What are the differences between the BF109, Dora, Pony?

[JtD]

... i think a A model 190 might be able to out turn a MC205, but probably not a D, since they had to lengthen the tail on the D because of the bigger engine, both of which hurt its turning performance...

 

How do a longer nose and a longer tail "hurt turning performance"?

[MiloMorai]

Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight, remembered how they were impressed when they tested the Veltro. “One of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi MC. 205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of Italian styling and German engineering. I believe it was powered by a Daimler Benz DB 605. It was really a delight to fly, and up to anything on the Allied programme. But again, it came just before the Italians capitulated so it was never used extensively. And we did tests on it and were most impressed. The cockpit was smallish but not as bad as the Bf 109.”[

[Yob]

don't forget the the P40 is coming as well (from 3rd Party developer). That plane will really have a bad time, nothing compared to Mc205 which was a very competitive plane to those in game. P40 will be the plane for the tough basterds and over aces :) i only hope that the serious multiplayer mission hosts won't include the bearcat or such crap to the 1944 scenario

 

Thats my biggest fear, that clowns include the bearcat into a ww2 situation.

[Charly_Owl]

don't forget the the P40 is coming as well (from 3rd Party developer). That plane will really have a bad time, nothing compared to Mc205 which was a very competitive plane to those in game. P40 will be the plane for the tough basterds and over aces :) i only hope that the serious multiplayer mission hosts won't include the bearcat or such crap to the 1944 scenario

 

I'll be flying the P-40 as well and I have absolutely no issue with facing 109s with it.

 

I mean, hell, if I could shoot down Bf.109F-4s in a death crate like the LaGG-3 without much problem, I don't see why I couldn't shoot down a Bf.109K-4 with a P-40F.

 

The only thing you need is a wingman. And a bit of madness in your eyes. :D

[Hadwell]

don't forget the the P40 is coming as well (from 3rd Party developer). That plane will really have a bad time, nothing compared to Mc205 which was a very competitive plane to those in game. P40 will be the plane for the tough basterds and over aces :) i only hope that the serious multiplayer mission hosts won't include the bearcat or such crap to the 1944 scenario

 

the P-40 could hold its own against a 109G2... so yeah probably it would be ok vs an mc205.... maybe...

 

from what i can remember, the P-40 is really amazing at stall fighting with its flaps down, it can almost turn with planes like the zero...

 

and i find myself saying this a lot... you can shoot down any plane with anything if the enemy pilot doesn't leave himself an exit or makes a mistake...

 

Why do you think i have "the fun is in the fight" in my sig? i never use the aim-120... I never take the best, because I like to think I'm, as a virtual pilot, better than that.

 

so yeah i'd like to have an mc202 or 205 and a p-40 :D

 

 

and the reason longer planes are worse at turning is because cog changes, and long things have better streight line stability, at the cost of vertical instability, since the distance between the wings and the tail is greater... like anything that flys, floats, rolls or swims, the longer it is, the worse it is at turning...

Edited December 16, 2014 by Hadwell

[Celestiale]

I'll be flying the P-40 as well and I have absolutely no issue with facing 109s with it.

 

I mean, hell, if I could shoot down Bf.109F-4s in a death crate like the LaGG-3 without much problem, I don't see why I couldn't shoot down a Bf.109K-4 with a P-40F.

 

The only thing you need is a wingman. And a bit of madness in your eyes. :D

 

I know i'll do it as well :) but the difference between K4 and F4 in terms of performance is bigger then the difference between P40 and (late) Lagg3 (at higher altitudes the P40s(F/L) advantage becomes bigger) so i think it will be harder to survive here with a P40 then Lagg in BoS.

[Celestiale]

the P-40 could hold its own against a 109G2... so yeah probably it would be ok vs an mc205.... maybe...

 

from what i can remember, the P-40 is really amazing at stall fighting with its flaps down, it can almost turn with planes like the zero...

 

and i find myself saying this a lot... you can shoot down any plane with anything if the enemy pilot doesn't leave himself an exit or makes a mistake...

 

Why do you think i have "the fun is in the fight" in my sig? i never use the aim-120... I never take the best, because I like to think I'm, as a virtual pilot, better than that.

 

so yeah i'd like to have an mc202 or 205 and a p-40 :D

 

 

and the reason longer planes are worse at turning is because cog changes, and long things have better streight line stability, at the cost of vertical instability, since the distance between the wings and the tail is greater... like anything that flys, floats, rolls or swims, the longer it is, the worse it is at turning...

 

damn i really can't quote two different posts in one of mine.

Sorry, i wouldn't say the P40 could hold it's own against a 109(F and later). 109 was better in every aspect, also in turning ability (at least the F4). Hans Joachim Marseille stated in his book, that the P40 was easier to kill then the Spitfire. "Performance comparable to 109E7". K/D of P40 was much much worse then Spitfires in Africa. Some other german pilots who were in Africa first, and later in Russia told that the Yak1 (late/B) is comparable to the Spitfire Mk5, better then the P40. All that was about the B(2) Version, but the F/L had only at higher altitude a significant advantage towards the earlier ones.

