Jump to content

Dora vs Mustang: Turning


Hummingbird

Recommended Posts

That the higher max lift coefficient of the FW190's wing more than offset its higher wing loading as compared to the P-51D is clearly indicated by the take off distances & landing speeds of the aircraft:

 

 

Take off distance

P-51D at 4445 kg (9800 lbs) = 487 m (1600 ft)

FW190A8 at 4300 kg = 430 m

FW190D9 at 4270 kg = 365 m

BF109G6 at 3148 kg = 300 m

 

Landing speed

P-51D at 4445 kg (9800 lbs) = 178 kph (111 mph)

FW190A8 at 4300 kg = 172 kph

FW190D9 at 4270 kg = 170 kph

BF109G6 at 3148 kg = 140 kph


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

German pilots do not say otherwise. Many considered the Dora to be less agile than the Anton.

 

And what I said about the turn times is true.

 

Spitfire HF. Mk IX (1945, 3,338kg, 1,475hp Merlin 70, 2 x 20mm + 2 x 12.7mm): 19sec

 

Bf109F-2 (2,780kg, 1,160hp DB 601N, 1x15mm MG 151 + 2x7.92mm MG 17): 19.6 sec

 

By .6 seconds. This is within a margin of error and is ridiculous. Every other account and allied test states this should be otherwise. There are several other spitfires with high 18 second turn times and 109s that get 19ish times. Too close to be taken seriously.

 

The 109 also does not out perform the 190 in every test:

 

http://imgur.com/Tkw9I4o

 

109 G-2 "Finnish tests, also at 1,000m, 1,3 ata, sustained 22 sec, speed 360 km/h 3G)"

 

"FW 190A-5 (1942): 21 - 22sec"

 

Interestingly enough, the russian tests you hold in such high regard show the Anton-5 and -8 beating the Dora, and the A-4 as exactly the same.

 

There are other tests which give far different numbers, which is one of the issues with the tests, that they are not consistent with other tests on by the Russians, or the testing other nations, or the bulk of pilot accounts.

 

As for the air foils, I have seen the P-51 CLmax rated at everything between 1.5 and 1.8. NASA rated it at around 1.68-9. The Fw190 airfoil is usually rated around 1.5ish as well. Given the offset in wingloading, and the P-51 being less draggy, it stands to reason the the Mustang turns better.

 

Regarding the mustang in the test: First off, it was a XP-51 or Mustang Mk1 in British service. It only had a 1150bhp engine. Later A's would have a 1400bhp engine. The wing also received some redesign between the A and B and D models. The XP-51's only had at P/W of .13-.14 whereas the B and D models are in the .17 to .18 range. The XP-51s also only had a 3 bladed prop as compared to a 4 bladed prop. All of these things mean that the XP-51 was not representative of the P-51D or B.

As to being damaged, this is clear from the testing itself. I have more information the P-51A's used in the test but I will have to re-dig it up to substantiate it. However it is obvious from the performance in the tests that something is not right with those mustangs. In flight testing in the USA, the XP-51s routinely reached between 386 and 395 MPH. The best speed achieved by the russians was only 364mph- so between 20 and 30mph slower than it should be. So it is either a question of the air-frame not being maintained properly, the engine not being up to snuff, improper AV gas being used, or shoddy operation of the aircraft. Any of these would account for the abysmal performance of that plane in Russian hands.

 

In addition, while they don't give specific numbers the American tests appears to be in in direct opposition to the russian testing regarding the A's turn, at least when compared to the Russian P-40 and P-39 testing.

 

"The turning characteristics of the subject aircraft are substantially the same as the P-39 and P-40. None appear to have any definite superior turning characteristics......in close dog fighting......the P-40 is considered to have a slight advantage.

 

The Russians gave the P-40 and 39 turn times of between 17-19 seconds. The 23 they gave the mustang would be obvious difference in turning performance. It could not be rated as a slight difference, or as having no clear difference by anyone in their right mind.


Edited by USARStarkey

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Starkey you keep spewing out these numbers, where from? I read somewhere isn't going to do anymore, I'm afraid, that goes for all of us, Yoyo's not going to change anything on your or my say so.

