P-51 vs Bf-109 dogfight impressions

[Solty]

I fly both, the P-51 and the Bf-109 on the ACG server and get good kills with them regularly.

 

The advantages of the P-51 are:

 

- way way better visibility all around which lets you loose your opponent less often

- higher deflection shots possible due to the gunsight mounted pretty high

- ass saving radar

- tighter turn radius

- better high speed controls

 

Here some tactics of mine that seem to work well

 

Defensive:

 

If I am in a P-51 and have a Bf-109 on your tail I normally try to lure it into a tight turn which in cannot follow. If he does, some barrel rolls later he is in front of me in my massive gunsight without any energy to do anything about it. If he isn't that novice and he pulls yoyos than you have to do standard counter BnZ. Turn into him and spoil his dive angles by staying below him, constantly climbing.

 

If I am in a Bf-109 and have a P-51 on my tail, its a lot harder. First, I normally notice them later since the visibility is pretty poor and I don't have the ass saving radar. After the initial break turn there are different things I do, depending on what the enemy does. If he overshoots my break turn I climb. Either he has an energy advantage and he comes around which brings us back to square one or he doesn't which allows me to do a spiral climb in a BnZ position. If he doesn't overshoot its time for scissors because this thing rolls so beautiful. It really hard though, since the armor plating over your head seems to be always in the way of having a look at him which you have to have to do successful scissors. If I get myself behind him I try to get a low deflection shot which I normally don't get because of the turn radius of the P-51. I cannot stand behind him if he is not completely stupid or AI so I don't waste any energy to get a high deflection low probability shot at him and instead climb to get some BnZ going.

 

Offensive:

 

Sneak behind the opponent, wait until you have a good shot, press the trigger for a while, enjoy.

It took me a long time to get this right tough. In the beginning I was a happy camper if I could even find an enemy to shoot at. Since I happened to loose them a lot, I shot as early as possible. Frontal aspect, rear aspect high deflection or insane deflection, I was shooting regardless. I might get a bullet or two into the enemy but most of them missed and I rarely shot anything down. Also, since I announced myself early by spraying bullet all over the place, I hardly got into a good position afterwards. Nowadays I fly mostly lag pursuit until I am in a good position with a low deflection angle. The P-51 is perfect to learn this since you cannot really do high deflection shots with your gyro sight anyways. Also its a lot easier to stay in lag pursuit with the more maneuverable P-51. The third thing in the list is 'press the trigger for a while'. I took me a while to realize that I have a lot of ammo with me and in contrast to shooters that thought me to do short bursts, the guns I have don't sway away to somewhere. At first I did only short bursts, looked where they went and tried to place another one. It works a lot better if you just keep the trigger pressed and let the enemy move through your stream of bullets. This only works if you are doing low deflection shooting and are already pretty close to hitting the enemy. Spraying by swaying all of your controls doesn't get you anywhere since you need way more than one bullet to get a kill.

 

The differences between the P-51 and Bf-109 here are: If you have a really good aim and happen to hit with the Mk-108, the fight is normally over. All the other benefits go to the P-51. You have the better gunsight, better forward visibility, tighter turn radius to get a good lead, better overall stability to keep your aim true and better overall visibility to keep your enemy in sight.

 

tl;dr; Both planes are awesome, fun to fight with and I make lots of kills with both.

 

-Mathias

Mate, I fly since I was 12 and I call myself a virtual pilot since I was 16... I know tactics and I know how to fly, the only thing here is that some here claim that P-51 has big advantages over K4.

 

And no. P-51 with standard load will not outturn a 109. Even K4 which has realy high wing loading.

 

I don't like the radar :P

With the rest of the points I agree, but...

 

Last time I flew on ACG server, I flew with 35% of fuel load on take off. So I had about 30% when I was engaged in my first combat with 109K4 and I wasn't able to outturn him. I had to go for a lag pursuit and drop my flaps to get a short time for a lead on him. (I consider it normal, as 109 is just better at turning)

 

P-51D is a plane that's development was always about speed. The plane was constructed with semi-laminar flow wing to have balance between maneuvrability and achieving high speed. The plane relies on speed in combat.... Now! Our setup takes away the only real advantage of this B&Z beauty, which is speed.

