Jump to content

Some opinion about maneuverability of Bf109K-4


Recommended Posts

Actually, there is little weird thing on FM of DCS. In this game P-51D have almost same turning performance(Maybe P-51D little better) with Bf109K-4. Actually, Bf109K-4 is too easily stall I think.

 

 

I have some doubts about this. Show these comments.

 

Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire.

-Günther Rall. Luftwaffe Experte.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.

-Mark Hanna. Airshow pilot of Old Flying Machine Company. After flight with Bf109G-10 "Schwarz 2".

Few days ago, I asked stall speed of Bf109G to Messerschmitte Flugmuseum. Flugmuseum have three airworth Bf109s(G-4, G-6, G-10) and have lots of flight experience. I got answer about that. Thanks Flugmuseum.

Aircraft - Bf109G-4

Weigt - 5,842lb/2,650kg

Altitude - 6,000ft/1828m

Flap and undercarriage retracted

Stall Speed - 86mph/140kph

Wingarea - 16.1m²

I calculated CLmax of Bf109G based on this answer and standard atmosphere.

Standart atmospheric density of 2,000m is 1.0068kg/m³. When it conversion to kgf×s²/m⁴ is 0.102kgf×s²/m⁴.

So... CLmax=(2650*2)/[(140/3.6)²*0.102*16.1]=2.134

Bf109K-4 have bulge on cowling and wing roots, so little lower than it. I think CLmax of Bf109K-4 is around 1.96.

 

On P-51D, I found a EM chart tested by Society of Experimental Test. I found some other Documents, but there is no altitude, flap, and undercarriage situation informed.

Aircraft - P-51D 45-11586

Weight - 8,900lb/4,036kg

altitude - 10,000ft/3,048m

Flap and undercarriage retracted

Stall Speed - 111mph/178.6kph

Wingarea - 235ft²/21.83

Density on 3,000m is 0.092kgf×s²/m⁴

So... CLmax=(4036*2)/[(178.6/3.6)²*0.092*21.83]=1.63

 

It is not perfect calculation. Stall speed could be changed by weather situation. However it show us Bf109K-4 have far higher CLmax than P-51D.

 

 

In sustain turn, thrust to weight ratio is important, too. However I cannot found any information about prop effiecency of Bf109K-4 and P-51D. So I will compare power to mass ratio.

Bf109K-4 with DB605DB(2800U/min, 1.8ata)

Gross weight - 7414lb/3,363kg(One MK108 with 65 ammo + Two MG131 with 600 ammo, full fuel)

Maximum Engine Power(10min limit)

at Sea level - 1,850PS = 1,360kW

at 6,000m - 1,600PS = 1,176kW

at 10,000m - 950PS = 698kW

Power to Mass ratio

at Sea level - 404W/kg

at 6,000m - 349W/kg

at 10,000m - 207W/kg

 

P-51D with V-1650-7(3000RPM, 67"HG)

Gross weight - 9,611lb/4,359kg(Six M2 Browning with 1860 ammo, 180gal fuel)

Maximum Engine Power(5min limit)

at Sea level - 1,630HP = 1,216kW

at 20,000ft - 1,400HP = 1,044kW

at 33,000ft - 1,010HP = 753kW

Power to Mass ratio

at Sea level - 278W/kg

at 20,000ft - 239W/kg

at 33,000ft - 172W/kg

 

In all altitude, Bf109K-4 have far better power to mass ratio.

Onlything better on P-51D is wing loading. wing loading of P-51D is 199kg/m² at gross weight 9,611lb, Bf109K-4 is 208kg/m²3,363kg. Actually, it is not big difference. In addition, airfoil of P-51D is NACA45-100. It is laminar flow airfoil. It is quit good at level speed, but it have small stall angle. I cannot show this with curve, becaus my javafoil cannot make polar curve of NAA/NACA 45-100 rightly.

Drag bucket of NAA/NACA 45/100 is -0.35<Cl<0.8. AOA of same section is -4<α<6. It have less drag(0.005) at drag bucket than NACA 2R1 14.2(airfoil of Bf109). However, out of drag bucket NACA 45/100 drag is going higher, it have more drag(0.02) than NACA 2R1 14.2.

