72"

[BuzzU]

Yes they were both coming out of their dives at that point, so this speed isn't representative of their level top speed, which is why it went down once the planes flew straight and level for a while.

 

 

I know. I stated that in one of my previous posts. We don't really know if accelerating to their top speed would be different.

 

If someone wanted to extend away they probably would be coming out of some sort of dive, so his test may be more accurate for what happens online.

[Kurfürst]

It's going to be interesting when the P-47 is available

 

yes it will. the first time a jug dives in from 10 or 12 thousand feet AND turns with a 109 while he's being flamed then helplessly watching the jug zoom climb away will most likely cause a change of tactics on the axis side

 

When a 3.3 ton aircraft cannot be beaten in the 4.5 ton aircraft, expect a 7 ton aircraft to be able to do it. Because reasons.

[BuzzU]

When a 3.3 ton aircraft cannot be beaten in the 4.5 ton aircraft, expect a 7 ton aircraft to be able to do it. Because reasons.

 

Yet, it was done in real life.

[CripesAMighty]

Because reasons.

 

Reasons like the majority of people here being pilots who fly competitively online and understand that performance numbers aren't everything in winning an engagment, while you are an office clerk more concerned with filing documents.

[OnlyforDCS]

Flying a P47 is going to take even more patience than flying a Mustang. You need to be high and fast. Never get pulled into a turning fight, and if you don't have an energy advantage extend and rejoin when you do. It's not particularily exciting and takes a lot of skill to do effectively. Most people are going to get completely thrashed by the 109 and the Dora. Then they are going to blame the plane, instead of their poor skills and judgement. Just like with the Mustang right now.

[BuzzU]

The P-47 was forced into escort because it had the most range at the time. Once the P-51 took over as an escort it did a better job against German fighters. The P-47 was then used as a ground attack dive bomber. It was excellent in that role.

 

If anybody thinks the P-47 will do well against the German planes in a dogfight will be fooling themselves and fail.

 

The German planes were designed for close air dogfights. Don't let them play to their strength by engaging them on their terms.

 

We didn't win the war by being stupid.

[Echo38]

I still don't think this would help the average pilot by 1% if he stays on the Deck and at most it might give a pro 3% gain in some strange 500 to 1 circumstance, because he shouldn't be using the P-51 alone on the deck in the first place.

 

Alone, not alone, on the deck or not—3% higher top speed is 3% higher top speed. If we're going to assume average improvements in success rate, 3% more success rate on average is the logical one, for any but a foolish pilot who doesn't know how & when to extend. And that 3% is when ignoring (as you are, to the further detriment of the accuracy of your assessment) the increases in acceleration and climb (and turn), which are more like ~7%. So, average improvement for most pilots should be around 5%, not your insanely pessimistic 0.2%.

 

Momentum allows a fighter the ability to retain energy more efficiently. That means that a low drag, high speed fighter like the Mustang can maneuver more efficiently in a BnZ, allowing him to quickly gain on a lighter maneuvering target, or quickly escape a lighter enemy on his six.

 

Like I said, this is true when the engines are off, or at low power settings, but at what point does thrust/mass matter more than momentum, for a maneuver such as a zoom climb or hammerhead (which is, again, the only type of maneuver where momentum can be utilized—unless you can list another)? I suspect that point occurs before 67". You say it doesn't; on what basis do you make this claim?

 

Flying a P47 is going to take even more patience than flying a Mustang. You need to be high and fast. Never get pulled into a turning fight, and if you don't have an energy advantage extend and rejoin when you do.

 

Yes, it's going to be like the Mustang, but more so. It's going to similarly have a bad chance against the 109 at lower altitudes (i.e. 90%+ of multiplayer engagements), if it doesn't also have one of its higher historical WEP ratings. Even with, turning with a 109 is a terrible idea unless you know you have the great upper hand in some way.

 

Edit: by "like the Mustang but more so" I don't mean "more powerful," I mean like more "you don't want to turn with a 109 at low altitudes." If it's factory-boosted, I expect the P-47 won't even be able to get away, at low altitudes; IIRC, the factory P-47D was slower than the factory 109K at sea level.

