P-51 vs Bf-109 dogfight impressions

[Hummingbird]

Why not try a 1v1 human match? Just sayin :)

[otto]

In your video you seem to be loosing quite a lot of altitude with P-51, so it seems that your sustained turn is energy heavy.

 

check my track.Now i'm doing the same thing with the 109.You can't sustain a turn under 320km/h with the 109 but with the p51 you can .

But the 109 doesn't bleed as much speed in a turn.

 

 

EDIT: It is clearly visible with AI. If you put a P-51 at 35% at expert level against your 109K4, you will take a lot of time, but eventually you will be able to gain on him.

 

If you put AI Me109K4 even at 100% at expert level, against you in the mustang. You will never be able to outturn him. It turns 2x times better.

 

:megalol:

The AI is no proof.No human will turn like that with the 109 or p51.In my exp 109 twitches like crazy sometimes at 450 km/h.

Post a track like I did. Or a video .Not just words.

 

And in the end I told you I wanted to express my point of view.I'm not trying to convince anybody. If you can turn better with the 109 great for you :D .

109.trk

Edited March 20, 2015 by otto

[Solty]

Why not try a 1v1 human match? Just sayin :)

Why not. Today is my birthday, so I can't right now. Tomorow I will have guests. But maybe sunday?

 

But we take standard loads for both P-51 and Bf109. So that is 65% for P-51 and 100% for 109.Or do you want to go with very low fuel 20% on both? Or maybe similar weight?:book:

 

The more similar the weight, the more similar the performance.

 

We need to decide. Either way, K4 is better at turning. Just not amazingly better. It is realy at low speeds that it happens to gain a bit on the Mustang. F4 or G2 would be much better... even G10 would turn better. But we don't have those in game (I want G14 nao :( )

 

It is not a difference like between day and night. That we will see when Spitfire MkIX 25lb comes in :D

 

@Otto. Stop.

[Hummingbird]

When we consider that the K-4 holds the following advantages, then it is little wonder that it should quite easily out turn the P-51:

 

- CL_max higher by at least a factor of 0.15 (Helps ITR)

- Slightly lower wing loading (Helps ITR)

- Significantly lower TW ratio (Helps STR)

 

The higher lift to weight ratio coupled with the much higher thrust to weight ratio ensures a rather massive advantage to the Bf-109 in a turn fight, esp. if sustained.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Hummingbird
Small typo regarding in CLmax factor

[GrapeJam]

- Slightly lower wing loading (Helps ITR)

Nope, the P51D at standard combat load(sans rear tank) actually has slightly lower wing loading than the K4(206kg/m2 vs 211kg/m2)

[Hummingbird]

Nope, the P51D at standard combat load(sans rear tank) actually has slightly lower wing loading than the K4(206kg/m2 vs 211kg/m2)

 

Might be, but it won't be enough to cancel out the P-51's disadvantage in CL_max, thus the ITR will still be worse.

 

Btw, regarding the Bf-109 K-4 WL:

3,362 kg / 16.15 sq.m. = 208 kg/sq.m.

[Topgun505]

Ok so me and the guys in my squadron are just now starting to get into the WWII aircraft even though we've had them a while.

 

Is there any threads that detail the advantages/disadvantages each of the aircraft (51, 109, 190) have vs each other so we can start working out the best tactics to use in an engagement?

[Echo38]

When we consider that the K-4 holds the following advantages, then it is little wonder that it should quite easily out turn the P-51:

 

Aren't you completely overlooking drag?

[KenobiOrder]

Aren't you completely overlooking drag?

 

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

[gavagai]

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

 

But the 109K-4 is faster than the P-51?:noexpression:

[Solty]

But the 109K-4 is faster than the P-51?:noexpression:

Because P-51 is flying at 67'hg which gives it 1720hp and K4 has 1800hp and you have to remember that K4 is way lighter than P-51D. Also, K4 turns better than P-51D at low alt and low speeds.

 

P-51D is the most aerodynamically clean piston engine fighter of the war.

