P-51D vs 109K-4 sustained turn in 1.5

[gavagai]

I've been flying the P-51D on ACG and I find myself edging out 109K-4 pilots in sustained turns more easily than in 1.2 (I know it's a human because of how they fly and the bail/crash message). Naturally, there is a lot of subjectivity in this impression, but have others noticed the same? The 109K-4 engine power is supposed to be slightly reduced in 1.5 compared to 1.2?

 

I'm posting this here because it's about both aircraft, not just one.:)

[Zompa]

Could be a lot of variables if it's a human player. Also situation. Engine management, self awareness and/or usage of flaps. Speed and altitude. Victor goes to pilot with less mistakes. But who knows they could of tweaked the k-4 in 1.5. Was on multiplayer last night first time since 1.5 in hoping to find a 109 but no luck, shot down a 190 though. Loved how there was no jerk in FPS when the damage model would kick in.

[Yo-Yo]

I've been flying the P-51D on ACG and I find myself edging out 109K-4 pilots in sustained turns more easily than in 1.2 (I know it's a human because of how they fly and the bail/crash message). Naturally, there is a lot of subjectivity in this impression, but have others noticed the same? The 109K-4 engine power is supposed to be slightly reduced in 1.5 compared to 1.2?

 

I'm posting this here because it's about both aircraft, not just one.:)

 

Possibly yes, because of an old known issue, but I am surprised if it is merged in public beta only now.

[Kurfürst]

Did anyone test the respective best turn times for them in DCS 1,5? I am curious.

[Solty]

Possibly yes, because of an old known issue, but I am surprised if it is merged in public beta only now.

Great to hear its comfirmed fixed now. Thx YoYo

[gavagai]

There hasn't been much player vs player combat recently until 1.5, so that could be why it has gone unnoticed. People are excited to fly again.

[Hummingbird]

If the P-51 edges out the 109 in a sustained or instantanous turn then something is completely out of whack.

 

But then again it's been confirmed that ED is using windtunnel figures for the P-51 assuming a completely smooth airfoil, which means atm it is enjoying an unrealistically high CLmax nowehere near achievable by any of the wartime operational aircraft.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Crumpp]

 

But then again it's been confirmed that ED is using windtunnel figures for the P-51 assuming a completely smooth airfoil, which means atm it is enjoying an unrealistically high CLmax nowehere near achievable by any of the wartime operational aircraft.

 

 

Which is what they should be using Hummingbird. There is also nothing wrong with the P-51's CLmax.

[t4trouble]

I've outturned 109's in a P51 and I've outturned P51's in a 109 all PvP.I think a lot of this comes down to how many hours you have flown in the said a/c.The person with many hours under his or hers belt is gonna make short work with some 1 with very few no matter what their flying of the 3 planes we have.

 

I think the P51 and the 109 are a very close match and who ever comes out on top was the better pilot in that fight.I had fights were I easily outturned the 109 and others I had to break out of the turn fight to stop my engine blowing.There is so many skill levels online its hard to get a conclusion

and needs a proper test with stop watches and all the other info that goes with testing.

[Hummingbird]

Which is what they should be using Hummingbird. There is also nothing wrong with the P-51's CLmax.

 

Why use windtunnel figures for perfect condition smooth airfoils when the real life wings featured no such thing?

[MiloMorai]

Why use windtunnel figures for perfect condition smooth airfoils when the real life wings featured no such thing?

 

Why model the perfectly manufactured German a/c when they were actually far from that?

 

USAAF mechs spent hours buffing and polishing a/c.

[Hummingbird]

Why model the perfectly manufactured German a/c when they were actually far from that?

 

USAAF mechs spent hours buffing and polishing a/c.

 

They aren't, the German aircraft are given operational figures whilst the P-51 is not, that's the problem.

 

Conventional airfoils don't suffer as much from surface roughness as does the laminar flow ones, esp. under high AoA's.

[Hummingbird]

Also looking at landing speeds where the Fw190 & P-51 are very similar, there's no way the Fw190 didn't have a higher CLmax than the P-51 considering the difference in wing loading.

 

Landing speeds:

 

Fw190D9 = ~172 km/h

P-51D = ~170 km/h

Bf-109K4 = ~150 km/h

Edited October 9, 2015 by Hummingbird

[NineLine]

Possibly yes, because of an old known issue, but I am surprised if it is merged in public beta only now.