My final conclusion is Bf109K-4 have better maneuverability than P-51D. Of course, P-51D have lower stick force in high speed, but below 550kph(341mph) Bf109K-4 have better maneuverability than P-51D.

Any opinion and advice will be welcomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, there is little weird thing on FM of DCS. In this game P-51D have almost same turning performance(Maybe P-51D little better) with Bf109K-4. Actually, Bf109K-4 is too easily stall I think...

 

Considering that this is a tired re-hash of some exact arguments that have been made before, I'm sure you won't get many replies, but I do have to ask why you would compare a Bf109K4 with 296 kg of fuel against a P-51D with 514 kg of fuel. That 218 kg makes a difference.

 

In-game, it matches perfectly with what those pilots were quoted (and, for that matter, with the equations you posted): at slow speeds, the Bf109K4 in DCS easily beats the Mustang in both turn rate and turn radius, and can climb and accelerate away at will (in fact, it seems to over-climb by a not-insignificant amount right now). On the flip side, at higher speeds (over 250mph indicated; the stick stiffening happened WAY before 350mph), the Mustang wins because the cleaner airframe and lower alpha/ more drag-efficient wing planform means it burns less energy on turns (and also doesn't have ridiculously high stick forces limiting it... though even the Mustang had a pretty stiff stick at high speed).

 

Yes, the Mustang has some flap tricks that can bring it around the circle to get a shot in a slow speed fight, but it can't do it for long without blowing up it's engine.

 

Really, it's a pretty fair fight. The Mustang wants to stay fast (and preferably above 18,000), the Kurfurst wants to drag the fight low and slow. Each can outperform the other in different regimes.


Edited by OutOnTheOP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm." -Mark Hanna

 

There's part of your problem. That power setting is ~75% power for a typical wartime P-51D. If both aircraft operate at lower power settings (like that one), that will exacerbate the P-51's low-speed problems relative to the 109. The more power both aircraft have, the less inferior the P-51's near-stall fighting ability will be. That is, if you raise the power on both aircraft, the P-51 will struggle less (compared to the 109), while if you lower the power on both aircraft, the P-51 will struggle more.

 

This is one of the reasons that Mr. Hanna's high opinion of the 109 relative to the P-51 isn't to be entirely trusted, despite his experience with post-war examples; his comparisons lack conditions typical of an actual wartime dogfight (e.g. WEP).

 

There are other issues with your reasoning, but as OutOnTheOP pointed out, most of it's been hashed & rehashed for an age, and I'm one of the ones who doesn't particularly feel like smiting dead horses.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before say something, I don't have big complaints about FM on DCS. It is quite better than other sims like IL-2 BOS. It is pretty good. This thread is just my opinions with some calculations.

 

 

to OutOnTheOP

 

In most situation, P-51D going to engage with that fuel configuration(180gal). P-51D internal tanks can carry 271gallon of fuels. It is wing tank(186gal)+rear tank(85gal). Historically P-51D carry two 75gal external tanks. So total 421gallons of fuel.

 

When they escort bombers to bombing area, or do some other missions, most P-51D pilots want to spend rear fuel tanks when they going to engage with enemy fighters, because problem of center of gravity. However they have to go back to base, too. So in most case, P-51D going to combat with 180gal of fuel. It is the reason of most of P-51D were tested at 9,600~9,700lb configuration, too.

 

In turning combat, even high speed, the airfoil of P-51D occured more drag than Bf109. It is natural disadvantage of laminar flow wing.

 

 

to Echo38

 

That comment is not for P-51D but Bf109G-10. When he tested Bf109G-10, he could only 1.4ata and 2700U/min limitation for engine safe. As I wrote, thrust to weight ratio is important factor in turning performance. In this situation, Bf109 have disadvantage, but he said Bf109 still better.