 

What you wrote, is not how you fly a mustang. Not at all. You fly it fast, and you strike hard. But you never turn with a 109 and you always turn with a 190. Throughout years I flew with that in mind. If you have your standard load of 65% of fuel, there is no way you can outturn a 109K4.

 

I have both too. I flew with both in DCS for some time now and I can safely say that K4 is superior airplane, even tough it breaks wings, it has 31m/s ROC. Which can leave any oponent in dust. It can zoom climb from SL to 4000m no problem, while P-51 is stalling around 2000m.

 

Give P-51D its 150octane fuel (75hg or even 72hg) and we can get somewhere. British flew with their Mustang IV at 81'hg settings... why can't US planes fly 75? Who knows. All I know is that P-51 need help.

 

Yes I can shoot down enemy planes. I can do that, but that doesn't mean that the fight is fair.

 

Which is how is should be and also is in reality, thus we just gotta adapt

 

Remember to stay high to take advantage of the P-51's superior high alt performance, and stay fast to take advantage of the lighter controls at high speed. Basically B&Z all day long and set yourself a hard deck of ~15,000 ft, one which you will only go below if you've got enough speed to zoom climb up past it again.

 

Also those .50's are perfect for deflection shots due to their high MV and flat trajectory, another little advantage to take advantage of.

 

It's all about knowing your strengths and being really disciplined in following them.

If we assume that late 1944 P-51D is flying with low 1943 settings... yes. And thats how it is in DCS.

 

How do you even do B&Z. Planes don't render untill 1.5km away, and they are realy hard to spot(aka impossible).

 

Also, most 109s fly at SL. Realy not even 500m, just SL. So if I set "hard deck" at 15.000ft I won't even be able to get a single shot down.

 

Also, 109K4 is now overclimbing and thats actually a reported as a bug, so the 109 is even better than IRL.

 

Please don't lecture me as if I never flew in simulation before. I fly since Jane's Attack Squadron and most of my time I have spent in IL2. That is why I have listed those advantages in the first place.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Solty

[Cool-Hand]

The P-51 only out-turns the 109 over 20,000ft.

 

They seem fairly equal between 20-10, but below 10k the 109 has a small--but certain--advantage.

 

Depends on his airspeed and how he manages it of course. I can usually sucker a 109 into a turning match by just matching his turn or cutting angle to make him turn harder and bleed his speed down. Once his speed is down, throw in a notch or two of flaps to help the low speed controllability and usually you can start watching the 109 flounder around or start easing off the turn if they realize what is happening.

Then the K14 comes into play as you come around :D

 

I find at least in DCS this works well against 109s on the deck, the combat flaps or more give an edge in the low speed maneuvering range.... in a one v one scenario.

[Solty]

Depends on his airspeed and how he manages it of course. I can usually sucker a 109 into a turning match by just matching his turn or cutting angle to make him turn harder and bleed his speed down. Once his speed is down, throw in a notch or two of flaps to help the low speed controllability and usually you can start watching the 109 flounder around or start easing off the turn if they realize what is happening.

Then the K14 comes into play as you come around :D

 

I find at least in DCS this works well against 109s on the deck, the combat flaps or more give an edge in the low speed maneuvering range.... in a one v one scenario.

 

Sure but that is not sustained turn. The slower u go, more the 109 gains upper hand. You are using situational advantage. If the pilot is skilled, he would go for left turn up at which you wouldnt be able to follow.

[otto]

The P-51 only out-turns the 109 over 20,000ft.

 

They seem fairly equal between 20-10, but below 10k the 109 has a small--but certain--advantage.

 

This is also what I've noticed personaly. But different people might have different experiences.