 

Many updates were held back because of the large merging of 1.5/2.0 so it is very likely things you thought were fixed a while ago just made it into the sim in 1.5

[MiloMorai]

They aren't, the German aircraft are given operational figures whilst the P-51 is not, that's the problem.

 

Conventional airfoils don't suffer as much from surface roughness as does the laminar flow ones, esp. under high AoA's.

So a/c were pulled from operational units to obtain the performance numbers? Never heard of that being done for German a/c.

[NineLine]

I am not sure a dogfight encounter on a server is always going to yield true results anyways. Most stuff I have messed with I can still out turn a P-51 with my 109... Maybe it was someone that decided to trim for level flight :D

[Hummingbird]

So a/c were pulled from operational units to obtain the performance numbers? Never heard of that being done for German a/c.

 

We're not talking speed & climb rate performance here, but airfoil performance, and laminar flow airfoils performed noticably worse on the real aircraft than in the windtunnels, esp. compared to the more conventional airfoils such as the NACA 23XXX series.

 

This was the case as it was quite simply impossible to manufacture a full scale aircraft with a wing surface as smooth and free of bumps as you could with a windtunnel mock up.

[Crumpp]

Why use windtunnel figures for perfect condition smooth airfoils when the real life wings featured no such thing?

 

The standard roughness is there to show a worse case scenario and was actually developed to help predict icing event behaviors.

 

Unfortunately, the mechanism for icing accumulation has not been well understood until recently. So the system was not without its flaws.

 

Research on the aerodynamic effects due to surface roughness and protuberances [5, 6] began in the 1930s.

These and similar studies identified the leading edge as the most sensitive region for surface roughness. In 1938, Gulick [7] tested an aspect ratio 6 wing in the Langley Full-Scale Tunnel with roughness intended to simulate an ice accretion. He found a 25% reduction in maximum lift and a 90% increase in drag for the conditions tested.

 

http://icing.ae.illinois.edu/papers/05/Iced%20Airfoil%20Aerodynamics.pdf

 

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/3726.pdf

 

Standard roughness is coating the airplane in sandpaper.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a951598.pdf

Edited October 9, 2015 by Crumpp

[Hummingbird]

You don't even need to look at std. roughness figures to see a difference in CLmax, even with a smooth surface there's a noticable difference between the laminar flow airfoils and the conventional ones.

 

The higher CLmax of the 190's wing is also confirmed by its similar landing speed, whilst the 109 features one over 20 km/h slower.

[Kurfürst]

Landing speeds are very, very heavily influenced by flaps... thus might not be a good basis for maneuvering comparison.

[Barrett_g]

Plus 1944 wind is totally different than today's wind! ;)

[Crumpp]

Landing speeds are very, very heavily influenced by flaps... thus might not be a good basis for maneuvering comparison.

 

Correct, It should not be used and tells you nothing about maneuvering flight.

[Crumpp]

Plus 1944 wind is totally different than today's wind! ;)

 

 

That is why Re is used as a scaling factor.....

 

:megalol:

[Hummingbird]

Landing speeds are very, very heavily influenced by flaps... thus might not be a good basis for maneuvering comparison.

 

Well yes, but it still tells us roughly the difference in lift in general, esp. between the 109 and P-51 as they feature the same flap design.

 

The 109 benefits from the LE slats increasing the lift of the outboard section to match that of the inboard section which is always higher in addition to being energized by the propwash, thus raising the overal CLmax of the wing.

 

This is why the 109 is mentioned as being far more maneuverable than the P-51 at the speeds where its' controls don't lock up, and even close to the Spitfire.

[Crumpp]

Well yes, but it still tells us roughly the difference in lift in general, esp. between the 109 and P-51 as they feature the same flap design.

 

The 109 benefits from the LE slats increasing the lift of the outboard section to match that of the inboard section which is always higher in addition to being energized by the propwash, thus raising the overal CLmax of the wing.

 

This is why the 109 is mentioned as being far more maneuverable than the P-51 at the speeds where its' controls don't lock up, and even close to the Spitfire.

 

It was calculated to confirm or deny if a CLmax of 1.58 listed on Focke Wulf GmbH document, "Widerstandaten von Flugzeugen" (Drag Data for Aircraft) represents Landing configuration or clean configuration.