[KenobiOrder]

But the 109K-4 is faster than the P-51?:noexpression:

 

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

[GrapeJam]

Because P-51 is flying at 67'hg which gives it 1720hp and K4 has 1800hp and you have to remember that K4 is way lighter than P-51D. Also, K4 turns better than P-51D at low alt and low speeds.

 

P-51D is the most aerodynamically clean piston engine fighter of the war.

Err, no, the K4's currently faster because it's overperforming(should only reach 585km/h at SL instead of 605km/h with 1.8 ata and 9-12159 prop) and the Mustang's underperforming(18km/h slower than it should at SL, only reaches 595km/h with radiator closed, the P51D with wing racks reached 605km/h, and wing racks caused a 8km/h speed loss of 8kmph)

 

Plus the K4's currently overclimbign by a whooping 9m/s I'd not be surprised if something's fishy with the engine power.

Edited April 5, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Solty]

Err, no, the K4's currently faster because it's overperforming(should only reach 585km/h at SL instead of 605km/h with 1.8 ata and 9-12159 prop) and the Mustang's underperforming(18km/h slower than it should at SL, only reaches 595km/h with radiator closed, the P51D with wing racks reached 605km/h, and wing racks caused a 8km/h speed loss of 8kmph)

 

Plus the K4's currently overclimbign by a whooping 9m/s I'd not be surprised if something's fishy with the engine power.

 

You are right. I need to get more sleep ;)

[otto]

Err, no, the K4's currently faster because it's overperforming(should only reach 585km/h at SL instead of 605km/h with 1.8 ata and 9-12159 prop) and the Mustang's underperforming(18km/h slower than it should at SL, only reaches 595km/h with radiator closed, the P51D with wing racks reached 605km/h, and wing racks caused a 8km/h speed loss of 8kmph)

 

Plus the K4's currently overclimbign by a whooping 9m/s I'd not be surprised if something's fishy with the engine power.

 

I think the p51 is too slow too.

I think Yo-Yo posted that the climb rate is a little too high for the 109 but it was not 9m/s lower in real life.

But don't you find it weird that the p51 cans till turn at 270km/h and the 109 can't at such low speeds?

Honestly I couldn't care less which turn better but this is what I experienced.

 

@solty welcome to my ignore list.

[Solty]

I think the p51 is too slow too.

1.I think Yo-Yo posted that the climb rate is a little too high for the 109 but it was not 9m/s lower in real life.

But don't you find it weird that the p51 cans till turn at 270km/h and the 109 can't at such low speeds?

Honestly I couldn't care less which turn better but this is what I experienced.

 

2.@solty welcome to my ignore list.

 

1. You can think, but the 109 with 1.8 ata and current propeller should climb at 22m/s. With 1.98 its ROC should be 24m/s. All the data is in the 109 overclimb report thread. Current ROC is 31m/s. So 9m/s that grape has stated is accurate.

 

 

2. I don't get it.:huh:

[GrapeJam]

But don't you find it weird that the p51 cans till turn at 270km/h and the 109 can't at such low speeds?

I don't own the 109, but I find in multiplayer that they don't have any problem outturning my Mustang when I take standard fuel load(and they turn even better than my Mustang at low speed) at 35% fuel I can turn very slightly better than them, and only to the right.

 

Also, the K4 at 1.8 should climb at 22m/s at SL, currently it's climbing at 31m/s.

Edited April 5, 2015 by GrapeJam

[otto]

at 35% fuel I can turn very slightly better than them, and only to the right.

That's what i'm talking about. :thumbup:

Also, the K4 at 1.8 should climb at 22m/s at SL, currently it's climbing at 31m/s.

 

My understanding was that Yo-Yo has documents that prove the 109 climbed better than 22m/s .

Also my understanding from Yo-Yo's posts was that 31 m/s is indeed to high .

[OutOnTheOP]

I don't own the 109, but I find in multiplayer that they don't have any problem outturning my Mustang when I take standard fuel load(and they turn even better than my Mustang at low speed) at 35% fuel I can turn very slightly better than them, and only to the right.