 

Mark Hanna is most famous airshow pilots in the world in 1980~1990s. He took lots of WWII aircraft. He flyed with more than 5 Mustangs. His words have enough reliability. And that Bf109G-10 is restored by Hans Ditter. It is one of the most perfectly restored aircraft in the world. Most big difference with original one is that Bf109 cannot use MW50 for engine safe.


Edited by gomwolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hanna haven't flown G10. He flew the Buchon merlin powered 109. Pman showed us the whole article.

 

Also, in MP most people take low fuel for P-51.

And finaly, if we talk about "typical" engagements, mustang did not usually see K4 in 1944.:book:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hanna haven't flown G10. He flew the Buchon merlin powered 109. Pman showed us the whole article.

 

Also, in MP most people take low fuel for P-51.

And finaly, if we talk about "typical" engagements, mustang did not usually see K4 in 1944.:book:

 

 

1. Hanna have flown Bf109G-10.

 

Hans Ditter finished restoration of Bf109G-10 in 1995. It was Ha-1112-M1L D-FDME before restoration, but it was completely rebuilted as a Bf109G-10 in 1995. It was named Schwarz 2 at that time and Mark Hanna flown it. If you read full article you can find the sentence about restoration of Schwarz 2.

 

That aircraft renamed as Gelbe 3, now. It is managing by Flugmuseum Messerschmitte of EADS.

 

2. I don't know about server setting.(in most case, I play this game in ACG, 9./JG27, DOW server) How can I check it?

 

3. In 31st jan 1945, there is 314 Bf109K-4 in the front. Luftwaffe have 933 high altitude version(Bf109G-14/AS, Bf109G-10, Bf109K-4) Bf109. It is not big part, but not small. There is some Bf109K-4 was in the battlefield in 1944.

 

 

 

This is the link of original full article.

 

http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf


Edited by gomwolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That comment is not for P-51D but Bf109G-10. When he tested Bf109G-10, he could only 1.4ata and 2700U/min limitation for engine safe. As I wrote, thrust to weight ratio is important factor in turning performance. In this situation, Bf109 have disadvantage, but he said Bf109 still better.

 

I think you're missing my point. My point is that cutting the power to ~75%, even if done to both airplanes, screws the P-51 more than it screws the Me 109. The P-51 is more reliant on it's P/W for its horizontal maneuverability than the Me 109 is, because the Me 109 has other advantages in that area that it can rely on, in the absence of good P/W.

 

That is: take away an Me 109's good P/W (e.g. by forcing it to run at 75% of standard WEP), and it still has other things that help it remain a good turner. But take away a P-51's good P/W (e.g. by forcing it to run at 75% of standard WEP), and it's lost damn near everything that made it a good turner.

 

So, if both ships have their power limited to the military power rating (as any surviving WWII fighter does, in practice, except for those used in air races), the P-51 is more screwed than the Me 109.

 

This is why Mr. Hanna's expertise isn't as relevant as you might think, in determining how P-51s and Me 109s fared against each other in combat. His experience was with "nerfed" Mustangs, which do more poorly (for reasons I mentioned) versus similarly nerfed 109s, than the WEP-running '51s did against the WEP-running 109s (all else equal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're missing my point. My point is that cutting the power to ~75%, even if done to both airplanes, screws the P-51 more than it screws the Me 109. The P-51 is more reliant on it's P/W for its horizontal maneuverability than the Me 109 is, because the Me 109 has other advantages in that area that it can rely on, in the absence of good P/W.

 

That is: take away an Me 109's good P/W (e.g. by forcing it to run at 75% of standard WEP), and it still has other things that help it remain a good turner. But take away a P-51's good P/W (e.g. by forcing it to run at 75% of standard WEP), and it's lost damn near everything that made it a good turner.

 

So, if both ships have their power limited to the military power rating (as any surviving WWII fighter does, in practice, except for those used in air races), the P-51 is more screwed than the Me 109.

 

This is why Mr. Hanna's expertise isn't as relevant as you might think, in determining how P-51s and Me 109s fared against each other in combat. His experience was with "nerfed" Mustangs, which do more poorly (for reasons I mentioned) versus similarly nerfed 109s, than the WEP-running '51s did against the WEP-running 109s (all else equal).