You say the mustangs not uber but here you are posting that every German fighter that opposed it was inferior in some way. You rubbish ww2 tests that you don't agree with, which is fine if you can back it up with primary sources, otherwise it's just hot air. You may have a point but it's hard to see the wood from the trees at the moment. Show me the money :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Starkey you keep spewing out these numbers, where from? I read somewhere isn't going to do anymore, I'm afraid, that goes for all of us, Yoyo's not going to change anything on your or my say so.

You say the mustangs not uber but here you are posting that every German fighter that opposed it was inferior in some way. You rubbish ww2 tests that you don't agree with, which is fine if you can back it up with primary sources, otherwise it's just hot air. You may have a point but it's hard to see the wood from the trees at the moment. Show me the money :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starkey you keep spewing out these numbers, where from? I read somewhere isn't going to do anymore, I'm afraid, that goes for all of us, Yoyo's not going to change anything on your or my say so.

You say the mustangs not uber but here you are posting that every German fighter that opposed it was inferior in some way. You rubbish ww2 tests that you don't agree with, which is fine if you can back it up with primary sources, otherwise it's just hot air. You may have a point but it's hard to see the wood from the trees at the moment. Show me the money :)

 

Just about every plane is inferior in some way to just about every other plane..... Your putting words in my mouth based on your own assumptions about what I say.

 

Ive spelled out why I dont like the TSAGI testing, which doesnt involve the P-51s were talking about anyhow.

 

I didnt start the thread, so dont preach to me about this wont change anything one way or the other when you are talking this thread as well. Perhaps you should take your own advice. As for documentation, here is some of the data I was referring to earlier.

 

"The Projektbüro estimate from 19.1.45 assumes 9-12159 propeller, and a weight of 7,496 lbs. Documentation listed below demonstrates that newly delivered Me 109 K-4's were equipped with a DB 605 DB engine operating with 1.80 ata/2800 rpm engine limitations beginning approximately mid January 1945. Various engine and propeller configurations were experimented with. The 9-12159 propeller was the standard production propeller but various German curves are extant showing estimated performance of the Me 109 K-4 with 9-12199.10 and 9-17018.10 thin blade (Dünnblatt) props and Projektschraube with 4 light-metal blades. The 452 mph figure often cited as the top speed of the Me 109 K-4 derives from an estimate assumming an experimental 9-12199 Dünnblatt propeller."

 

Regarding the D model mustangs speed with racks:

 

P-51D_15342_Level.jpg

 

quote from test "Performance was obtained up to an altitude of 35,000 feet in increments of 5000 feet in a clean configuration. The clean configuration included one external bomb rack on each wing. "

 

link to source http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html


Edited by USARStarkey

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

German pilots do not say otherwise. Many considered the Dora to be less agile than the Anton.

 

And many others say that the Dora had the same agility... your point?

 

Pilot accounts have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

German pilots do not say otherwise. Many considered the Dora to be less agile than the Anton.

 

And what I said about the turn times is true.

 

Spitfire HF. Mk IX (1945, 3,338kg, 1,475hp Merlin 70, 2 x 20mm + 2 x 12.7mm): 19sec

 

Bf109F-2 (2,780kg, 1,160hp DB 601N, 1x15mm MG 151 + 2x7.92mm MG 17): 19.6 sec

 

By .6 seconds. This is within a margin of error and is ridiculous. Every other account and allied test states this should be otherwise. There are several other spitfires with high 18 second turn times and 109s that get 19ish times. Too close to be taken seriously.

 

Again, you make claims without evidence.

 

Why shouldn't the 109 be capable of turning close to as well as the Spitfire? Modern pilots who have flown both agree that they are close, stating that the Spitfire is only marginally better.

 

Also if any tests are rubbish then it would the wartime British tests of the 109: they thought the slats indicated stall and thus backed off, arriving at the conclusion that the 109 turned worse than a 190, which is just comical.

 

The 109 also does not out perform the 190 in every test:

 

http://imgur.com/Tkw9I4o

 

109 G-2 "Finnish tests, also at 1,000m, 1,3 ata, sustained 22 sec, speed 360 km/h 3G)"

 

"FW 190A-5 (1942): 21 - 22sec"

 

Do you understand what a constant 3G turn is? It is NOT the maximum turn performance of the aircraft, that would yield a figure of 18 sec at 255 km/h according to the Finnish constant 3G at 360 km/h data.

