Bf-109 K-4 Air Combat Performance

[Krupi]

Ironically I find the 30mm easier to hit with than the 20mm... I really need to practice some more in the Dora :helpsmilie:

[gavagai]

I can hit maneuvering targets with the 30mm.... but I can hit them from three times as far away with the .50s.

 

+1

 

The 30mm is an anti-bomber cannon. It is better than the gondola cannons that were foolishly installed on many Gustavs, but it is still a handicap against fighters.

 

I would have preferred a 109G with a 20mm in the nose to the K-4.

[Krupi]

+1

 

The 30mm is an anti-bomber cannon. It is better to have than the gondola cannons that were foolishly installed on many Gustavs, but it is still a handicap against fighters.

 

I would have preferred a 109G with a 20mm in the nose to the K-4.

 

You really need to test the 30mm and 20mm in game and then you will delete this statement :megalol:

 

It takes one 30mm to knock a fighter out of the sky compared to the 20mm which you need a lot more, luckily you have plenty of ammo in the Dora

 

P S. If the 30mm had the same flaws in game than in real life I would agree with you aka jamming

Edited October 23, 2015 by Krupi

[gavagai]

I still beg to differ, and I have plenty of experience with both aircraft by now. I will refer you to this argument I made in your 109 vs 190 thread:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2524240&postcount=53

 

The 190D-9. It handles more smoothly; it's faster; the controls are light; it has a truckload of ammunition.

 

The 109K-4 is very competitive for online combat where the density of aircraft is very low. I think that makes it appear better than it really is. The cannon's usefulness is restricted to:

 

1) bombers

2) opponents who are distracted chasing your teammate

3) opponents who are completely tumbleweed

4) opponents low and slow near the ground

 

In multiplayer combat we *want* a dogfight, so even your skilled opponents will end up in situation 4.

 

The 190D-9, on the other hand, is very good for situation 5:

 

5) You spot a lower opponent; you attack; he does everything in his power to maneuver defensively.

 

Only with the 190D-9 do you have good odds of shooting him down on the first pass, and with plenty of airspeed to immediately extricate yourself from his angry friends. With the 109 the controls are stiff at a mere 400km/h, so you put yourself at risk when you slow down to maneuver for the shot. Worse yet, your astute opponents will keep their airspeed up until help arrives, exploiting your sluggish control authority above 400km/h.

[Krupi]

Yes in this respect I agree, my experience is with dogfight servers hopefully situation 5 (the realistic one) will come when we get some Ai bombers etc a mission/objective server

[MiloMorai]

BTW even the usual two staged Merlin engine curves lie a bit since in practice, when installed on the actual aircraft the 2nd speed is engaged by an automatic gear change at given altidude, not neccesarily at the point where the two gears are "even" in power, so its not optimal as on the graps but kicks in a bit too early and so there is a sudden "sawtooth" drop in power due to that... But I suppose since DCS has all the systems modelled (separate supercharger stages, separate automatics to shift them) ;)

 

The 2cd speed also disengages at a lower altitude when coming down than when engaged going up.

[DieHard]

I'm certainly not an ace and since I don't have a TrackIR I'm seriously handicapped in a dogfight situation. However I observe what happens when AI flying Bf-109 meet P-51 and when FW-190 meet P-51.

Per my observations, the FW-190 and P-51 seem to be at similar performance levels, maybe with a slight edge for the P-51.

But when AI flying the Bf-109 encounter AI flying P-51 the Bf-109 seems significantly superior.

I have played the FW-190 mission "Furball" quite a few times and I had to modify it in order to give the Doras a chance to win. I even added two OSA SA-8 SAM's near the airfield. Now the Doras win more often than the Mustangs, but they still suffer heavy losses.

Now I have copied that modified mission for the Kurfürst (replacing all Doras with Kurfürsts). Even after making significant changes, reducing the Kurfürsts number by 3 and removing the SAM's, it's still a massacre with all the Mustangs splashed and the Kurfürsten having only light losses.

This makes me wonder whether the performance model of the Kurfürst is realistic. Or that of the AI pilots flying it.

 

I only fly against the SP AI to get a feel for the aircraft I am testing. The AI guys are pretty darn good, but they are consistently too good.

 

I fly the various WWII servers 99% of the time. There is a mix of across the board real player skill levels. For me, so far, the 109 is below performance compared to my 190 or P-51. My favorite is the 190. The 190 is not a turn fighter. 190 can outrun a P-51 on a flat out run. Get separation. Come back at it.

 

The European ACG server usually has a mix of real guys and also AI mixed in.

 

In the hands of a real sim pro, simulation flying the various DCS combat aircraft, any of these aircraft fighting against them is a real challenge.

 

I don't use TrackIR. I have it, I just don't like it. I set myself up with a hat button to include: slow zoom in and out, zoom normal, and Numpad 5 central view and another hat button for looking around. And 2 custom snap-views are looking back of my tail, both sides.

[LeCuvier]

How many rounds does the MK-108 cannon have?

 

I just did a bit of practice shooting using the quick-start mission Bf-109 K-4 Intercept EN.miz with 4 C-130's as easy targets. After downing all 4 I reviewed the debriefing data to see how many of my rounds had hit target.

To my surprise I found that I had hit with 98 rounds of 30mm projectiles. According to the flight manual, the MK-108 has only 65 rounds available. Now I'm wondering whether the sim incorrectly allows me to fire 98 of the 30mm rounds (which would overstate the fighting power of the Kurfürst), or whether the counting of hits is wrong. Track file is attached for verification.

