doing so with full throttle. Naturally, the Dora, having almost identical lift loading (and coincidentally, almost the same distance needed for take off and clear 20m of altitude) will have trouble following the Mustang in a turn with 400 more HP.

 

Why? Well, first of all, the engine torque is always pulling you to the left, meaning you will stall sooner if you're not careful with rudder. Second, all that engine power is actually keeping you outside of the turn (outside of L/D(max)).

 

Example from a bf 109G-6 (with under wing gondolas) pilot:

"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one, but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."

" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."

- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

 

So next time, if you want to turn with a Mustang, try reducing throttle to 3000RPM. That's the combat power setting, which will give you about 1600HP at SL.

Though if you have all that extra power available, why not use it? Just point your nose up a bit and you'll slow yourself down enough to match the Mustang's turn, while at the same time build energy.

FW 190 Dora performance charts:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=128354

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after hours dogfighting online i have to say that the FW-190 has better roll rate!Both planes are almost the same in a turn combat,however the FW-190 has a better vertical fight!!

once you are going to climb banking the aircraft and go round while you climb the p-51 will lose energy and stall...

 

....end of report

 

~S~

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]W10(64bit)Asus Rog Strix Z370-F - i7 8700K - Dark Rock Pro 4 - 16 giga ram Corsair vengeance 3000 - MSI RTX 2070 Super - Asus Rog Phobeus soundcard - Z906 Surround speaker - Track ir5 - HOTAS Warthog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The soviet tests are complete nonsense. The P-51 in the test was a very early P-51A that had a weak 1150bhp engine, it was equivalent to a XP-51 in american designation. It is not comparable in any way to a P-51B or D, or even the later A model which had a more powerful engine. It was also not in very good condition.

 

What is this based on?

 

I really doubt that the TsAGi tests were "nonsense", they actually make more sense than many Allied tests, being much more detailed in terms of describing performance envelopes etc.

 

The P-51 in game has a 20 second turn at 9550lbs. It can manage 19 seconds at 25% fuel.

 

Wow, that's very unrealistic. At 9550 lbs it would take a min of 24 sec, and more likely 24.5 sec, and 19 sec is just fantasy, even at 25% fuel. The Spitfire IX would do a 360 in 19 sec for pete's sake.

 

The A model 190 was about Equal to the mustang sub 20,000feet.

 

The Germans and the Russians say it was superior at low level, which makes sense based on the aerodynamics. The 190 features a higher lift airfoil and a lower powerloading down low, so it should be able to turn inside the Mustang at lower altitudes.

 

Above that height the mustang was superior.

 

Above 20,000 ft the Mustang was superior, I agree.

 

The D was not quite as agile as the A, but was much faster and climbed about twice as well.

 

Actually the Dora turned better than the Anton according to the LW pilots who flew both, which makes perfect sense: cleaner airframe, more HP & slightly lighter (than A8).

 

To substantiate this fact we can take a look at the the take off run which is also a good indicator of turn performance, and the D-9 has a take off run which is noticably shorter than that of the A8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lt. Karl-Heinz Ossenkopf

 

"Handling characteristics on the ground and in the air were much better than those of the A-8. Takeoff and climb were better and it was possible to make tighter turns before the onset of airflow separation. In a dive the D-9 was far superior to the A-8."


Edited by Hummingbird
Choose smaller quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not buy the Dora but in multiplier I found it easy to out turn under normal conditions. The only time I had trouble was at high speeds say 270+ mph as a rough guess, or when he dropped flaps, but when I suspected this I took the fight into the vertical and has success that way. 190 rolls better, I expected this. The 51, at least on paper should turn better I think, as it has a lower wing loading, and I really don't think laminar flow is as bad as people say it terms of lift production as well. I have noticed many people quote only the tip airfoil section's CLmax value for those heated P-51 debates,(who am I to talk, I'm no expert, just suspicious).

 

In terms of vertical performance the Dora has a pretty significant advantage it seems. Even when he tried to keep turning with me they seemed to have much more vertical capability, I would even occasionally see him stall or drop a wing multiple times and he still had ample performance in the vertical.