 

1. Actually, Bf109K-4 limit its power to kampfleistung (1.45ata 2,600U/min - 30min limitation) it still have better power to mass ratio than P-51D' WEP.

 

At sea level - 1450PS = 1066Kw - P/W Ratio = 317W/kg

At 6,800m - 1285PS = 945Kw - P/W ratio = 281W/kg

At 10,000m - same with above

 

2. I cannot understand how can you talk WEP ws not used in history with confidence. There is lots of documents, interview, and memoirs talks about WEP in real combat.

 

3. Afaik, Mark Hanna flown 5 mustangs at least and two of them was wartime configuration(only without ammo).


Edited by gomwolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Actually, there is little weird thing on FM of DCS. In this game P-51D have almost same turning performance(Maybe P-51D little better) with Bf109K-4. Actually, Bf109K-4 is too easily stall I think.

 

 

I have some doubts about this. Show these comments.

 

Yeah, the 109 could compete with the P51, no doubt. Maneuverability was excellent. But the P51 could do it longer! But in the battle itself, the 109 certainly could compete with the P-51, even the Spitfire.

-Günther Rall. Luftwaffe Experte.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.

-Mark Hanna. Airshow pilot of Old Flying Machine Company. After flight with Bf109G-10 "Schwarz 2".

Few days ago, I asked stall speed of Bf109G to Messerschmitte Flugmuseum. Flugmuseum have three airworth Bf109s(G-4, G-6, G-10) and have lots of flight experience. I got answer about that. Thanks Flugmuseum.

Aircraft - Bf109G-4

Weigt - 5,842lb/2,650kg

Altitude - 6,000ft/1828m

Flap and undercarriage retracted

Stall Speed - 86mph/140kph

Wingarea - 16.1m²

I calculated CLmax of Bf109G based on this answer and standard atmosphere.

Standart atmospheric density of 2,000m is 1.0068kg/m³. When it conversion to kgf×s²/m⁴ is 0.102kgf×s²/m⁴.

So... CLmax=(2650*2)/[(140/3.6)²*0.102*16.1]=2.134

Bf109K-4 have bulge on cowling and wing roots, so little lower than it. I think CLmax of Bf109K-4 is around 1.96.

 

On P-51D, I found a EM chart tested by Society of Experimental Test. I found some other Documents, but there is no altitude, flap, and undercarriage situation informed.

Aircraft - P-51D 45-11586

Weight - 8,900lb/4,036kg

altitude - 10,000ft/3,048m

Flap and undercarriage retracted

Stall Speed - 111mph/178.6kph

Wingarea - 235ft²/21.83

Density on 3,000m is 0.092kgf×s²/m⁴

So... CLmax=(4036*2)/[(178.6/3.6)²*0.092*21.83]=1.63

 

It is not perfect calculation. Stall speed could be changed by weather situation. However it show us Bf109K-4 have far higher CLmax than P-51D.

 

 

In sustain turn, thrust to weight ratio is important, too. However I cannot found any information about prop effiecency of Bf109K-4 and P-51D. So I will compare power to mass ratio.

Bf109K-4 with DB605DB(2800U/min, 1.8ata)

Gross weight - 7414lb/3,363kg(One MK108 with 65 ammo + Two MG131 with 600 ammo, full fuel)

Maximum Engine Power(10min limit)

at Sea level - 1,850PS = 1,360kW

at 6,000m - 1,600PS = 1,176kW

at 10,000m - 950PS = 698kW

Power to Mass ratio

at Sea level - 404W/kg

at 6,000m - 349W/kg

at 10,000m - 207W/kg

 

P-51D with V-1650-7(3000RPM, 67"HG)

Gross weight - 9,611lb/4,359kg(Six M2 Browning with 1860 ammo, 180gal fuel)

Maximum Engine Power(5min limit)

at Sea level - 1,630HP = 1,216kW

at 20,000ft - 1,400HP = 1,044kW

at 33,000ft - 1,010HP = 753kW

Power to Mass ratio

at Sea level - 278W/kg

at 20,000ft - 239W/kg

at 33,000ft - 172W/kg

 

In all altitude, Bf109K-4 have far better power to mass ratio.