[Nobody96]

It might be due to me using an FFB stick or maybe just not caring about sustained turn and the lot but I still think I turn tighter with a P-51 than with a Bf-109. I really don't now why that is.

 

Regarding sustained turn performance: why would you do a sustained turn anyways. I mean, after a third of circle the outcome of a whole or more circles should be pretty clear. Either one planes in the turn has an advantage or every plane outside of the turn has one. Its a dogfight for petes sake. Start biting, scratching and pulling your enemies hair and stop turning round and round and round which is so very boring :-)

 

-Mathias

[otto]

It might be due to me using an FFB stick or maybe just not caring about sustained turn and the lot but I still think I turn tighter with a P-51 than with a Bf-109.

 

I know what you mean. I was doing some testing tonight and I would say the turn rate is about equal at low alt when the mustang has low fuel.I could sustain a turn even at very low speeds with both planes.

Sometimes the 109 twitches like crazy even at 450 km/h and the p51 does not.I don't know if it's because of the slats or what.

And the p51 flaps seem more effective.

[Solty]

I know what you mean. I was doing some testing tonight and I would say the turn rate is about equal at low alt when the mustang has low fuel.I could sustain a turn even at very low speeds with both planes.

Sometimes the 109 twitches like crazy even at 450 km/h and the p51 does not.I don't know if it's because of the slats or what.

And the p51 flaps seem more effective.

Well... Gunther Rall said the slats caused sometimes stalling and "snaping the wing" when they were poping out uneven at higher speeds and called it a disadvantage.

 

P-51D at low fuel load can pull lead on the 109 in turning, but it will not outturn it at low alt. Unless the pilot dives down for energy or begins to turn with a 109 by going for high yoyo and cutting into their turn.

 

Flat turn is the worst thing in P-51 you can do... but in DCS necessary as you can't use the plane's superior speed due to 1943vs1945 scenario.

[KenobiOrder]

I know what you mean. I was doing some testing tonight and I would say the turn rate is about equal at low alt when the mustang has low fuel.I could sustain a turn even at very low speeds with both planes.

Sometimes the 109 twitches like crazy even at 450 km/h and the p51 does not.I don't know if it's because of the slats or what.

And the p51 flaps seem more effective.

 

The flaps are more effective. I have not measured it but at SL I did several private duels with a friend where we both had our flaps all the way out. Neither of use could gain any noticeable purchase even after 5-6 turns. Although I stand by that with neither plane using flaps the 109 has a small advantage at low speed at low alts. With flaps down for both planes it is as near-as-makes-no-difference equal.

 

Also the Pony is much easier to handle as you have both mentioned. The 109 can be very deceptive about where it wants to go. Sometimes it feels like you have alot more turn but you dont, and you end up pulling to hard and losing ground because the mini-stall has retarded your turn.

[silentconvo]

And thats a situational advantage only... where are the advantageS. I can't see plural :)

 

But yes thats true, at high speed the P-51 is more agille than 109. EDIT: Well ok... you may also give it higher max speed.

 

Let me show you Bf109K4 advatanges:

-better acceleration

-higher top speed in level flight

-better low speed handling

-better sustained turn

-better climb rate

-better weapons

-better roll rate at low speed

 

 

Hmmm... yeah... so little advantages on the Bf109 side and so many at P-51s

 

I would dispute the 109 having better weapons, sure the 108 is powerful but it is not an easy weapon to use and has little ammunition. It is not a very effective weapon against fighters.

[Hummingbird]

Well... Gunther Rall said the slats caused sometimes stalling and "snaping the wing" when they were poping out uneven at higher speeds and called it a disadvantage.

 

That was an issue with the Emil series, sometimes the slats would jam (a real problem in the desert of NA apparently), however it doesn't seem to have been a problem with the later 109 series (F/G/K). Dave Southwood who flies a restored Gustav model says that the aircraft doesn't experience any disturbance about any axis and that only a small clunk can be felt.