 

I know I shouldn't talk tactics about a plane I have not flown yet but the Dora just seems like it should be kept fast, even if it can turn on part with a 51 why give up that advantage in vertical performance. I feel like it would be much more beneficial to Boom and Zoom or energy fight in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this based on?

 

I really doubt that the TsAGi tests were "nonsense", they actually make more sense than many Allied tests, being much more detailed in terms of describing performance envelopes etc.

 

 

 

Wow, that's very unrealistic. At 9550 lbs it would take a min of 24 sec, and more likely 24.5 sec, and 19 sec is just fantasy, even at 25% fuel. The Spitfire IX would do a 360 in 19 sec for pete's sake.

 

 

 

The Germans and the Russians say it was superior at low level, which makes sense based on the aerodynamics. The 190 features a higher lift airfoil and a lower powerloading down low, so it should be able to turn inside the Mustang at lower altitudes.

 

 

 

Above 20,000 ft the Mustang was superior, I agree.

 

 

 

Actually the Dora turned better than the Anton according to the LW pilots who flew both, which makes perfect sense: cleaner airframe, more HP & slightly lighter (than A8).

 

To substantiate this fact we can take a look at the the take off run which is also a good indicator of turn performance, and the D-9 has a take off run which is noticably shorter than that of the A8.

 

Unrealistic based on what exactly? your experience in flight sims? Noone in there right mind takes the TSAGI testing serously. It is well documented that the aircraft tested were typically in disrepair. There is enormous discrepancy between the turn times quoted in those tests. In some of them, they have 109s pulling off 17-19 second turns and matching spitfires. In some tests the 109 and 190 are the same in turn, in others the 109 wins. Either way, a damaged XP-51 does is not representative of a B-D model. The 23 turn time is completely unrealistic. The 190 does not have a higher lift airfoil, they are both in the 1.5-1.7 department. The Spit 9 had more like a 16-17 second turn time, not 19 second. The Dora turned worse than the Anton. Evidence for this was stated in other threads. The Dora has a higher wing loading than the Anton and a worse lift coefficient.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this based on?

 

I really doubt that the TsAGi tests were "nonsense", they actually make more sense than many Allied tests, being much more detailed in terms of describing performance envelopes etc.

 

 

 

Wow, that's very unrealistic. At 9550 lbs it would take a min of 24 sec, and more likely 24.5 sec, and 19 sec is just fantasy, even at 25% fuel. The Spitfire IX would do a 360 in 19 sec for pete's sake.

 

 

 

The Germans and the Russians say it was superior at low level, which makes sense based on the aerodynamics. The 190 features a higher lift airfoil and a lower powerloading down low, so it should be able to turn inside the Mustang at lower altitudes.

 

 

 

Above 20,000 ft the Mustang was superior, I agree.

 

 

 

Actually the Dora turned better than the Anton according to the LW pilots who flew both, which makes perfect sense: cleaner airframe, more HP & slightly lighter (than A8).

 

To substantiate this fact we can take a look at the the take off run which is also a good indicator of turn performance, and the D-9 has a take off run which is noticably shorter than that of the A8.

 

How can you just calculate how long it would take an aircraft to turn, I would like to see the science and math behind your conclusion:thumbup:.

 

Also what about earlier A model 190s, like A-5s, I agree an A-8 would not turn with a D-9 but correct me if I am wrong, weren't the earlier As lighter?

 

There are also many more overlooked aspects of the aircraft you are comparing. The 190 may have a higher lift airfoil, but what about the mustang's lower wing loading, even things like the center of mass or other parts of the aircraft that may produce aerodynamic forces can have an effect on turn performance.

 

EDIT: I also don't see how people defending Luftwaffe aircraft can pull the "less than optimal condition" card but we spit and 51 fans cant say the same for a Russian test.


Edited by WING47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just went and retested this stuff in game. We can debate the RL stuff all day long, but in Game this is what I got

 

FW190D-9 855lbs of fuel: 16.3 deg/sec sustained at 500m = 21.8sec 1100ft radius

 

P-51D at 1097lbs of fuel: 17.5 deg/sec sustained at 500m. = 20.5sec Radius 977ft.