Onlything better on P-51D is wing loading. wing loading of P-51D is 199kg/m² at gross weight 9,611lb, Bf109K-4 is 208kg/m²3,363kg. Actually, it is not big difference. In addition, airfoil of P-51D is NACA45-100. It is laminar flow airfoil. It is quit good at level speed, but it have small stall angle. I cannot show this with curve, becaus my javafoil cannot make polar curve of NAA/NACA 45-100 rightly.

Drag bucket of NAA/NACA 45/100 is -0.35<Cl<0.8. AOA of same section is -4<α<6. It have less drag(0.005) at drag bucket than NACA 2R1 14.2(airfoil of Bf109). However, out of drag bucket NACA 45/100 drag is going higher, it have more drag(0.02) than NACA 2R1 14.2.

My final conclusion is Bf109K-4 have better maneuverability than P-51D. Of course, P-51D have lower stick force in high speed, but below 550kph(341mph) Bf109K-4 have better maneuverability than P-51D.

Any opinion and advice will be welcomed.

 

Why did you use IAS as TAS adding air density to the equation???

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

Why did you use IAS as TAS adding air density to the equation???

 

Oops. It is my mistake. Thanks for correction.

 

Recalculation

Bf109G-4

2650×2/[(140×3.6)^2×0.125×16.1]=1.741

I think Bf109K-4 around 1.7

 

P-51D

Same as above. It was came from EM chart. 1.63

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Oops. It is my mistake. Thanks for correction.

 

Recalculation

Bf109G-4

2650×2/[(140×3.6)^2×0.125×16.1]=1.741

I think Bf109K-4 around 1.7

 

P-51D

Same as above. It was came from EM chart. 1.63

 

And,finally, for such type of calculation you need corrected IAS and not raw, because any % of its error gives you 2% of CL error.

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

Actually, there is little weird thing on FM of DCS. In this game P-51D have almost same turning performance(Maybe P-51D little better) with Bf109K-4.

 

I completely disagree with you on this. Everytime I've fought 109s with my P-51D, I never succeeded to outturn them and I even couldn't keep up in turns.

 

Also I've tried several times 4 vs 4 with friendly p-51s set to excellent and ennemy 109s set only to good and everytime the result was a massive loss for my side. 4 x 109s still alive and I was basically the only survivor.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with you on this. Everytime I've fought 109s with my P-51D, I never succeeded to outturn them and I even couldn't keep up in turns.

 

Also I've tried several times 4 vs 4 with friendly p-51s set to excellent and ennemy 109s set only to good and everytime the result was a massive loss for my side. 4 x 109s still alive and I was basically the only survivor.

 

It is quite diffeerent experience with me. I alway do yoyo maneuver when turnfight with P-51D. Without it, I never took P-51Ds six. When I meet good skilled pilot like u4trouble or many other pilots, turning fight will be really hard things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I meet good skilled pilot, turning fight will be really hard things.

 

Exactly like it was in '44-'45 :)

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600k @3.40GHz | Motherboard: Asus P8P67-M | Memory: Kingston 8GB DDR3 | OS W10 | GPU: Sapphire R9 290x 8GBDDR5 | Monitor: Samsung Syncmaster 24" | Devices: Oculus Rift, MS FFB 2 joystick, Saitek X 52 Pro throttle, Saitek Pro pedals, Gametrix Jetseat

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is quite diffeerent experience with me. I alway do yoyo maneuver when turnfight with P-51D. Without it, I never took P-51Ds six. When I meet good skilled pilot like u4trouble or many other pilots, turning fight will be really hard things.

 

Well, you always have to do a yo-yo type of maneuver at some point, no matter which aircraft you're in or fight against. This is a basic maneuver that is essential to master in order to win a fight.