 

Understand what you read before posting!

 

Interestingly enough, the russian tests you hold in such high regard show the Anton-5 and -8 beating the Dora, and the A-4 as exactly the same.

 

No, they show them being similar at 22 sec, and not surprisingly considering that the Dora was flown at a low powersetting and without MW50, thus the power loading was similar.

 

Why you would expect the Dora to turn worse than the Anton is a true mystery. Both aircraft featured exactly the same wing, whilst the Dora was both lighter and more powerful, thus naturally it would have a better sustained turn performance, as also clearly indicated by the take off distance & landing speed figures.

 

There are other tests which give far different numbers, which is one of the issues with the tests, that they are not consistent with other tests on by the Russians, or the testing other nations, or the bulk of pilot accounts.

 

Post them then.

 

As for the air foils, I have seen the P-51 CLmax rated at everything between 1.5 and 1.8. NASA rated it at around 1.68-9.

 

Haha, 1.8 is about what a normal wing achieves with flaps down :P

 

The Fw190 airfoil is usually rated around 1.5ish as well. Given the offset in wingloading, and the P-51 being less draggy, it stands to reason the the Mustang turns better.

 

No it doesn't because reality contradicts you, something you'd realize looking at the landing speeds & take off distances of the aircraft.

 

Regarding the mustang in the test: First off, it was a XP-51 or Mustang Mk1 in British service. It only had a 1150bhp engine. Later A's would have a 1400bhp engine. The wing also received some redesign between the A and B and D models. The XP-51's only had at P/W of .13-.14 whereas the B and D models are in the .17 to .18 range. The XP-51s also only had a 3 bladed prop as compared to a 4 bladed prop. All of these things mean that the XP-51 was not representative of the P-51D or B.

As to being damaged, this is clear from the testing itself. I have more information the P-51A's used in the test but I will have to re-dig it up to substantiate it. However it is obvious from the performance in the tests that something is not right with those mustangs. In flight testing in the USA, the XP-51s routinely reached between 386 and 395 MPH. The best speed achieved by the russians was only 364mph- so between 20 and 30mph slower than it should be. So it is either a question of the air-frame not being maintained properly, the engine not being up to snuff, improper AV gas being used, or shoddy operation of the aircraft. Any of these would account for the abysmal performance of that plane in Russian hands.

 

You fail to realize that the performance figures of German aircraft in the tests are also much lower than official German values. The same is true for pretty much every nations tests with foreign aircraft, the German aircraft tested by the British & US also performed way below average. How about that?

 

Thus as I expected you came up with the idea that the Russian P-51's were damaged.

 

In addition, while they don't give specific numbers the American tests appears to be in in direct opposition to the russian testing regarding the A's turn, at least when compared to the Russian P-40 and P-39 testing.

 

"The turning characteristics of the subject aircraft are substantially the same as the P-39 and P-40. None appear to have any definite superior turning characteristics......in close dog fighting......the P-40 is considered to have a slight advantage.

 

The Russians gave the P-40 and 39 turn times of between 17-19 seconds. The 23 they gave the mustang would be obvious difference in turning performance. It could not be rated as a slight difference, or as having no clear difference by anyone in their right mind.

 

Turning characteristics are mentioned, not turning radius, circle or time.


Edited by Hummingbird
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And many others say that the Dora had the same agility... your point?

 

Pilot accounts have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

More said the Anton was slightly better. The original thing I posted was the general impression of JG54. When you have a great many more people saying one thing is better, and the ones who dont are mixed between them being the same or it being worse, that adds alot of weight to the former opinion. Doesnt prove it, no, but we'd be hard pressed to prove anything about this without getting out the real planes and testing them at full power with all the right fuels and setups under highly control conditions. Which we cant do, and has not been done to that level of detail. So we go with what we have.

