Some opinion about maneuverability of Bf109K-4

[Yo-Yo]

Has anybody measured the sustained and instantenious turns for both planes in DCS or it's only a forum blah-blah? :)

 

Use as a base 50% of the smallest fuel tank, than fill the same amount to the second plane.

 

It gives more forward CoG for both planes, especially for 109.

 

THen fly steady circles at SL or at 1000 m. Try several IAS to obtain the best turn rate.

[Ultra]

^^Logic ;)

[otto]

Has anybody measured the sustained and instantenious turns for both planes in DCS or it's only a forum blah-blah? :)

 

Use as a base 50% of the smallest fuel tank, than fill the same amount to the second plane.

 

It gives more forward CoG for both planes, especially for 109.

 

THen fly steady circles at SL or at 1000 m. Try several IAS to obtain the best turn rate.

 

My problems are :

1.The p51 can keep turning at lower speeds than the 109.I can still turn with a p51 at 250 km/h .With a 109 i can't turn under 290 km/h.What i read it's the other way around.

2.The 109's flaps offer 0 turn advantage in the latest DCS version.

 

 

 

As far a turn radius it's not a complaint i just turn better with the p51.That's just me.

 

 

 

The P-51 DOESN'T come close to the turn rate of the Bf109 in DCS at low speed. Unless you are a particularly incompetent pilot

 

Why do you feel the need to disrespect other people.I have a much better kill death ratio than you (that is without head tracking ,i use the mouse to look around). You don't see me disrespecting other people. Grow up man.

[NineLine]

M

Why do you feel the need to disrespect other people.I have a much better kill death ratio than you (that is without head tracking ,i use the mouse to look around). You don't see me disrespecting other people. Grow up man.

 

If we feel we need to make this personal, and this goes for anyone here, I will start deleting posts and handing out warnings. Stay on topic and be respectful to others, no matter if their opinion differs from yours or not.

[otto]

If we feel we need to make this personal, and this goes for anyone here, I will start deleting posts and handing out warnings. Stay on topic and be respectful to others, no matter if their opinion differs from yours or not.

 

So he can call other people "incompetent" at will. I'm sorry i responded to that.

[NineLine]

So he can call other people "incompetent" at will. I'm sorry i responded to that.

 

Note I said my statement said that it goes for anyone here. If you have an issue with someones post, report it, two wrongs don't make a right. Anymore questions, PM me. Don't muddy this thread further.

[Hummingbird]

My problems are :

1.The p51 can keep turning at lower speeds than the 109.I can still turn with a p51 at 250 km/h .With a 109 i can't turn under 290 km/h.What i read it's the other way around.

2.The 109's flaps offer 0 turn advantage in the latest DCS version.

 

As far a turn radius it's not a complaint i just turn better with the p51.That's just me.

 

If the above is true then there's obviously something grossly wrong in the sim.

 

For one the 109 was known for its extremely forgiving stall behavior with plenty of warning and only mild wing drop, but this is NOT what we're seeing ingame atm, the 109 being extremely twitchy near the edge. It simply goes against all that is known about the aircraft.

 

Skip Holm:

"The aircraft reacts very well to heavy maneuvering, and there is never any discomfort in pulling Gs, as wing separation and accompanying wing drop is mild, is easily noticed and dealt with by lightening up on the G. Pitch force tends to get heavy at speeds above 300 mph, but is still easily managed with a little 2-hand pull or left hand re-trimming."

 

Furthermore, due its smaller size and higher lift & power to weight ratio the Bf-109 should naturally quite easily outturn the P-51 right up until the speed at which the 109's controls lock up sufficienty to restrict sufficient deflection of its control surfaces.

 

The funny part about you feeling that you can turn better in the P-51 below 290 km/h is that in reality it is esp. in a slow speed min radius turn that the 109 has a major edge over the P-51, mainly due to a lower stall speed & better aileron authority right up until the stall.

[Ultra]

My problems are :

1.The p51 can keep turning at lower speeds than the 109.I can still turn with a p51 at 250 km/h .With a 109 i can't turn under 290 km/h.What i read it's the other way around.

 

Really? To me, at 250 km/h in the Mustang, it feels like I'm turning a boat.

[[DBS]TH0R]

Seeing how there are people who say 109 dominates P-51 in a turn, and others who get out turned by P-51s which is similar to various combat reports when all variables are not considered... I say this sim is spot on. :)

 

 

 

Has anybody measured the sustained and instantenious turns for both planes in DCS or it's only a forum blah-blah? :)

 

Use as a base 50% of the smallest fuel tank, than fill the same amount to the second plane.

 

It gives more forward CoG for both planes, especially for 109.

 

THen fly steady circles at SL or at 1000 m. Try several IAS to obtain the best turn rate.

 

That. :thumbup: Fire up the game, take both planes in the air and do some measurements instead of quoting others here. There are simply too many variables to consider. From pilot skill, plane loadout to the actual controller used and possible curvature settings.

 

Preferably record a track.