 

We didn't win the war by being stupid.

 

We didn't win the war at all. None of us here were alive back then. I'm not making niggling over semantics; it was long enough ago, and a different enough culture, that we can only objectively look at it as "they."

Edited April 29, 2017 by Echo38

[OnlyforDCS]

 

 

Like I said, this is true when the engines are off, or at low power settings, but at what point does thrust/mass matter more than momentum, for a maneuver such as a zoom climb or hammerhead (which is, again, the only type of maneuver where momentum can be utilized—unless you can list another)? I suspect that point occurs before 67". You say it doesn't; on what basis do you make this claim?

 

 

 

You are missing the point and again inserting unrelated claims to support an absurd stance. I base my claim on the entire history of energy fighting in World War II.

 

Thrust is important, but it is MORE important to the 109. Why? Because it is a lighter plane. And it will use its superior thrust/weight ratio to outclimb and accelerate away from the P47 or the P51, or to outturn them. (Once again assuming equal energy states at start of combat) It's really simple, and for the life of me I can't fathom how you can't get this? This is also why those 72" of manifold pressure will make absolutely NO difference in the fight against the 109.

 

A 4.5 ton plane will more easily retain it's momentum than a 3.5 ton plane. A 7 ton plane will retain even more momentum. Assuming equal or close to equal drag values. It's as simple as that.

 

If you spent some time flying, instead of theorycrafting on the forums, you would easily understand this.

 

Take a P51 up high, point the nose straight down. You don't really need that much power to make a succesful high-low-high yoyo. The plane's own MASS and momentum will do MOST of the work for you.

Edited April 29, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[BodyOrgan]

If you spent some time flying, instead of theorycrafting on the forums, you would easily understand this.

Out of curiosity, what is your handle online? I don't recall ever facing an OnlyforDCS.

[Zilch]

When a 3.3 ton aircraft cannot be beaten in the 4.5 ton aircraft, expect a 7 ton aircraft to be able to do it. Because reasons.

 

I'm pretty sure there's a bit more to air combat than that...

[Echo38]

Take a P51 up high, point the nose straight down. You don't really need that much power to make a succesful high-low-high yoyo. The plane's own MASS and momentum will do MOST of the work for you.

 

We've already been over this. As established in post #178, extra mass will not help you on the way down, since Earth's gravity accelerates both objects equally, regardless of mass. Meanwhile, on the way up, extra mass may help keep momentum (helping you retain E), but it also means lower thrust-to-mass ratio (hurting your ability to retain/generate E).

 

You've yet to provide anything (beyond mere contradiction) to support your claim that the momentum gained from extra mass trumps the energy input at this power setting. It is not as basic of a question as you think.

 

This is also why those 72" of manifold pressure will make absolutely NO difference in the fight against the 109.

 

An extra 7.5% power will make no difference in the fight against the 109? This is unarguably false ... absolutely false. It is self evident why. I don't even ...

 

If you spent some time flying, instead of theorycrafting on the forums, you would easily understand this.

 

Are you forgetting the part where I have somewhere around eight thousand hours dogfighting in multiplayer flight sim-games, including several hundred hours in the DCS P-51, before I was forced by my hand injuries to quit? I am not some clueless noober with no experience to back up my "theorycrafting," as you imply. At my peak, there were only three pilots in the DCS community who could consistently defeat me in a "co" duel. (Viks & Xcom being two of them, IIRC). Granted, the DCS WWII community was smaller then, and I wouldn't rank so high today, but my point: not to blow my horn, but I'm not exactly the aerial infant you make me out to be. I'm retired for medical, not a noob.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Echo38
pilot names

[Zilch]

...wasn't someone saying this topic wasn't controversial anymore?

[Echo38]

...wasn't someone saying this topic wasn't controversial anymore?

 

It isn't, really. Just a small handful of guys trying to make it out to be. [looking at OnlyForDCS & co.]

