Dora vs Mustang: Turning

[Solty]

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.

 

Here we go again. Do not ever believe in pilot's reports. I can give you a whole site of US pilots claiming out-turning both 109 and 190. Go to turning section and watch the magic of human mind.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

 

I do not have the 190, but from my online experience. P-51 can win a turnfight, but it is mostly due to pilot's experience. One of the owners of Dora on the server told me that it is much more forgiving than P-51... so at least you can be sure that your plane is easier to fly.

 

I see after reading some of the posts that people talk here without any experience in the game. Or just want to win a fight by turnfighting xD Which is funny on it's own. I can assure you, that at high-mid speeds Dora can pull lead on the P-51.

 

Dora has advantages people:

1. Low speed acceleration. Even straighting out. Gives Dora ability to disengagne at will the P-51 with similar low-energy status.

2. Steep climb performance. Fw190 can initiate vertical maneuvering and gain advantage. It may have better energy retention in Vertical maneuvering.

3. Roll-rate. Low-medium speed Roll rate is better than P-51s. Helps you win scissors and is useful with getting away from enemy gunsights.

4. Firepower. Because P-51 can't set convergance, armament setup of Fw190 gives it much better killing power. Also, MG151 seems to be killing P-51s with 2-3 shots.

 

Remember that you are not fighting Fully-loaded P-51s. Those would fall of the sky due to lack of stability. 60% is your standard fuel load on the server.

[Wolf Rider]

me?, I always thought boom'n'zoom or getting on your opponent's tail fin and shaving their rudder with your prop, whilst lobbing a few shots in, was the way to go :)

[gavagai]

4. Firepower. Because P-51 can't set convergance, armament setup of Fw190 gives it much better killing power. Also, MG151 seems to be killing P-51s with 2-3 shots.

 

It's not just because the weapons are harmonized instead of converging at a set point. According to Tony Williams, 6 M2 Brownings do not have not have as much power as 2 MG131 + 2 MG151/20.

 

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

[Friedrich-4B]

According to Donald Caldwell who has been widely criticized

 

"Widely criticized" by whom? How credible are these critics? It's always fascinating to read "author/historian X has been widely/heavily criticised/panned"" on internet forums without any real/concrete/credible evidence being presented.

[Solty]

@gavagai I take this comment as an insult.

 

.50cals may not be able to rip off a whole wing of a bomber with 20shots. But they are more than enough to shoot down a Fw190... especially Dora that has an inline engine. .50cal is great for deflection shooting and that is very much needed in fighter vs fighter combat.

 

P-51 players can't set their convergance, which makes .50cals much less powerful. I was always shooting from 250m and can't hit as well with the convergance that we have. (300yrds... is it?) API is powerful and .50 cal is powerful. We are talking about a weapon that could and can destroy APCs and Light tanks from right distances. Surely when there is 6 or 8 of them, it may be seen as a formidable weapon.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU

[Foul Ole Ron]

.50cals may not be able to rip off a whole wing of a bomber with 20shots. But they are more than enough to shoot down a Fw190... especially Dora that has an inline engine. .50cal is great for deflection shooting and that is very much needed in fighter vs fighter combat.

 

P-51 players can't set their convergance, which makes .50cals much less powerful. I was always shooting from 250m and can't hit as well with the convergance that we have. (300yrds... is it?) API is powerful and .50 cal is powerful. We are talking about a weapon that could and can destroy APCs and Light tanks from right distances. Surely when there is 6 or 8 of them, it may be seen as a formidable weapon.

 

He never said that .50 cals weren't a powerful weapon - just that the German armament is more powerful and effective overall. 6x.50 cals are a good anti-fighter weapon - there's no doubting that. Just that for the weight of them there was more effective weapons used by the Luftwaffe, VVS and RAF.

 

Not being able to set the convergence is most likely correct as well - once the P51-Ds with the K-14 gunsights were issued there was 2 USAF harmonisation patterns used afaik depending on the tactical requirements of the mission (air-to-air or ground attack). With the earlier Mustangs like P51-Bs and fixed gun sights there's evidence of pilots playing around with convergences but not with the type that we have in game. The harmonisation pattern on the P51 in DCS is designed to score a scattering of hits around the cockpit and engine area at the right ranges.