 

Tbh though I think P-51 pilots should be happy that the K-4 doesn't turn tighter than it does ingame atm, because I believe the real thing could turn even tighter, at least that seems to be the case according to the pilots that fly the aircraft today. (Skip Holm etc)

 

As for ingame climb rate, I dunno, the climb rate of the real K-4 was ~4800 ft/min, which is rather massive. I believe the P-51D at 75" Hq could manage around 4,000 ft/min.

[KenobiOrder]

That was an issue with the Emil series, sometimes the slats would jam (a real problem in the desert of NA apparently), however it doesn't seem to have been a problem with the later 109 series (F/G/K). Dave Southwood who flies a restored Gustav model says that the aircraft doesn't experience any disturbance about any axis and that only a small clunk can be felt.

 

Tbh though I think P-51 pilots should be happy that the K-4 doesn't turn tighter than it does ingame atm, because I believe the real thing could turn even tighter, at least that seems to be the case according to the pilots that fly the aircraft today. (Skip Holm etc)

 

As for ingame climb rate, I dunno, the climb rate of the real K-4 was ~4800 ft/min, which is rather massive. I believe the P-51D at 75" Hq could manage around 4,000 ft/min.

 

A P-51 at 75inches managed about 4400fpm, not 4000. As for the K4, 4400fpm was the predicted performance, which is reasonable given that the G-14 with almost as much power managed 4100. 4800 fpm would probably be reasonable in game though, given that previous sims have always placed the K4 somewhere between 4400 and 4800fpm. As already acknowledged by ED, the 6000fpm that the current FM achieves is not correct. Not that there is any dispute as to which plane had a better climb (109), but it should not be able to space shuttle off like it does now.

 

As for Skip Holm, his comments need to have a avalanche of salt placed on them. For one, today's restored aircraft do not fly anywhere close to full power, nor are his impressions of turn measured. What is more, the consensus among modern aviators you seemed to imply does not exist. Many other P-51 pilots, one example being Chris Fahey, have stated that the P-51 and 109 are not that far apart in turn (although the 109 does have a small advantage).

[Kwiatek]

According to most pilots ( ex. Skip Holm or Mark Hanna) whose had chance to fly both P-51 and 109 they said that P-51 dont turn at all comparing to 109 and have no chance in turn fight.

[KenobiOrder]

According to most pilots ( ex. Skip Holm or Mark Hanna) whose had chance to fly both P-51 and 109 they said that P-51 dont turn at all comparing to 109 and have no chance in turn fight.

 

And like I said, their opinions are based on planes being flown under entirely different conditions. And skip holm + Mark hanna does not equal most pilots. ----they are just the most well known on the internet. We could go down this rabbit hole all day with pilot anecdotes.

Edited March 20, 2015 by KenobiOrder

[Solty]

That was an issue with the Emil series, sometimes the slats would jam (a real problem in the desert of NA apparently), however it doesn't seem to have been a problem with the later 109 series (F/G/K). Dave Southwood who flies a restored Gustav model says that the aircraft doesn't experience any disturbance about any axis and that only a small clunk can be felt.

 

Tbh though I think P-51 pilots should be happy that the K-4 doesn't turn tighter than it does ingame atm, because I believe the real thing could turn even tighter, at least that seems to be the case according to the pilots that fly the aircraft today. (Skip Holm etc)

 

As for ingame climb rate, I dunno, the climb rate of the real K-4 was ~4800 ft/min, which is rather massive. I believe the P-51D at 75" Hq could manage around 4,000 ft/min.

As far as I know, skip holm flew Buchon 109, which they call 'G' for some reason. It has merlin engine and is lighter and has different propellor. It is a wierd combination.

 

Bf109K4 is way heavier and has higher wing loading. 211.83kg/m2(please don't quote other forums that give it the G6 wing loading of 196kg/m2)

 

Also, I would not take person's word for it when he says the best tactic in war is to have "nuclear mike mikes" right after telling you that 109G turns better than a Spitfire. Realy, that it against logic and physics.