 

Take for example the DCS crowd. I doubt most have done testing with tacview, but just about everyone on here knows the Dora, in game, is less agile in turns. This decides people tactics. There have been a few odd remarks about people staying with mustangs in turns in game, but the overwhelming community would say the mustang turns tighter. Once again, this makes a big difference in how people fly. Individually, signular anecdotes aren't worth much, but they are cumulatively. If they hadn't been no ww2 pilot would have have been able to fly his plane to it strengths because nobody would have known anything about the enemy planes.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More said the Anton was slightly better. The original thing I posted was the general impression of JG54. When you have a great many more people saying one thing is better, and the ones who dont are mixed between them being the same or it being worse, that adds alot of weight to the former opinion. Doesnt prove it, no, but we'd be hard pressed to prove anything about this without getting out the real planes and testing them at full power with all the right fuels and setups under highly control conditions. Which we cant do, and has not been done to that level of detail. So we go with what we have.

 

According to Donald Caldwell who has been widely criticized.

 

On the other hand we have concrete evidence to show that the Dora obviously turned better than the Anton, and logic also dictates it: Same wing, same weight, same CoG, more power = better sustained turn performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you make claims without evidence.

 

Why shouldn't the 109 be capable of turning close to as well as the Spitfire? Modern pilots who have flown both agree that they are close, stating that the Spitfire is only marginally better.

 

That the wartime British tests, which are obviously flawed (they thought the slats indicated stall and thus backed off), that show the 109 turning worse than a 190 are complete rubbish.

 

 

 

Do you understand what a constant 3G turn is? It is NOT the maximum turn performance of the aircraft, that would yield a figure of 18 sec at 255 km/h according to the Finnish constant 3G at 360 km/h data.

 

Understand what you read before posting!

 

 

 

No, they should them being similar at 22 sec, and not surprisingly considering that the Dora was flown at a low powersetting and without MW50, thus the power loading was similar.

 

 

 

Post them then.

 

 

 

Haha, 1.8 is about what a normal wing achieves with flaps down :P

 

 

 

No it doesn't because reality contradicts you, something you'd realize looking at the landing speeds & take off distances of the aircraft.

 

 

 

You fail to realize that the performance figures of German aircraft in the tests are also much lower than official German values. The same is true for pretty much every nations tests with foreign aircraft, the German aircraft tested by the British & US also performed way below average. How about that?

 

 

 

Turning characteristics are mentioned, not turning radius, circle or time.

 

Modern testing is irrelevant. Nobody flys these planes at max power due to their age and rarity.

 

I'm fairly certain I didn't mention the British testing, oh wait, no I am 100% certain. But since you brought them up, those planes are performing fine, which most people dont realize, because they are operating at lower boost settings equivalent to the era they were captured in. Everyone just see's the designation and applies other stats.

 

I'm well aware of what a 3G turn is. The Russians don't specify the exact conditions of their tests, such as speed at which they entered the turn, or whether flaps were used etc. So we know about as much about them as the Finnish testing. Interestingly enough, for a 3G turn its remarkable how close it is to the Russian figures, perhaps they were not sustained turns? :music_whistling:

 

Lol. Normal wings eh? Remarkable technical analysis of airfoils that. Most ww2 fighters, including the mustang, achieve over 2.0 with the Flaps down. You'll have to excuse me if I take NASA and the AAF's opinion on this over your own. Furthermore, did you know that much of the wind tunnel testing is subject to quite alot of error during the 40's? Measurements of things like CLmax and CDo are subject to error due to the need to compensate for the nature of the tunnel itself in the tests, from which errors arise. There is also the issue of the accuracy of the models uses, or what material they were made from, or the lack of airflow altercations due to the absence of a propeller etc. There is alot of data on this, quite a bit of it produces different numbers. Gee, I wonder why with so many flight sims out there, none of them seem to agree on each airplanes flight model. DCS being the most advanced of the ww2 sims, I feel like it has by far the best chance of accurate representation of these aircraft. Its hardly definitive, being a sim, but its also the best one so far as fluid flow calculation is concerned for a ww2 combat sim.

 

Yes, because I should make vague cursory analysis of turn performance via landing speed without actually doing any of the math. Heaven forbid if ED did the same.

 

I believe I mentioned that there were no specific numbers. But there doesnt need to be to know that 23 seconds is not a slight disadvantage or so similar as to not be distinguishable.

 

Also, Im not going to post hundreds of encounter reports or other anecdotes I've read. It would take too much time for one, and it wouldn't fit in this forum. Disagree if you like. I've posted plenty of other data in this thread and others, we may disagree about this but I think its safe to assume I'm not making things up, even if you disagree with my interpretation or use. This is a moot point, so i feel like arguing about it would be pointless.