On the other hand, if you only know the yo-yo, it might explain why you have a hard time fighting against P-51s...


Edited by Nooch

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things i noticed in dcs:

 

1.The p51 with 30% fuel can still turn at lower speeds than the 109.for example 250-270 and the 109 can't sustain a turn under 290-300.

 

2.The stall characteristics of the 109 seem more vicious. Sometimes at 450 km/h it shakes like it wants to brake apart when turning.

 

it's not a problem.but it's what i observed.

 

In MP depends on skill, joystick quality etc etc.


Edited by otto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you always have to do a yo-yo type of maneuver at some point, no matter which aircraft you're in or fight against. This is a basic maneuver that is essential to master in order to win a fight.

On the other hand, if you only know the yo-yo, it might explain why you have a hard time fighting against P-51s...

 

Actually, I am talking about just circle turning performance.

 

At first I told P-51D maybe better than Bf109K-4 in this game, because I tested it. One circle turn start at 400kph altitude 1,000m. I cannot checkt turn radious but turn time was almost same. However Bf109 have flutter.

 

And of caurse, I know some other maneuvering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some things i noticed in dcs:

 

1.The p51 with 30% fuel can still turn at lower speeds than the 109.for example 250-270 and the 109 can't sustain a turn under 290-300.

 

2.The stall characteristics of the 109 seem more vicious. Sometimes at 450 km/h it shakes like it wants to brake apart when turning.

 

it's not a problem.but it's what i observed.

 

In MP depends on skill, joystick quality etc etc.

 

1. Bf109 have higher CLmax and leading edge slat. P-51D have laminar flow airfoil that have small stall angle. I cannot thing this is right.

 

2. I read some Bf109G test report that written by RAF and USAAF. All report admitted stall charactoristic of Bf109 is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with you on this. Everytime I've fought 109s with my P-51D, I never succeeded to outturn them and I even couldn't keep up in turns.

That's because you do not know to exploit the breakage wings bug.

Bf-109K4 break his wings at 6-7G´s, ..and P-51D break his wings at 9G's, .. you only need pull harder than the Bf-109 guys. :D

 

...

2.The stall characteristics of the 109 seem more vicious. Sometimes at 450 km/h it shakes like it wants to brake apart when turning.

 

it's not a problem.but it's what i observed.

 

In MP depends on skill, joystick quality etc etc.

 

I agree with you namesake, ... In DCS, The stall characteristics of the 109 seem vicious, ...and unrealistic for an aircraft with automatic slats. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
That's because you do not know to exploit the breakage wings bug.

Bf-109K4 break his wings at 6-7G´s, ..and P-51D break his wings at 9G's, .. you only need pull harder than the Bf-109 guys. :D

 

 

 

I agree with you namesake, ... In DCS, The stall characteristics of the 109 seem vicious, ...and unrealistic for an aircraft with automatic slats. :huh:

 

Slats do almost NOTHING regarding total CL max because they work only for a small part of the wing with low lift. The only one work they implemented for is to provide aileron authority just to complete stall and to avoid tip-stall leading to abrupt wing drop.


Edited by Yo-Yo

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

Slats do almost NOTHING regarding total CL max because they work only for a small part of the wing with low lift. The only one work they implemented for is to provide aileron authority just to complete stall and to avoid tip-stall leading to abrupt wing drop.

 

Now I understand :smartass:.Thanks for the explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slats do almost NOTHING regarding total CL max because they work only for a small part of the wing with low lift. The only one work they implemented for is to provide aileron authority just to complete stall and to avoid tip-stall leading to abrupt wing drop.

 

 

I cannot understand about it...

Afaik leading-edge slat make aircraft can fly more slower speed. Stall speed calculation formula is [stall speed = √(2weight)/(density×CLmax×Wingarea)]. So leading-edge slat raise total CLmax.

 

Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Bf109K-4 limit its power to kampfleistung (1.45ata 2,600U/min - 30min limitation) it still have better power to mass ratio than P-51D' WEP.