 

And to the Mc205..it was leaps and bounds ahead of the P40 (even the Mc202 was slightly superior to the P40). At lower altitudes it was even better then the Mustang.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/41zep22osh8lcic/2014-12-16%2004.16.21.jpg?dl=0

photo from my book:

C205 climbrate up to 6000m was better then Spitfire Mk9 and Mustang, par to 109 G10. It was as manouverable as the Mustang and Mk9 (better then the German planes, so this "Originally Posted by Hadwell:

... i think a A model 190 might be able to out turn a MC205, but probably not a D, since they had to lengthen the tail on the D because of the bigger engine, both of which hurt its turning performance...")" is also wrong. It's disadvantages were that it was rather slow, and had low performance over 8.000m, up there it wasn't competitive. But under 5k (which also stands in the book, but i won't take 1000 photos here) it was better then the P51D in almost every aspect. Only the divespeed could save the Mustang there. And in italy there was a lot of low/mid altitude stuff going on, due to the constant fighterbomber attacks from the allies.

 

What i have seen so far in DCS the fights are mostly rather low(to mid). I think the Mc205 would be a marvelous plane in this conditions. Maybe, just maybe we will see one here sometimes in the future..one can dream :)

Edited December 16, 2014 by Celestiale

[julian265]

P-47D has a higher ceiling than the P-51, and it reaches its best TAS considerably higher up than the P-51's best TAS.

 

The P-51 became the predominant fighter of the 8th AF because it was a flying gas tank, not because it outperformed others. :music_whistling:

 

Also because it was cheaper, I seem to remember.

[Hadwell]

the P-40 couldn't hold its own vs a spit mk 5 no way in hell, but a later model spit in a turn fight i bet it could...the mk 5bs etc are like leaves in the breeze, they almost float, the mk 14 etc are a lot heavier, closer to a p-51 than a mk5b... would be worth trying anyway, curious...

[Celestiale]

Also because it was cheaper, I seem to remember.

you are right

Production cost

Mustang 51.000$

Bf109 43.000RM = 10.000$ (they had cheap "labour force")

P47 83.000$

Edited December 16, 2014 by Celestiale

[Kurfürst]

you are right

Production cost

Mustang 51.000$

Bf109 43.000RM = 10.000$ (they had cheap "labour force")

P47 83.000$

 

Indeed it was cheap, and I do not mean foreign labour, willful or outright forced/slave labour - before and during the war German workers earned much less of a wage than their American counterparts, around 1/4 of the amount. So yes, production was cheap. A better comparison is assembly hours. From the top of my head, by 1944 both the P-51 and the Bf 109 required just around 2500 labor hours to build.

[Crumpp]

Which proves what exactly?

 

Dogfighting doesn't mean turn fighting, get that straight. You can do many maneuvers before you turn. 190 has better visiblity and roll rate than all italian planes and has more firepower (this must be about A version, as D9 was produced well after Italy has surrendered), she also dives better and was probably similar at climb.

 

I don't think though, that 190 could be able to turn with MC205 in a sustained fight.

 

190 has an edge at high speed over almost all fighters having very good instantaneous turn rate. But it gets worse with less TAS. A6 version and probably A8 too were reported to be equal to P-51 in turn, while Dora was worse in sustained turn.

 

But again... what was the point? Late Italian fighters had German engines anyway.

 

You do realize my point was agreeing with your conclusions?

 

Run the math, I am pretty sure the physics will not allow an FW-190 to match most of the Italian fighters in level turn performance.

 

It was an equal or better dog-fighter based on its agility, I agree.

 

What does agility do for a fighter? I know you understand the importance of it Solty so this is for others lurking in the thread.

 

Here is some graphics I made to better illustrate based off the measured performance found in RAE 1231. Now, the performance is labeled "sustained roll rate" but it is obviously not the same definition as the NACA. The methodology used to measure roll rate is clearly defined in the report and in no way matches Gilruths work at the NACA. Instead, the RAE measurements appear to take a broader definition of "sustained" as more of a relative performance the aircraft can be expected to perform in flight by combining both instantaneous and sustained roll rates under the NACA definition into a simpler straightforward measurement of time to bank rates the aircraft can "sustain".

Edited December 16, 2014 by Crumpp
added "I know you understand the importance of it Solty so this is for others lurking in the thread." for clarity

[Crumpp]

Dora was worse in sustained turn.

 

We will have to disagree on this part. There was little to no difference depending on the time period and model.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Crumpp
fixed the quotation brackets

[Solty]

You do realize my point was agreeing with your conclusions?

 

Run the math, I am pretty sure the physics will not allow an FW-190 to match most of the Italian fighters in level turn performance.

 

It was an equal or better dog-fighter based on its agility, I agree.

 

What does agility do for a fighter? I know you understand the importance of it Solty so this is for others lurking in the thread.