I'd appreciate some input from the experts.

[NineLine]

The debriefings have issues, I am not sure if its counting how many hit boxes one round hits, or how exactly you are supposed to be read those. But they do seem to be off.

[Crumpp]

The 190 is not a turn fighter. 190 can outrun a P-51 on a flat out run. Get separation. Come back at it.

 

I have had much success using a lag turn against the P-51 in the FW-190D series in DCS.

[Krupi]

I have had much success using a lag turn against the P-51 in the FW-190D series in DCS.

 

+1

 

On the east front the 190 was used as a turn fighter and the 109 was the boom and zoom aircraft (probably due to the heavy controls of the 109 and it's superior rate of climb).

 

Kurt Tank designed the 190 controls with push rods to reduce the force required by the pilot to move the ailerons reducing pilot fatigue. Unfortunately that is something we cannot model in a sim.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Krupi

[Yo-Yo]

+1

 

On the east front the 190 was used as a turn fighter and the 109 was the boom and zoom aircraft (probably due to the heavy controls of the 109 and it's superior rate of climb).

 

Kurt Tank designed the 190 controls with push rods to reduce the force required by the pilot to move the ailerons reducing pilot fatigue. Unfortunately that is something we cannot model in a sim.

 

It was not a push rod desgn but very effective hinge moment compensation of large ailerons.

[Krupi]

I see, thanks for the clarification :)

[Pilum]

The 190D9 "Ersatzteilliste" mentions "Stosstange" i.e. pushrods and in the picture below the linkage that connects the ailerons to the control column look very much like a rod system. The 190A series also have a pushrod system for the ailerons AFAIK.

[Pilum]

A small anecdote: I can actually personally testify that the stick forces to move the ailerons on a Fw-190A are small and that there was very little friction in the system. ;)

 

When I was a kid I visited the National War Museum I think it was in Johannesburg SA and in those days the cockpit was open and you could actually lean in. I distinctly remember the feel of moving the stick and the squeak it make. The crate had been sitting outside (under a roof) for 30 years by that time but it still moved smoothly.

 

Probably as close as I'm gonna get to flying a Warbird.......

[Krupi]

It uses a rod system however it is bit different ircc.

 

Essentially you have only slight movements at the start and then more the further you push it, this allows finer control.

 

So rather than say a straight line on a graph the input is like an exponential curve... That is way I see it anyway.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Krupi

[Krupi]

A small anecdote: I can actually personally testify that the stick forces to move the ailerons on a Fw-190A are small and that there was very little friction in the system. ;)

 

When I was a kid I visited the National War Museum I think it was in Johannesburg SA and in those days the cockpit was open and you could actually lean in. I distinctly remember the feel of moving the stick and the squeak it make. The crate had been sitting outside (under a roof) for 30 years by that time but it still moved smoothly.

 

Probably as close as I'm gonna get to flying a Warbird.......

 

I am jealous I would love to sit in a 190 cockpit... I will just have to make do with the replica I am slowly making :D

[Crumpp]

I am pretty sure Yo-Yo knows the ailerons of the FW-190 utilized push rods. Push rods do tend to have lighter forces than conventional cables are immune to stretch. That is only part of the picture.

 

The ailerons are aerodynamically balanced (Frise Type), mass balanced, a proper hinge location, aileron sizing, and torsional stiffness for both the aileron and the wing.

 

All of that combined adds up to careful attention to the hinge moments (control forces).

 

It is a lot more than just push rods.

 

That being said, the FW-190 was laterally unstable at the stall and aileron vibration (flow separation) along with the corresponding rolling moment was the first indication of the stall point. Sort of like the Spitfire tail buffeted first warning of the impending stall, the FW-190's ailerons experienced the first signs of flow separation.

 

Additionally, lateral instability occurred at high altitude and Indicated air speeds. I would have thought that was a mach effect but it appears related to the rigging as in badly adjusted ailerons, it is present on take off. Maybe an overbalanced??

Edited October 28, 2015 by Crumpp
added "rods"

[Rogue Trooper]

Nice thread, a very enjoyable read.

I Gotta fly these old crates more often!

[theGozr]

K4 was heavy and wouldn't turn as much as his predecessors .. What we have now appear to be powered by a jet turbine and light like a glider.. Nothing slow him down

Stick forces input should be more loose at slow speeds

Edited November 11, 2015 by theGozr

[Hummingbird]

The K-4 might have been heavier but it also had a lot more power which is important in sustained turns. Furthermore it featured improvements in terms of reducing drag by use of landing gear wheel well covers and a fully retractable tailwheel.

 

Atm I am however under the impression that it suffers from too low a Clmax, esp. as MTT tests established one of 1.48 without the slats and wing tips. The ingame K-4 does not even feature a CLmax of 1.48, that is for sure.

[Echo38]

The ingame K-4 does not even feature a CLmax of 1.48, that is for sure.

 

How did you measure it?

[NineLine]

How did you measure it?

 

Maybe this ;)

 

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/wind-tunnel/id381971296?mt=8

 

Seriously though... I would like to know as well... They said Dale Earnhardt could see the air in the draft... maybe the same thing here?

[Crumpp]

How did you measure it?

 

Simple math using the lift formula.

[NineLine]

Simple math using the lift formula.

 

Cool, what is the math that you can get this from the sim, would love to know it.