 

Once again, you miss my point. My point is not that the Me 109 has a better or worse P/W than the P-51. My point is that both aircraft running at ~75% power hurts the P-51 more than the Me 109. Low power means slower speeds, and that's where the Me 109 tends to turn better than the P-51. As you raise the power of both ships, the P-51 does better, and as you lower the power of both ships, the Me 109 does better (all else equal). I don't know why you keep avoiding this issue.

 

I cannot understand how can you talk WEP ws not used in history with confidence.

 

I never said that; I said the opposite. WEP was used in real dogfights; Mark Hanna, on the other hand, didn't use it in his comparisons (per your quotation). Ergo, his comparisons are not representative of the two fighters' actual wartime abilities. (Particularly when taking my previous point into consideration.)

 

Is English not your native language? I feel that you aren't understanding what I say--not merely a disagreement, but I say something and you think I'm saying something completely different. I'm afraid there isn't much point in trying to converse if I say "I like cats" and you think I said "I hate cats." No offense intended, but it's just too much of an obstacle to conversation. There's no way I can effectively explain anything with this degree of misunderstanding.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most situation, P-51D going to engage with that fuel configuration(180gal). P-51D internal tanks can carry 271gallon of fuels. It is wing tank(186gal)+rear tank(85gal). Historically P-51D carry two 75gal external tanks. So total 421gallons of fuel.

 

The problem with that logic is that a lot of people (who favor the German aircraft) here argue that the Mustang should not have 150 grade fuel because "the DCS Mustang is supposed to represent a 9th Tactical Air Force Mustang", but by that same logic, they would NOT be using drop tanks, because they would be, well, *tactical* aircraft on relatively short-range missions.

 

Also, we're not talking "real" conditions of the real fights; if we were, we would also have to consider the shoddy late war German quality control, poor fuel, and insufficient number of fighters. We're talking purely about the capabilities of factory-fresh, built-to-spec fighters. To make that an honest discussion, you have to take out ALL variables, not just the ones you feel like avoiding. Unless you want to go down rabbit holes about how poor Luftwaffe POL was in late '44 and '45, or that the Kurfurst *also* had to tote around a belly tank just to have the loiter time for an intercept, let's do apples to apples. Similar fuel loadout, no externals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, you miss my point. My point is not that the Me 109 has a better or worse P/W than the P-51. My point is that both aircraft running at ~75% power hurts the P-51 more than the Me 109. Low power means slower speeds, and that's where the Me 109 tends to turn better than the P-51. As you raise the power of both ships, the P-51 does better, and as you lower the power of both ships, the Me 109 does better (all else equal). I don't know why you keep avoiding this issue.

 

 

 

I never said that; I said the opposite. WEP was used in real dogfights; Mark Hanna, on the other hand, didn't use it in his comparisons (per your quotation). Ergo, his comparisons are not representative of the two fighters' actual wartime abilities. (Particularly when taking my previous point into consideration.)

 

Is English not your native language? I feel that you aren't understanding what I say--not merely a disagreement, but I say something and you think I'm saying something completely different. I'm afraid there isn't much point in trying to converse if I say "I like cats" and you think I said "I hate cats." No offense intended, but it's just too much of an obstacle to conversation. There's no way I can effectively explain anything with this degree of misunderstanding.

 

 

First. Yes you are right. I am not living in english using country and I am not good at english. And don't worry. I know that is not offense.

 

I understand what are you saying now, but still I have to say same word. Full power does not mean only high speed. Full power mean better thrust to weight ratio and better power load. In turn fight, if P-51D and Bf109K-4 engage at more than 500kph, P-51D can get some advantage cause stiff stick force of Bf109, but in sustain turn more power mean deose not mean more high speed. It means more power loading in turning performance. Limit power or not Bf109 have better factors in turning performance than P-51D.

 

Mark hanna said in that article P-51 can get altitude and avoid combat with Bf109. If P-51D have power limit It is impossible. Because Bf109G-10 have better climb rate than P-51D. It is the evidence mark hanna compare Bf109G-10 with wartime configuration P-51D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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