 

The question we have though is whether the hits or doing the right amount of damage. A .50 cal round is not an insignificant round and it doesn't seem to do the kind of damage you'd expect sometimes. If a 190 gets hit with 100+ .50 cal rounds it almost always wouldn't be flyable but it often can be in DCS. You can score a good critical hit at the right convergence range which will destroy a 190 with a burst or two but it seems like the other type of hits don't do much secondary damage to the plane like damage ailerons, elevators, etc. The 20mm hits from 190s could fall under the same category for me as well.

 

But at this point we really need ED to weigh in with a response. We can only really see the number of hits in the AAR but it's not clear exactly what this means. Is it a unique hit of a bullet or if a bullet and / or fragmentation hits a number of areas does this show still as one hit or does it get counted multiple times? Only those with access to the code can really have a look and tell us if they think it's correct or if something might need amending. My gut feeling is that both .50 cals and 20mm are under-powered currently.

[OutOnTheOP]

It's not just because the weapons are harmonized instead of converging at a set point. According to Tony Williams, 6 M2 Brownings do not have not have as much power as 2 MG131 + 2 MG151/20.

 

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

Which table are you going by? There's a table that has "destructiveness per shell", a table that has "destructive efficiency as a function of damage vs weight of mounting", and a "overall effectiveness for the full loadout"... which does not include the Dora's 2x MG131/ 2x MG151/20 loadout.

 

The problem is that the first two do not normalize for rate of fire. Yes, 1 20mm hit is worth 3 .50 hits... but the .50s have a significant rate of fire advantage (both as single guns and taken cumulatively) over the Dora's loadout. Something like twice as many projectiles fired per second. All told, the Mustang's armament should be fairly close in effectiveness (damage done per second) to the Dora; maybe 75-85% as good.

 

...now, if only ED could fix the damage models so something OTHER than the sight and prop governor ever took damage. I swear, it seems like every shot (even those from behind) kills either the sight or the governor, and those two targets are, cumulatively, the size of a shoe box.

Edited August 11, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

API is powerful and .50 cal is powerful. We are talking about a weapon that could and can destroy APCs and Light tanks from right distances. Surely when there is 6 or 8 of them, it may be seen as a formidable weapon.

 

...and don't forget the AN/M2 aerial gun has close to 50% higher rate of fire than the ground mount!

[gavagai]

@gavagai I take this comment as an insult.

 

:huh: :(

 

Why?:joystick:

 

Which table are you going by? There's a table that has "destructiveness per shell", a table that has "destructive efficiency as a function of damage vs weight of mounting", and a "overall effectiveness for the full loadout"... which does not include the Dora's 2x MG131/ 2x MG151/20 loadout.

 

The problem is that the first two do not normalize for rate of fire. Yes, 1 20mm hit is worth 3 .50 hits... but the .50s have a significant rate of fire advantage (both as single guns and taken cumulatively) over the Dora's loadout. Something like twice as many projectiles fired per second. All told, the Mustang's armament should be fairly close in effectiveness (damage done per second) to the Dora; maybe 75-85% as good.

 

Williams takes rate of fire into account. Go ahead and explore his articles. He is the guru of WW2 fighter armament.

 

190D-9 gun power = 480

P-51D gun power = 360

 

Which means 33% more gun power for the 190D-9.

Edited August 11, 2014 by gavagai

[Hummingbird]

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.

 

It makes perfect sense.

 

A low landing speed and short take off run indicates a good turn performance due to the simple fact that it tells us something about the amount of excess thrust & lift the aircraft has available. (At a certain power setting of course, which in this case is TO power)

 

But ofcourse it's not going to be completely precise due to other factors involved during turns, such as aeroelasticity and so forth, but it gives a very good indication of how the two aircraft compare regardless.

[Hummingbird]

Right, at higher speed.

 

No, at all speeds.

 

Everything else staying equal an increase in thrust will increase the sustained turn rate of the aircraft, as well as how slow the aircraft can be flown infact.