 

No flaps used.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just went and retested this stuff in game. We can debate the RL stuff all day long, but in Game this is what I got

 

FW190D-9 855lbs of fuel: 16.3 deg/sec sustained at 500m = 21.8sec 1100ft radius

 

P-51D at 1097lbs of fuel: 17.5 deg/sec sustained at 500m. = 20.5sec Radius 977ft.

 

No flaps used.

 

nice tests that was calm wind conditions as well?.

 

clearly see that the P-51 is better turn fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unrealistic based on what exactly? your experience in flight sims? Noone in there right mind takes the TSAGI testing serously. It is well documented that the aircraft tested were typically in disrepair.

 

Can you actually substantiate this claim? Otherwise I'll have to say that noone in their right mind should be able to believe what you're saying.

 

There is enormous discrepancy between the turn times quoted in those tests. In some of them, they have 109s pulling off 17-19 second turns and matching spitfires. In some tests the 109 and 190 are the same in turn, in others the 109 wins.

 

That is not true, the Spitfire outperforms the 109 in turn performance in every TsAGi test, albeit not by a lot (19.5 vs 18.5 sec), which is completely logical.

 

The 109 also outperforms the 190 in turn performance in every TsAGi test, so you came up with that one as-well.

 

Only 109 to come close to 190 times was a 109G2 with gunpods.

 

 

Either way, a damaged XP-51 does is not representative of a B-D model.

 

Again, post your sources that says it was damaged, otherwise you're simply making things up.

 

The 23 turn time is completely unrealistic.

 

No, on the contrary it is completely supported by the aerodynamic specs available, thus it is very realistic.

 

The 190 does not have a higher lift airfoil, they are both in the 1.5-1.7 department.

 

Again false, the FW190's NACA 23XXX airfoil is most definitely a higher lift airfoil than the P-51's NACA 45-100 airfoil, offsetting the difference in wing loading. This becomes clear when we look at the take off distances of both aircraft for example.

 

The Spit 9 had more like a 16-17 second turn time, not 19 second.

 

Post your sources to substantiate this claim then.

 

The Dora turned worse than the Anton. Evidence for this was stated in other threads. The Dora has a higher wing loading than the Anton and a worse lift coefficient.

 

This is pure nonsense, German pilots say otherwise and so does logic.

 

The Dora featured the exact same wing as the Anton, only cleaner (no outer wing guns), thus the lift coefficient could in no way be worse! (only better if anything) I mean come on, how can you even believe such a thing?!

 

Finally the D-9 weighed 4270 kg whilst the A-8 weighed over 4300 kg, thus the Dora's wing loading was lower as well. This coupled with the lower power loading and it should be clear to anyone that the D-9 definitely turned better than the Anton, something the LW pilots also say themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just went and retested this stuff in game. We can debate the RL stuff all day long, but in Game this is what I got

 

FW190D-9 855lbs of fuel: 16.3 deg/sec sustained at 500m = 21.8sec 1100ft radius

 

P-51D at 1097lbs of fuel: 17.5 deg/sec sustained at 500m. = 20.5sec Radius 977ft.

 

No flaps used.

 

Well that's a disappointment, guess realism is some ways off then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you just calculate how long it would take an aircraft to turn, I would like to see the science and math behind your conclusion:thumbup:.

 

Also what about earlier A model 190s, like A-5s, I agree an A-8 would not turn with a D-9 but correct me if I am wrong, weren't the earlier As lighter?

 

There are also many more overlooked aspects of the aircraft you are comparing. The 190 may have a higher lift airfoil, but what about the mustang's lower wing loading, even things like the center of mass or other parts of the aircraft that may produce aerodynamic forces can have an effect on turn performance.

 

The earlier A's were lighter, sure, but sustained turn performance (which a 360 deg turn is), does not just depend on the ratio oif lift to weight (wing loading is pointless, it is lift vs weight that matters), it also depends on the amount of excess thrust available, and here the Dora has a big advantage over the Anton.

 

And regarding the CoG (center of gravity), it was completely the same on the Dora & Anton, that's the very reason for the Dora's elongated tail section.

 

EDIT: I also don't see how people defending Luftwaffe aircraft can pull the "less than optimal condition" card but we spit and 51 fans cant say the same for a Russian test.

 

I'm not a fan of any side, all I say is that if you want to be taken seriously then post some evidence at least, don't just go "because I say so".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...