Edited by USARStarkey

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More said the Anton was slightly better. The original thing I posted was the general impression of JG54. When you have a great many more people saying one thing is better, and the ones who dont are mixed between them being the same or it being worse, that adds alot of weight to the former opinion. Doesnt prove it, no, but we'd be hard pressed to prove anything about this without getting out the real planes and testing them at full power with all the right fuels and setups under highly control conditions. Which we cant do, and has not been done to that level of detail. So we go with what we have.

 

Figures, evidence... at least when I post a statement I follow it up with facts/references... :doh:

 

Show us some evidence for pete's sake man... evidence or just keep quiet...

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figures, evidence... at least when I post a statement I follow it up with facts/references... :doh:

 

Show us some evidence for pete's sake man... evidence or just keep quiet...

 

I have shown quite a bit of evidence. I haven't seen very much evidence to the contrary yet...

 

I also don't see the point of having a "who can post more pilots opinions war" it would go on forever, and we'd end up with thousands of pages of post.

 

It also takes time to scrounge up every piece of info I have on this. Some of it isnt on my computer, meaning I have to re-find it. Some of the stuff that is buried somewhere on my hard drive. I will post quite a bit of it once I dig it up.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have shown quite a bit of evidence. I haven't seen very much evidence to the contrary yet...

 

I also don't see the point of having a "who can post more pilots opinions war" it would go on forever, and we'd end up with thousands of pages of post.

 

It also takes time to scrounge up every piece of info I have on this. Some of it isnt on my computer, meaning I have to re-find it. Some of the stuff that is buried somewhere on my hard drive. I will post quite a bit of it once I dig it up.

 

Right, but making all these claims without having citable references does make your argument look fairly weak.

 

Also "evidence" because you still haven't been citing your references.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have shown quite a bit of evidence. I haven't seen very much evidence to the contrary yet...

 

I also don't see the point of having a "who can post more pilots opinions war" it would go on forever, and we'd end up with thousands of pages of post.

 

It also takes time to scrounge up every piece of info I have on this. Some of it isnt on my computer, meaning I have to re-find it. Some of the stuff that is buried somewhere on my hard drive. I will post quite a bit of it once I dig it up.

 

In that case don't bring it up.

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but making all these claims without having citable references does make your argument look fairly weak.

 

Also "evidence" because you still haven't been citing your references.

 

+1

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I managed to out extended turn a player 51D in a Dora by using centre flap position and full power. I was quite surprised when I saw him give up and level out as I thought I was gonna die from the silly mistake of not staying vertical.

Not sure how realistic this is an not sure what would have happened if the other guy had dropped his flaps also.

Interestingly, I once managed to do the same in an IL2 Dora vs P51D engagement... I was surprised that time too :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern testing is irrelevant. Nobody flys these planes at max power due to their age and rarity.

 

I'm fairly certain I didn't mention the British testing, oh wait, no I am 100% certain. But since you brought them up, those planes are performing fine, which most people dont realize, because they are operating at lower boost settings equivalent to the era they were captured in. Everyone just see's the designation and applies other stats.

 

The British tests are not fine at all, the captured aircraft were not performing anywhere near what they should be, even at the boost settings used. What was worse however was the British misunderstanding of how the slats worked and why they were there, resulting in a comically large turning radius for the 109s tested, worse than the 190s tested.

 

I'm well aware of what a 3G turn is. The Russians don't specify the exact conditions of their tests, such as speed at which they entered the turn, or whether flaps were used etc. So we know about as much about them as the Finnish testing. Interestingly enough, for a 3G turn its remarkable how close it is to the Russian figures, perhaps they were not sustained turns? :music_whistling:

 

The only russian figures that show 22 sec turn times are those of "three pointer" 109's, which are 109's with gunpods.

 

Furthermore the Russian tests specify best sustained turn times at 1000 m height.

 

The Finnish test is completely different, specifying a 3G constant turn at 360 km/h in which state a 360 deg turn is completed in 22 sec. That is not the best sustained turn time however which will vary with speed and G's.

 

Lol. Normal wings eh? Remarkable technical analysis of airfoils that. Most ww2 fighters, including the mustang, achieve over 2.0 with the Flaps down.