 

Here is some graphics I made to better illustrate based off the measured performance found in RAE 1231. Now, the performance is labeled "sustained roll rate" but it is obviously not the same definition as the NACA. The methodology used to measure roll rate is clearly defined in the report and in now way matches Gilruths work at the NACA. Instead, the RAE measurements appear to take a broader definition of "sustained" as more of a relative performance the aircraft can be expected to perform in flight by combining both instantaneous and sustained roll rates under the NACA definition into a simpler straightforward measurement of time to bank rates the aircraft can "sustain".

ooooh. Now I understand. That came across pretty differently.

 

You sounded as if you were convinced that 190 is one of the best turners and trying to prove that against italian fighters to counter my point of P-47 beeing one of the best energy fighters out there.:megalol:

[Crumpp]

ooooh. Now I understand. That came across pretty differently

 

I re-read and figured you took the "Right," as sarcasm so it is not so much your fault as my ability to communicate effectively on an internet BBS.

 

I hope you are still working on those sound effects, too btw!

[Pandacat]

Has anyone done a zoom test in DCS? I remember from reading Johnson's biography. He said the main advantage for p-47 is in its dive and zoom climb. He was able to manage beat spit9 in a mock dogfight. I suspect if DCS faithfully model everything and the physics correctly, this should be reflected somehow. I believe p-51 should also have an excellent zoom performance.

[Crumpp]

P-47 beeing one of the best energy fighters out there.

 

The P-47 was agile and in its design element, a supreme dog-fighter. That is physics.

 

It was designed to hunt and destroy enemy interceptors at the extreme altitudes the new up and coming generation of pressurized bombers flew their missions.

 

Here is an USAAF pamphlet highlighting the capabilities of the P-47. Some of the information is not correct in hindsight. The specific loss ratio's and the "supersonic" dive for example.

 

What is correct is the overall perception of the aircraft and the feeling that many experienced P-47 pilots had of the aircraft. You can see that perception in the pamphlet.

 

The NACA Summary of Lateral Control Research documents the investigation techniques used by the NACA and includes some good lateral performance data on the P-47 series.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Crumpp

[Friedrich-4B]

the P-40 could hold its own against a 109G2... so yeah probably it would be ok vs an mc205.... maybe...

 

from what i can remember, the P-40 is really amazing at stall fighting with its flaps down, it can almost turn with planes like the zero...

 

In one famous encounter, on 21 february 1942, Australian ace Sqn. Ldr. Clive Caldwell, flying a Kittyhawk of 112 Sqn, shot down the 109F of Leutnant Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt of I./JG 27, while in a vertical climb and hanging off the propeller:

 

 

Stahlschmidt crashed in no-man's land and was picked up by a German patrol: Homuth and Marseille retaliated by shooting down 3 Kittyhawks from Caldwell's formation.

[gavagai]

"An aircraft in an apparently poor tactical position was not necessarily at a disadvantage so long as it was flown by an exceptional pilot."

 

Pray like hell the other guy with the good tactical position is not also an exceptional pilot!:doh:

[Friedrich-4B]

"An aircraft in an apparently poor tactical position was not necessarily at a disadvantage so long as it was flown by an exceptional pilot."

 

Pray like hell the other guy with the good tactical position is not also an exceptional pilot!:doh:

 

Nice truism :smilewink: ;however, whether any of the pilots were exceptional or not isn't really an issue (albeit three P-40s were subsequently shot down by Marseille and Hothum.) The point of the extract is to respond to comments about the P-40's handling qualities; it's also an example of a fighter that hung off its propeller and successfully shot up an opponent, something Caldwell did after pulling his Kittyhawk up from a short dive.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Friedrich-4/B

[Crumpp]

Pray like hell the other guy with the good tactical position is not also an exceptional pilot!

 

:thumbup:

 

 

 

it's also an example of a fighter that hung off its propeller and successfully shot up an opponent,

 

Hanging on the "propeller" is characteristic of all propeller driven aircraft. It has to do with the relationship of thrust and velocity in power producers.

[Pilum]

We will have to disagree on this part. There was little to no difference depending on the time period and model.

 

The sustained load rate figures you posted in post #63 seem very optimistic Crumpp: At what altitude are you assuming the Fw190A8 can sustain 3.2 g’s at 165 knots EAS?

[Crumpp]

The sustained load rate figures you posted in post #63 seem very optimistic Crumpp: At what altitude are you assuming the Fw190A8 can sustain 3.2 g’s at 165 knots EAS?

 

By definition EAS is always sea level.

 

Equivalent airspeed (EAS) is defined as the speed at sea level, under ISA conditions, that would produce the same incompressible dynamic pressure that is produced at the true airspeed and the altitude at which the vehicle is flying.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Equivalent_Airspeed

 

Think of it as perfect indicated airspeed.

 

That answer your question Holtzauge or are you going to start your usual posting that you cannot use it?

Edited December 18, 2014 by sobek

[JtD]

By definition EAS is always sea level.

:doh:

 

An aircraft can very well fly 165 knots EAS at an altitude not sea level.

[Yob]

:doh:

 

An aircraft can very well fly 165 knots EAS at an altitude not sea level.

 

EAS means speed at Sea level, Or equivalent speed.