 

Also, the K4 at 1.8 should climb at 22m/s at SL, currently it's climbing at 31m/s.

 

In order to out-turn your Mustang, they have to go VERY high alpha (by WW2 standards). This means they blow a TON of energy. If the Bf109 goes for a hard flat turn and you're offensive, go high yo-yo.

 

The one part that can be frustrating is getting your nose far enough around to get a shot onto the Bf109. At slow speeds, he will indeed out-turn you... until you drop a notch of flaps. At that point, you will easily pull lead. You just can't do it for long, because tight turns+draggy flaps+high power setting= blown engine. Stay at a higher speed than him, turn outside his circle (beat his radius with your rate), and when you see the opportunity to get a shot in, drop that notch of flaps for the extra little bit it takes to get the guns on him.

 

I haven't had a bit of trouble killing Bf109s multiplayer so far. Granted, I think that's because noobs see the Bf109 as some kind of super-plane, and expect it's power and turn rate to win the fight for them, rather than employing sound tactics. It just seems there are a disproportionate number of noobs on the Kurfurst online. They do a lot of flat, slow luftburys, and that's easy to defeat.

 

Now, what CAN be frustrating is a good Bf109 player that just opens up the throttle and runs/climbs away every time you start to get a semi-advantageous position. In that case, I usually find the fight ends up a draw: they climb away and try to BnZ; I put too much angle on as they dive in for them to get a shot off (particularly hard for them with the poor visibility, poor gunsight, and lousy 30mm ballistics). They overshoot, climb away as I turn in to get a shot on them... wash, rinse and repeat. Normally this ends up a stalemate until one of us goes bingo and turns for home (protip: this is almost never the Mustang!)

[KenobiOrder]

In order to out-turn your Mustang, they have to go VERY high alpha (by WW2 standards). This means they blow a TON of energy. If the Bf109 goes for a hard flat turn and you're offensive, go high yo-yo.

 

The one part that can be frustrating is getting your nose far enough around to get a shot onto the Bf109. At slow speeds, he will indeed out-turn you... until you drop a notch of flaps. At that point, you will easily pull lead. You just can't do it for long, because tight turns+draggy flaps+high power setting= blown engine. Stay at a higher speed than him, turn outside his circle (beat his radius with your rate), and when you see the opportunity to get a shot in, drop that notch of flaps for the extra little bit it takes to get the guns on him.

 

I haven't had a bit of trouble killing Bf109s multiplayer so far. Granted, I think that's because noobs see the Bf109 as some kind of super-plane, and expect it's power and turn rate to win the fight for them, rather than employing sound tactics. It just seems there are a disproportionate number of noobs on the Kurfurst online. They do a lot of flat, slow luftburys, and that's easy to defeat.

 

Now, what CAN be frustrating is a good Bf109 player that just opens up the throttle and runs/climbs away every time you start to get a semi-advantageous position. In that case, I usually find the fight ends up a draw: they climb away and try to BnZ; I put too much angle on as they dive in for them to get a shot off (particularly hard for them with the poor visibility, poor gunsight, and lousy 30mm ballistics). They overshoot, climb away as I turn in to get a shot on them... wash, rinse and repeat. Normally this ends up a stalemate until one of us goes bingo and turns for home (protip: this is almost never the Mustang!)

 

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

[GrapeJam]

That's what i'm talking about. :thumbup:

Well first, the Mustang at 35% fuel had a wing loading of 183kg/m2, 22kg/m2 lower than the K4.

 

Second, because of the very strong torque(light plane, powerful engine) to the left the 109 was known to not turn well to the right. And in Soviet test the disparancy between left turn and right turn time got larger and larger as the 109 got more powerful engine.