[gomwolf]

Ah... It is definitly not I intented.

 

For finish arguement about in game performace, I will test it after work. (I am living in asia. 6am here now.) And make it as a video and upload it here.

[Teapot]

Really? To me, at 250 km/h in the Mustang, it feels like I'm turning a boat.

 

Agreed.

IMO the 109 is much more forgiving in a sustained coordinated turn than the Mustang.

 

@Otto .... On the face of it that sounds odd. While my observation is only via my general observation (haven't actually done a *proper* substantiated by numbers kinda thing ... will try to remember to do that when I get home).

 

No disrespect, but make sure that the metric conversion is done before comparing, because isn't the P51-D in Mph?

 

250 Kph = 155.34 Mph; and

250 Mph = 402.33 Kph

 

... just on the extremely unlikely chance that it's not being factored in. :D

[NakedSquirrel]

I find the 109 turns much easier than the P51. I almost feel like I'm clubbing baby seals when I fly the 109. It's a very maneuverable and light aircraft compared to the P51.

 

Do you have tracks or video of your encounters? It's possible you're fighting enemy aircraft that have an energy advantage on you. An extra 500m or 50mph can make a world of difference in air combat.

 

I find the 109 doesn't turn well at higher speeds, and you risk stressing the air frame, so I generally prefer trying to gain an energy advantage.

[GrapeJam]

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

 

Case: Me 109 G-2

There are some trustworthy numbers of the 109s as well. The Finnish test flight report of Me 109 G-2 "MT-215" was flown 6.5.1943 by captain Pekka Kokko, famoust Finnish test pilot, with a regular combat squadron plane with full combat equipment, including all ammo for all guns and full fuel load. The report specifically mentions the radiators opening fully at some points during the climb test. The max-speed tests were run with the radiators manually shut. Its level speed peaked at about 6400 meters at roughly 645 km/h on 30 minute power setting. The climb rate peaked at 2000 meters when the plane grabbed altitude 24,7 meters per minute. Height/climbrate: 3000m / 18,9 m/sec - 4000 m / 17,2 m/sec - 5000 m / 17,2 m/sec - 6000 m / 15,1 m/sec - 7000 m / 13,4 m/sec - 8000 m / 13,7 m/sec, 9000 m / 9,0 m/sec, 10 000 m / 5,9 m/sec. Climb to 4000 meters: 3,2 mins - 5000 meters: 4,1 mins - 6000 meters: 5,1 mins and 8000 meters: 7,6 minutes.

Other data: stall speed clean 170 km/h (could not be clearly defined). The nose sunk and the plane banked calmly to the right wing. At landing configuration the stall speed was 145 km/h. With full power the plane could be held hanging from the prop at 60° nose-up attitude ASI showing 130-140 km/h. Up to 350 km/h with a hard pull in the bank plane could be stalled (!) At 1000m altitude 180° turn required 10 s (G-2), starting speed 450 km/h, final speed 380 km/h. Full circle 18 s with final speed 330 km/h. Full 360° bank required 22 s with 360 km/h, bank angle 70° acceleration 3 g.

170km/h (105mph), even assuming that this is TAS, that's very close to the P51D's stall speed at 9500lbs in CAS. And I doubt the 400kg heavier K4 would fair better.

[Teapot]

Nice! Thanks GrapeJam!

[[DBS]TH0R]

Indeed, nice find. That prop hanging was among one of my first impressions when I took her for a spin the first time.

[Hummingbird]

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

 

170km/h (105mph), even assuming that this is TAS, that's very close to the P51D's stall speed at 9500lbs in CAS. And I doubt the 400kg heavier K4 would fair better.

 

Unless we know the altitude its not much use, not to mention that it "couldn't be clearly defined", also note a max climb rate of 24.7 m/s (4,862 ft/min).

[Teapot]

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

 

170km/h (105mph), even assuming that this is TAS, that's very close to the P51D's stall speed at 9500lbs in CAS. And I doubt the 400kg heavier K4 would fair better.

 

Using DCS as my source, it has the 109K weighing in @ approx 6173 lbs empty weight, whereas the Mustang weighs in @ 7824 lbs ... which makes the Mustang a whole 1651 lbs heavier (approx 749 kg ... sorry, I don't understand what you're saying).

[GrapeJam]

Unless we know the altitude its not much use, not to mention that it "couldn't be clearly defined", also note a max climb rate of 24.7 m/s (4,862 ft/min).

 

Oh c'mon, do you think stall speed in TAS gets lower with higher altitude or something? Plus air war on the Eastern front was all low altitude, usually tree top level so there's a good change it's at SL.

 

British test of captured G2/trop had stall speed of 112mph IAS clean, seems pretty agreeable to me.

 

Regarding the climbrate, Finland's pretty cold so it should increase engine's power at low altitude because of denser air.

Edited April 16, 2015 by GrapeJam

[GrapeJam]

Using DCS as my source, it has the 109K weighing in @ approx 6173 lbs empty weight, whereas the Mustang weighs in @ 7824 lbs ... which makes the Mustang a whole 1651 lbs heavier (approx 749 kg ... sorry, I don't understand what you're saying).

