Bf109k4 adjustded drag - 1.5.3

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

The 109 feels SO GREAT!

 

I don't know if it's the new drag fine tuning, it simply is a true CHARM to fly and combat with :-)

[Ala13_ManOWar]

At sea level IAS and TAS should be the same, only difference being wind. If you turn off wind then it will be the same. :)

Negative mate, that's a conception mistake. @SL, and if QNH = 1013.25 and Tª = 15º C, then and only then TAS = IAS. Whatever other atmospheric conditions TAS =/= IAS even @SL.

 

S!

[humptydumpty]

TAS is 2% higher every 1000 ft IIRC.

 

Ya she feels great to fly now .

Edited February 23, 2016 by humptydumpty

[Hummingbird]

Alright tested the K-4 today at SL for the first time since the patch, achieved an average of 592 km/h (+- 2 km/h) IAS. (598-600 km/h TAS)

 

So you did match the charts after all, why didn't you just say that to begin with ? :D Man all this fuss for nothing ^^

 

Credit where credit is due: Well done ED.

[rel4y]

If you slightly open rads though, you can go nowhere near as fast. German level speed tests were (mostly) done with rads 3/4 closed. When doing that I cant reach 580 kph, so jet thrust from the rads must be contributing quite a lot. I cant imagine that the radiator drag per se would decrease a lot when closing the rad flaps by ~5cm. At least not from almost closed to fully closed.

 

To be clear, I still think everything is perfectly fine. I am merely thinking out loud. :book: I am probably opening the rads more than how it was done in WW2 tests.

Edited February 23, 2016 by rel4y

[Hummingbird]

Yes my speeds were achieved with rads nearly closed as well, once the engine gets hot I reach about 581-583 km/h.

 

In short we have a K-4 that meets the minimum performance requirements, an average one would be faster according to the original charts. But I'm OK with this as long as the same deal is applied to all sides.

[NineLine]

 

So you did match the charts after all, why didn't you just say that to begin with ? :D Man all this fuss for nothing ^^

 

Well I generally check my tracks with tacview, in this case I wasnt able to till a few days later, at which point you had already self-destructed... I did kinda thought you would have checked that too... which is why I didnt look at it right away either.

Edited February 23, 2016 by NineLine

[Hummingbird]

Well I generally check my tracks with tacview, in this case I wasnt able to till a few days later, at which point you had already self-destructed... I did kinda thought you would have checked that too... which is why I didnt look at it right away either.

 

I didn't get a chance to test it until today myself. Also I do put a lot of trust in official words, so when you said that Yo Yo said 580 then I took that as definitive, and had the K-4 truly only been able to achieve 580 it would've been both very odd & disappointing to say the least. I was pleasantly surprised to find these words to be conservative however.

[NineLine]

I didn't get a chance to test it until today myself. Also I do put a lot of trust in official words, so when you said that Yo Yo said 580 then I took that as definitive, and had the K-4 truly only been able to achieve 580 it would've been both very odd & disappointing to say the least. I was pleasantly surprised to find these words to be conservative however.

 

Well in your defence, I could have been more clear on whether I was referencing IAS or TAS, etc.