 

That the Dora-9 features a take off run that is 65 m shorter (365 vs 430 m) and a landing speed that is on average ~5 km/h slower is pretty good evidence that it is a better turner than the A8, considering that both aircraft feature the same wing design & CoG. That this is backed up by pilot testimony is just a plus.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Hummingbird

[OutOnTheOP]

No, at all speeds.

 

Everything else staying equal an increase in thrust will increase the sustained turn rate of the aircraft, as well as how slow the aircraft can be flown infact.

 

That the Dora-9 features a take off run that is 65 m shorter (365 vs 430 m) and a landing speed that is on average ~5 km/h slower is pretty good evidence that it is a better turner than the A8, considering that both aircraft feature the same wing design & CoG. That this is backed up by pilot testimony is just a plus.

 

...and what load weights are those takeoffs made at? Mustang takeoff weight and fighting weight are a good 2000 pounds apart (assuming drop tanks). Dora takeoff weight and fighting weight are only like 100-200 pounds apart. So performance comparisons on takeoff are not necessarily valid in the context of fighting.

 

*edit* derp, just saw that you were talking about Dora/Anton, not Dora/Mustang.

[Hummingbird]

...and what load weights are those takeoffs made at? Mustang takeoff weight and fighting weight are a good 2000 pounds apart (assuming drop tanks). Dora takeoff weight and fighting weight are only like 100-200 pounds apart. So performance comparisons on takeoff are not necessarily valid in the context of fighting.

 

I posted the weights:

 

P-51D = 4445 kg (that's clean combat weight at 60% fuel)

190A8 = 4300 kg (clean combat weight)

190D9 = 4270 kg (clean combat weight)

[Krupi]

No, at all speeds.

 

Everything else staying equal an increase in thrust will increase the sustained turn rate of the aircraft, as well as how slow the aircraft can be flown infact.

 

That the Dora-9 features a take off run that is 65 m shorter (365 vs 430 m) and a landing speed that is on average ~5 km/h slower is pretty good evidence that it is a better turner than the A8, considering that both aircraft feature the same wing design & CoG. That this is backed up by pilot testimony is just a plus.

 

Pilots testimony is mixed at best and must be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

The increased length of the aircraft will have some negative effect on the turn rate...

[Hummingbird]

Pilots testimony is mixed at best and must be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

The increased length of the aircraft will have some negative effect on the turn rate...

 

In the case of the 190, how so? As long as the elevators provide enough lift to generate the necessary AoA there should be no effect on the turn rate at all.

[Nobody96]

In the case of the 190, how so? As long as the elevators provide enough lift to generate the necessary AoA there should be no effect on the turn rate at all.

 

Why is that? I mean, at an high AoA you push the tail of the plane into the turn so to speak. If that tail is longer, I would assume that it creates more drag.

 

Just wondering...

 

-Mathias

[Yo-Yo]

No, at all speeds.

 

Everything else staying equal an increase in thrust will increase the sustained turn rate of the aircraft, as well as how slow the aircraft can be flown infact.

 

That the Dora-9 features a take off run that is 65 m shorter (365 vs 430 m) and a landing speed that is on average ~5 km/h slower is pretty good evidence that it is a better turner than the A8, considering that both aircraft feature the same wing design & CoG. That this is backed up by pilot testimony is just a plus.

 

No, that's not right. Prop planes have time of full circle (360/ROT) (sustained) curve that is a combination of two independant curves: the curve of stall turn (descending with speed) and thrust/drag equilibrum curve that ascends with speed. The best sustained turn rate is at the intersection of these curves. AS power increased the second curve goes left as the first stays at the place because of very minor effect of prop slipstream at the speed of the turn. Thus, the intersection point migrates down and right that means that the best turn time decreases and the speed of it increases.

[Hummingbird]

No, that's not right. Prop planes have time of full circle (360/ROT) (sustained) curve that is a combination of two independant curves: the curve of stall turn (descending with speed) and thrust/drag equilibrum curve that ascends with speed. The best sustained turn rate is at the intersection of these curves. AS power increased the second curve goes left as the first stays at the place because of very minor effect of prop slipstream at the speed of the turn. Thus, the intersection point migrates down and right that means that the best turn time decreases and the speed of it increases.