 

Not quite, the part of the P-51's airfoil that features the flaps might reach 1.9-2.1, but the whole wing won't.

 

You'll have to excuse me if I take NASA and the AAF's opinion on this over your own.

 

You clearly don't seeing as they themselves indicate a lower overall lift coefficient. You're fixated on 2D figures for various parts of the wing.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British tests are not fine at all, the captured aircraft were not performing anywhere near what they should be, even at the boost settings used. What was worse however was the British misunderstanding of how the slats worked and why they were there, resulting in a comically large turning radius for the 109s tested, worse than the 190s tested.

 

 

 

The only russian figures that show 22 sec turn times are those of "three pointer" 109's, which are 109's with gunpods.

 

Furthermore the Russian tests specify best sustained turn times at 1000 m height.

 

The Finnish test is completely different, specifying a 3G constant turn at 360 km/h in which state a 360 deg turn is completed in 22 sec. That is not the best sustained turn time however which will vary with speed and G's.

 

 

 

Not quite, the part of the P-51's airfoil that features the flaps might reach 1.9-2.1, but the whole wing won't.

 

 

 

You clearly don't seeing as they themselves indicate a lower overall lift coefficient. You're fixated on 2D figures for various parts of the wing.

 

First off, the British knew exactly what they were doing with slats. Handley Page had experience with them assisted with the understanding. More importantly, the CLmax of the 109E was well documented when testing was done on that aircraft, vs the CLmax without. It is clear from those previous tests that the british knew what slats were for and how to test them. The insinuation that the allies were too stupid to figure out slats has not basis in reality is a internet fiction posited by those wishing to discount allied tests.

 

To be exact, they specify turn time at 1000m without height loss. They dont go into detail after that. We have no idea how many circles they went in before declaring something the turn time. The fact that the Finnish achieved nearly higher turn time with a obviously un-sustained turn indicates that the tests weren't necessarily well controlled.

 

I stated the mustang CLmax as between 1.5 and 1.8 depending on what test you go off of. Without flaps. Obviously not all sections of the wing are equal. Im not being hung up on 2D anything, the rest of the wing was only just mentioned so I feel like making claims as to my understanding are quite silly.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but making all these claims without having citable references does make your argument look fairly weak.

 

Also "evidence" because you still haven't been citing your references.

 

interesting, because aside from one generalized airfoil document from the opposition, nothing has been presented, sources cited etc, documents posted, to contradict me. Ive posted several images or documents, more than anyone else in here. I'm busy compiling more, which takes time.

 

90% of what has been said on both sides has been un-sourced. Don't single me out. Especially when the game shows the Dora performing worse in turns, meaning the calculations of some very knowledge people who made this game are in favor of what I am saying. I do not consider flight sims definitive sources whatsoever, but this post was about the game originally, so the burden of proof here is less aimed at me as it is with those saying the game is wrong.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Weed Be gone Needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
That the higher max lift coefficient of the FW190's wing more than offset its higher wing loading as compared to the P-51D is clearly indicated by the take off distances & landing speeds of the aircraft:

 

 

Take off distance

P-51D at 4445 kg (9800 lbs) = 487 m (1600 ft)

FW190A8 at 4300 kg = 430 m

FW190D9 at 4270 kg = 365 m

BF109G6 at 3148 kg = 300 m

 

Landing speed

P-51D at 4445 kg (9800 lbs) = 178 kph (111 mph)

FW190A8 at 4300 kg = 172 kph

FW190D9 at 4270 kg = 170 kph

BF109G6 at 3148 kg = 140 kph

 

Sorry, but this conclusion has no sense because TO distance depends on various factors: engine TO power and TO AoA for the certain plane except the wing lift.

Comparing landing speed you compare not only the clean wing lift but flaps effectiveness.

And finally - even clean wing 1-g stall speed can give very erratic results as you compare turn rates, because CL for low M is very different from CL at typical turn speeds.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
According to Donald Caldwell who has been widely criticized.

 

On the other hand we have concrete evidence to show that the Dora obviously turned better than the Anton, and logic also dictates it: Same wing, same weight, same CoG, more power = better sustained turn performance.

 

Right, at higher speed.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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