 

Another thing is that both the 109 Buchon and P-51 don't fly on WEP and P-51 is as I remember even limited to 50'hg for engine safety... so yeah.

You can't judge plane's performance after gimped or not oryginal versions of planes that use lower octane fuel and have limited performance...after 70 years lol :pilotfly:

Also, yes K4 had 24m/s climb rate. Which was awesome for WW2. In DCS it has 31m/s. It has been reported as a bug and is going to be fixed. As Kenobi said above the P-51 with 75'hg could go 4400fpm(22m/s). Thats according to data.

 

----

Gunther Rall said nothing about slats getting jammed. Only that they can pop out uneven and cause stalling. He also said that you had to loosen the turn to make them go back again. You can read that on the Finish site about 109s, as I remember.

 

----

"Dave Southwood who flies a restored Gustav model says that the aircraft doesn't experience any disturbance about any axis and that only a small clunk can be felt." Does Dave Southwood fly it "in tough fighting" conditions Gunther Rall refers to? It is pretty obvious they don't do any hard break turns with those WW2 birds and don't ride them on the verge of stalling.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Solty

[GrapeJam]

 

With the current power setting (1.80 with b4 + MW50) and 9-12159 propeller it should have 22m/s climb rate at SL max.

[Kwiatek]

109 K-4 got slats, more lift airfroil and better power loading so im no wonder that should turn better at slowier speeds that P-51. P-51 was not good plane for turning at slow speed at all.

[Solty]

 

 

With the current power setting (1.80 with b4 + MW50) and 9-12159 propeller it should have 22m/s climb rate at SL max.

Oh yes, I forgott. Thx.

 

 

@Kwiatek... we all know that. Just people that claim it should outturn Spitfire are in wrong.

 

Bf109K4 still has higher wing loading than other 109s and is not realy that good at turning. Still better than P-51... that is why I said that this post:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2354515&postcount=124

Is not realy true. Is it?

 

He claims P-51 has better turn radius. That is wrong assumption. P-51D can turn tighter for a limited time at certain speeds and it can drop flaps easier to help with the turn. But that doesn't mean it can win a prolonged fight against 109K4. Sustained turn is still 109s advantage.

 

 

That is why I am saying it is bad to tell somebody to go turn in P-51 vs 109.

 

Please read all we said next time.

[Kurfürst]

@Kwiatek... we all know that. Just people that claim it should outturn Spitfire are in wrong.

 

Probably so, but perhaps the difference is not that great, if you speak of XIV or a +18 IX.

 

Bf109K4 still has higher wing loading than other 109s and is not realy that good at turning. Still better than P-51...

 

Wingloading is just half the story, what it effects (greatly) is drag in turns. Overall drag is also effected by parasite drag, which was much less on the K, and power, which was a lot more

Where drag and power in turns equals each other, you have the best sustained turn rate - quite typically at 3-3,5 g.

 

Now the Russians have tested a G-2 with gondies which weights about the same or perhaps less than a K-4, they measured a 22 sec for sustained turns at 1000 meter, which is about the same as a Fw 190 A or a P-51D perhaps.

 

One would have to crunch some numbers what happens to that 22 sec turn if you add about 80 kg, chop off 25 km/h worth of drag and most importantly, add no less than 500 horsepower to the coctail... I suppose it goes down to about 20 sec, perhaps even 19 sec.

 

It all changes with altitude, following the engine output curves but generally speaking K was just as good at high alt as it was down low.

 

He claims P-51 has better turn radius. That is wrong assumption. P-51D can turn tighter for a limited time at certain speeds and it can drop flaps easier to help with the turn. But that doesn't mean it can win a prolonged fight against 109K4. Sustained turn is still 109s advantage.

 

Agreed.

[Solty]

1.Probably so, but perhaps the difference is not that great, if you speak of XIV or a +18 IX.

 

 

 

2.Wingloading is just half the story, what it effects (greatly) is drag in turns. Overall drag is also effected by parasite drag, which was much less on the K, and power, which was a lot more

Where drag and power in turns equals each other, you have the best sustained turn rate - quite typically at 3-3,5 g.