Edited April 5, 2015 by GrapeJam

[OutOnTheOP]

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

 

Actually, I think that 150 grade would be BETTER than just parity, because not only would it be performance-leveling, and not only would it be historically accurate, but it would actually have the ideal game balance: that is to say, it would allow the Mustang to out-perform the Kurfurst... but only for a very short period, due to overheating. So the Mustang would be able to use the "turbo button" to catch the Kurfurst, but would have a limited window to do so; whereas the Kurfurst would continue to have the advantage if it can prolong the fight. Right now, the Kurfurst holds a pretty dominant acceleration/ climb rate advantage in both short- and long-duration fights. It would make them competitive, but force different tactics on each aircraft. That makes good game balance, and FUN.

[HeadHunter52]

Politics (and sales pressure) being what they are, I wonder if the 109 will ever get to where it should be. I think those saying the 51 drivers are whining too much would start their own symphony of complaints and walk away to play something else.

 

Bad for Eagle......

 

 

Personally, I think the G would have been a better airplane for our gaming purposes. A lot of griping would have been prevented. I do believe the 109 and 190 are over modeled for advantage. But, I'm no expert, and have to fly what we are issued. The Jerry can be beat - with the right tactics. Speed, position, altitude. Have any two of these and you stand a great chance of winning.

BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR SHOTS COUNT. I try to kill the pilot each time....

 

 

In a recent MP session, we were at 8K waiting..... waiting..... and eventually, a few came up to play. Up there, I experienced no overheating, lots of power, better performance overall. It was as if an upgrade were sneaked in while we all slept. Whole nudder ship. The Jerrys had a more difficult time with it. ::shrug:: It is what it is.

[OutOnTheOP]

An addition:

 

I would ask that people not forget all the "soft stat" advantages the 'Stang has, too: better visibility (especially over the nose, critical for deflection shooting), tail warning radar (saved my bacon tons of times), lead-computing sight, high-velocity and flat-trajectory bullets (easier to get hits on maneuvering targets), more stable as a gun platform, full trim suite for pitch/roll/yaw (allows you to spend more attention on fighting the fight, less on keeping the airplane in the air; also makes for higher speeds more easily due to aerodynamic efficiency that's harder to obtain without the trim), better A2G options, easier takeoff and landing stability (lord knows how many players I've seen sign out and back in to "erase" their 3-straight takeoff wreck score-deficit in the Bf109).

 

There's a lot more to a fighter than just turn rate and engine power, and in a lot of those "soft" features that are easily overlooked, I think the Mustang is significantly better than the Kurfurst or Dora.

 

All in all, I actually think the Mustang is the better fighter all-around, even if it IS impossible to catch a Kurfurst player that wants to deny you a shot. That said, I'm basing this on my experience flying the Mustang against the Kurfurst online, where I have (with Mustang) had little to no difficulty racking kills up against human-flown Bf109s.... and I think they've only killed me once (and that wasn't much of a kill; I disengaged and got halfway home, then the engine died, so I had to ditch). How much of that is because the Bf109 players I've flown against have been inexperienced, I don't know. Perhaps if I put some more time on the other side of the fight (flying the Bf109 against the Mustang), I might change my mind.

 

I *will* say that the AI-flown Kurfurst is the hardest opponent that I've flown against. Human-flown, it's not so bad, but the AI one is a freakin' TIE fighter.

[OutOnTheOP]

 

Personally, I think the G would have been a better airplane for our gaming purposes. A lot of griping would have been prevented. I do believe the 109 and 190 are over modeled for advantage.

 

The 190 certainly seemed over-modelled when it came out, but I think that it's been quietly brought more into line with reality: it originally over-climbed by a LOT (like the 109 is now), had some 200 too many horsepower available, somewhat too low drag, and was much too resistant to damage.

 

Those seem to have been brought more in line with reason, and it now performs as specs and real-world flight testing indicates it should.

 

I think with any just-out-of-beta module, you need to give it a few months before deciding it's totally borked.

 

That said, I expect the fixes to be made QUIETLY, because, as you say, too many people would beech and moan that their pet ride was being "nerfed". But Eagle Dynamics does need to keep things reasonably realistic/ balanced (yes, you can do both at the same time!), or else the ALLIED players will walk away and find something else to play.