The K4 is 400kg heavier than the G2.

[Hummingbird]

Oh c'mon, do you think stall speed in TAS gets lower with higher altitude or something? Plus air war on the Eastern front was all low altitude, usually tree top level so there's a good change it's at SL.

 

Do you honestly believe he would stall the aircraft at SL ?

 

The most telling thing to note from the Finnish report is the ability to stay in the air at 130 km/h (80 mph) with power on, which goes to demonstrate the effectiveness of the slats once the propwash adds the extra lift to the root section, bringing span wise lift to equilibrium, just as intended. Without any power and propwash to energize the root section the slats wouldn't have influenced the overall lift much (the root section simply stalling out before the slats could add much extra lift), but with the engine on and the root section able to match the lift of the outboard section an enormous amount of extra lift was gained from the addition of the slats. (Which is the reason behind their size & placement on the wing)

 

In other words, if you didn't have any propwash to energize that root section then the slats wouldn't add much extra lift over regular washout (maybe 5%), but who's going to dogfight with their engine off? ;)

 

For comparison the F4U could also just keep itself airbone at 83 mph, power on, clean. That's pretty much the same as the 109. And as already mentioned it easily outturned the P-51 in comparative trials.

 

British test of captured G2/trop had stall speed of 112mph IAS clean, seems pretty agreeable to me.

 

I A S....

 

Are you honestly now going to suggest that the P-51 has a lower stall speed than the 109?

 

Regarding the climbrate, Finland's pretty cold so it should increase engine's power at low altitude because of denser air.

 

To the point of 4,862 ft/min ?

Edited April 16, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

The K4 is 400kg heavier than the G2.

 

And features 400+ more horsepower to energize that root section, thus the power on stall speed clean was probably the same 130 km/h.

[GrapeJam]

Do you honestly believe he would stall the aircraft at SL ?

 

Wonder where all the SL stall speed figures came from.

 

The most telling thing to note from the Finnish report is the ability to stay in the air at 130 km/h (80 mph) with power on, which goes to demonstrate the effectiveness of the slats once the propwash adds the extra lift to the root section, bringing span wise lift to equilibrium, just as intended. Without any power and propwash to energize the root section the slats wouldn't have influenced the overall lift much (the root section simply stalling out before the slats could add much extra lift), but with the engine on and the root section able to match the lift of the outboard section an enormous amount of extra lift was gained from the addition of the slats. (Which is the reason behind their size & placement on the wing)

 

In other words, if you didn't have any propwash to energize that root section then the slats wouldn't add much extra lift over regular washout (maybe 5%), but who's going to dogfight with their engine off? ;)

 

For comparison the F4U could also just keep itself airbone at 83 mph, power on, clean. That's pretty much the same as the 109. And as already mentioned it easily outturned the P-51 in comparative trials.

Is that why the G2 only managed a sustain turn time of 20s at SL?

 

And I'm fully expecting you to bring up Soviet test of the P51(which only managed 483km/h, for a production plane that achieved 548km/h at SL.

Compared to this:

Don't tell me the 4 LMGs that don't stick out much plus 500lbc can cause such a degrade in performance.

 

 

And even then the prototype which was even more underpowered managed 316mph at SL.

 

 

I A S....

 

Are you honestly now going to suggest that the P-51 has a lower stall speed than the 109?

Power off, who knows. But I do think compared to the late variant both should be pretty close.

 

 

To the point of 4,862 ft/min ?

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MT215/109G2_MT215_en.html

 

The results of climb test are naturally somewhat inaccurate,

as no special test flight instrumentation were available. The spread

in the measurements on climb rate curve is partially due to opening

of the radiator flaps. Velocity was higher than optimal to improve

cooling.

But also remember that the Finns climbed at high speed, more cooling, plus cold weather = less radiator drag, better climb rate.

[GrapeJam]

And features 400+ more horsepower to energize that root section, thus the power on stall speed clean was probably the same 130 km/h.

 

Funny thing that I've never heard of heavier version but with much higher power to weight ratio turn as well as the lighter version. I think Germans experten would disagree with you.

[[DBS]TH0R]

... which goes to demonstrate the effectiveness of the slats once the propwash adds the extra lift to the root section, bringing span wise lift to equilibrium, just as intended. Without any power and propwash to energize the root section the slats wouldn't have influenced the overall lift much (the root section simply stalling out before the slats could add much extra lift), but with the engine on and the root section able to match the lift of the outboard section an enormous amount of extra lift was gained from the addition of the slats. (Which is the reason behind their size & placement on the wing)

 

Any documentation to back this theory up?

[GrapeJam]

Considering that the Yak 3 had a wingloading of 183kg/m2, which is 5 kg lower than the G2. Airfoil: Clark YH, which has similar clmax to the 109's airfoil, about the same powerloading, has no slats, yet totally own the 109G2 in turning I seriously think he's overestimating the effect of the slats.