 

3.Now the Russians have tested a G-2 with gondies which weights about the same or perhaps less than a K-4, they measured a 22 sec for sustained turns at 1000 meter, which is about the same as a Fw 190 A or a P-51D perhaps.

 

One would have to crunch some numbers what happens to that 22 sec turn if you add about 80 kg, chop off 25 km/h worth of drag and most importantly, add no less than 500 horsepower to the coctail... I suppose it goes down to about 20 sec, perhaps even 19 sec.

 

It all changes with altitude, following the engine output curves but generally speaking K was just as good at high alt as it was down low.

 

 

 

Agreed.

1. No. I was talking Spit Mk IXe with 25lb. Yeah, XIV is not realy all that good at turning(different wing and all that), but still a little bit better than K4. It would probably not be able to outturn a G2 though, but maybe G6... thats just guess work though :P

2. Yeah I know, but I still think that slats do a lot of drag themselves when deployed, so Spitfire IX still would be more clean and has a lot lower wing loading.

3. That is why K4 has a slight advantage over them. P-51's main problem is that it has semi-laminar flow. Even though it is not pure laminar it still makes it loose stablity quicker so K4 has an edge over P-51D in this regard. But if I take 35% of fuel and drop flaps I should be able to keep up with it. So yeah. All good there in DCS... just climb rate is mind boggling. 31m/s? Even with B4+MW50 should climb at 22m/s according to data and with higher settings it was 24m/s. I would accept 24m/s even for B4+MW50... but. 31m/s? That is just nuts.

[Hummingbird]

There's something I always thought odd about German climb rate charts, it's as though they are listing steady state climb rates and not initial ones as in Allied charts. That would explain why the 109 out climbs Allied aircraft that it really shouldn't according to such charts in trials.

[Hummingbird]

As far as I know, skip holm flew Buchon 109, which they call 'G' for some reason. It has merlin engine and is lighter and has different propellor. It is a wierd combination.

 

The Buchon actually weighes more than the Gustav and the same as the K-4 at 3,200-3,330 kg.

 

Bf109K4 is way heavier and has higher wing loading. 211.83kg/m2(please don't quote other forums that give it the G6 wing loading of 196kg/m2)

 

It actually weighes basically the same as the Buchon, but features way more engine power (1950 vs 1600 hp).

 

Also, I would not take person's word for it when he says the best tactic in war is to have "nuclear mike mikes" right after telling you that 109G turns better than a Spitfire. Realy, that it against logic and physics.

 

He was joking at that point though (I've seen the video, and it's actually linked on Skip Holm's own site), there is another guy who flies the P-51 also who confirms what he says. Besides the same has been said by the likes of Mark Hanna & Dave Southwood etc.

 

Also makes sense that some versions of the 109 would outturn some versions of the Spitfire, and the slats probably also makes it slightly better at REALLY slow speeds. The very high TW ratio of the 109 would help it a lot.

 

As for against the P-51, well the 109 not only features a slightly lower wing loading, but its airfoil & slats provide for a higher CL_max for the wing area as well. That coupled with the much higher TW ratio should pretty much ensure that the 109 substantially outperforms the P-51 in turns.

 

----

Gunther Rall said nothing about slats getting jammed. Only that they can pop out uneven and cause stalling. He also said that you had to loosen the turn to make them go back again. You can read that on the Finish site about 109s, as I remember.

 

----

"Dave Southwood who flies a restored Gustav model says that the aircraft doesn't experience any disturbance about any axis and that only a small clunk can be felt." Does Dave Southwood fly it "in tough fighting" conditions Gunther Rall refers to? It is pretty obvious they don't do any hard break turns with those WW2 birds and don't ride them on the verge of stalling.

 

Actually they fly it to the edge in turns, there being no danger in doing so as they rarely exceed speeds where more than 5-6 Gs are pulled (which is waaay below the safe limit), and it isn't just Dave Southwood, it's Skip Holm & Mark Hanna as well, being backed up by several German & Finnish aces as well.