 

The speed at which the best turn rate is achieved will increase, but the sustained rate of turn will be improved at all speeds with an increase in thrust, due simply to the fact that you can sustain a higher G load at every flyable speed due to the extra excess thrust available delaying the point at which drag overcomes thrust.

[Yo-Yo]

The speed at which the best turn rate is achieved will increase, but the sustained rate of turn will be improved at all speeds with an increase in thrust, due simply to the fact that you can sustain a higher G load at every flyable speed due to the extra excess thrust available delaying the point at which drag overcomes thrust.

 

It's not correct. As you can see at the diagram the left part of the curve is nothing to deal with power/drag and is a function of only CL_max.

 

The red solid line is a curve for higher power.

 

THe left part of a curve is a function of CL_max or plane weight.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Yo-Yo

[Hummingbird]

Let's compare the FW190 A8 & D9 in regards to the amount of thrust they have available:

 

A8 @ 1775 hp = 1836 kg

D9 @ 1745 hp (2071 hp) = 2072 kg (2227 kg)

 

In other words, depending on the model the Dora-9 had available anywhere from 235 kg to 391 kg of extra thrust to overcome the extra drag associated with turning flight. In other words this allowed it to pull a few extra degrees in AoA at the same speeds than the Anton before losing speed.

 

The figures above were lifted from an original Focke Wulf AG document.

[Yo-Yo]

Let's compare the FW190 A8 & D9 in regards to the amount of thrust they have available:

 

A8 @ 1775 hp = 1836 kg

D9 @ 1745 hp (2071 hp) = 2072 kg (2227 kg)

 

In other words, depending on the model the Dora-9 had available anywhere from 235 kg to 391 kg of extra thrust to overcome the extra drag associated with turning flight. In other words this allowed it to pull a few extra degrees in AoA at the same speeds than the Anton before losing speed.

 

The figures above were lifted from an original Focke Wulf AG document.

 

You do not want to understand the simple thing: as you are on the left part of the curve you can not add not one degree of aoa because your AoA is MAXIMAL, if you add even 1 degree you will stall.

 

As you add power the point of the best turn slides along the left curve, i.e. DOWN and RIGHT.

 

And, by the way, what speed are these figures for?

Edited August 13, 2014 by Yo-Yo

[Narushima]

Ahem.

 

A-8=2000PS at SL at 1,58 ata. Effective since July 1944.

 

Looking at Yo-Yo's chart, seems like the P-51 is supposed to have 22s turn time, which is pretty much the same as the Dora.

[Yo-Yo]

Ahem.

 

A-8=2000PS at SL at 1,58 ata. Effective since July 1944.

 

Looking at Yo-Yo's chart, seems like the P-51 is supposed to have 22s turn time, which is pretty much the same as the Dora.

 

Do not get this chart as an accurate - I used not exact power ratings and masses for it, only to show the basics of RoT behaviour.

[Hummingbird]

Yo Yo,

 

I am not talking about flight at CL_Max, which matters more to the short term turn rate, I am talking about the best sustained turn rate (i.e. the rate of turn that can be held indefinitely), where thrust matters as much as lift - as everything else being equal more thrust means that a higher lift coefficient can be maintained without losing speed. (With lift comes drag)

 

Also if I am reading your chart correctly it seems as though the heavier aircraft has the same turn rate as the lighter one at speeds below 330 km/h, and that makes very little sense now doesn't it?

 

Allow me to refer to page 53 section 6.38:

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf

[Hummingbird]

Ahem.

 

A-8=2000PS at SL at 1,58 ata. Effective since July 1944.

 

Looking at Yo-Yo's chart, seems like the P-51 is supposed to have 22s turn time, which is pretty much the same as the Dora.

 

At that power rating the A8 produced 1992 kg of thrust, which is still some 80 kg less than the Dora at 1770 PS , and 236 kg less at 2100 PS.