 

Would also make zero sense if the slats were to cause any disturbance, an identical full span design being used on the Me262 and later F-86 Sabre without any mention of it.

 

"- How often did the slats in the leading edge of the wing slam open without warning?

They were exteneded always suddenly but not unexpectedly. They did not operate in high speed but in low speed. One could make them go out and in by moving the stick back and forth. When turning one slat functioned ahead of the other one, but that did not affect the steering. In a battle situation one could pull a little more if the slats had come out. They had a positive effect of the slow speed handling characteristics of the Messerschmitt.

- Could the pilot control the leading edge slats?

No. The slats were extended when the speed decreased enough, you could feel when they were extended. "

- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories.

 

"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."

- Mark Hanna

 

The reason for Gunther Rall's comment is for sure his near death experience in an Emil early in his career as one slat jammed and he went into a spin. The actual slat operation on the Emil was different than on the later series, and according to several pilots it was a lot more noticable when they deployed in the Emil.

 

Finally Skip Holm on the 109 (Buchon) vs the P-51:

 

"Once airborne and cleaned-up, the aircraft is a delight. A classic! And real fighter, ready to rock and roll! And the speed it loves to roll around is 250 mph and below. The roll rate is very good and very positive at 250 mph. Above 250 mph the ailerons get heavy and at 300 they are very similar to a P-51. Any speed after that results in the ailerons getting fairly solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningful roll rates. Most of my flights have been in formation with P-51s and the Me-109 is more maneuverable than the P-51 in most conditions. The Me-109 performs very well against the P-51 for takeoff, climb, and moderate cruise, but once the P-51 starts a dive or adds power in a level condition, the P-51 outperforms the Me-109 easily."

- Skip Holm

Edited March 20, 2015 by Hummingbird

[NineLine]

Guys, I know you all like showing of your knowledge of this stuff, but the thread really should focus on impressions of what we have in the sim, not impressions of someone elses impressions of real world aircraft we dont have in the sim.

[Hummingbird]

Guys, I know you all like showing of your knowledge of this stuff, but the thread really should focus on impressions of what we have in the sim, not impressions of someone elses impressions of real world aircraft we dont have in the sim.

 

You're right, moving on.

[otto]

Just to express my opinion about low speed turning between 109 and p51 in DCS:

 

Uc1DOIquQZc

 

P51 has 30% fuel and the 109 has 50%.

Used two stages of flaps for p51 and 7 seconds of flaps for 109 and mw50 (in my experience this is optimum for sustained turns).

To me it looks like the p51 can keep turning at lower speeds that the 109 can.

And the 109 can keep at little bit better it's speed in a turn.

When I senced the stall is getting closer I tried to pull the turn slightly downwards(nose slightly toward the ground) with both panes.I managed this better with the 51.

Overall if i'd had to choose I'd say the p51 turns a little bit better at low speed with this much fuel(30% vs 50%) because it feels more stable than the twitchy 109.

 

 

This is what I have forund out.I don't want to enter any disputes with anybody.:D

turn-turn-33-1.trk

turn-turn-33-33-1.trk

Edited March 20, 2015 by otto

[Solty]

Just to express my opinion about low speed turning between 109 and p51 in DCS:

 

Uc1DOIquQZc

 

P51 has 30% fuel and the 109 has 50%.

Used two stages of flaps for p51 and 7 seconds of flaps for 109(in my experience this is optimum for sustained turns).

To me it looks like the p51 can keep turning at lower speeds that the 109 can.

And the 109 can keep at little bit better it's speed in a turn.

Overall if i'd had to choose I'd say the p51 turn a little bit better at low speed with this much fuel.

 

This is what I have forund out.I don't want to enter any disputes with anybody.:D

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.

 

I tried both, and I feel like 109K4 turns better. It is not F4, but I can't say it is inferior to P-51 either.

 

 

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.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Solty