 

It's sort of like the NASA moon landings. It isn't a controversial subject, despite what a few conspiracy theorists think. ; D

[BodyOrgan]

SPEEDTEST 2

 

I wasn't thinking on doing another one but what the hell it was fun:

 

109 is trimmed,The p51 isn't but even so the p51 is faster by 10-14 km/h.

Also I've flown the p51 last and my hand was tired.

Conditions DCS default, no wind.TAS ,IAS will not make the 109 faster.

You kept bobbing up, and down with each plane in this video, and the P-51D will maintain its energy better due to the laminar flow wings, and I think this skewed your results a bit.

 

I did a quick test from take-off to max speed, and the most I could pull from the P-51D in level flight is 559 kph, but I was only able to pull 553 kph from the 109K-4.

 

The test I did was from Batumi, and shows the P-51D being about 6 kph faster at sea level (literally). I went with 68% in the P-51D, so the wings were completely full, and I went with 100% in the K-4. I also took the K-4 down to 65%, but it didn't change the results. It went right up to 553 kph.

 

I will test again a bit later in the Novo, Anapa area which is where I dogfight online on both Burning Skies, and Steel Ballz. I'd like to know if the elevation difference in these areas plays a role in top speed.

 

The major take home from these tests which proves true in my online combat experience is if you don't get guns separation from the 109 in your escape, then you aren't going to survive.

 

Just a side note also. To be faster you have to be at 67" which after fighting at 61" for a while doesn't always work in your favor. If you've been running at 61" for 10 to 15 minutes, and you run at 67" all the sudden.... well your engine is probably going to fail.

[BodyOrgan]

I'd like to make one thing clear on my position which may not be clear. I honestly don't care if we get a 72" Mustang, as I don't generally break WEP ever. The caveat with that is unless 72" causes the baseline 61" to be greater such as 65" in which case hell ya! bring on the 72".

 

I really just want the G-suit back. The rest of you can debate till you're blue in the face over whether extra power will help you or not.

[Zilch]

We've already been over this. As established in post #178, extra mass will not help you on the way down, since Earth's gravity accelerates both objects equally, regardless of mass. Meanwhile, on the way up, extra mass may help keep momentum (helping you retain E), but it also means lower thrust-to-mass ratio (hurting your ability to retain/generate E).

 

You've yet to provide anything (beyond mere contradiction) to support your claim that the momentum gained from extra mass trumps the energy input at this power setting. It is not as basic of a question as you think.

 

 

 

An extra 7.5% power will make no difference in the fight against the 109? This is unarguably false ... absolutely false. It is self evident why. I don't even ...

 

 

 

Are you forgetting the part where I have somewhere around eight thousand hours dogfighting in multiplayer flight sim-games, including several hundred hours in the DCS P-51, before I was forced by my hand injuries to quit? I am not some clueless noober with no experience to back up my "theorycrafting," as you imply. At my peak, there were only three pilots in the DCS community who could consistently defeat me in a "co" duel. (Viks, Shadoh, and Wilzah, IIRC.) Granted, DCS WWII community was much smaller then, but my point: not to blow my horn, but I'm not nearly the aerial infant you make me out to be. I'm retired for medical, not a noob.

 

First off, sorry about your injury. I hate to hear about that kind of thing happening to anyone.

 

I do want to discuss mass as it relates to energy retention through a medium, however.

 

We understand from Galileo that objects in ideal conditions accelerate at the same rate due to gravity, of course, but this doesn't take into account the shape of the object or the medium it's flying through. In AIR combat, the action of the air is critical. The mere acceleration due to gravity alone isn't nearly sufficient to describe what we're dealing with. If I jump from a plane feet first, I'll fall pretty quickly with gravity pulling on my mass until I hit the ground or terminal velocity. I strapped on a parachute, adding mass, but changing the shape of the projectile through the medium, and my acceleration changes to something more survivable.

 

I'm curious about how this relates to ballistics. Using an Age of Sail comparison, we can examine the standard long guns versus carronades, which had a far more massive projectile. Long guns had longer range, faster projectiles and more accuracy. However, the carronades, with their massive projectiles, were called "smashers" because they would not be halted by the wooden hull and would just walk through them, sending splinters everywhere and just pushing aside any in their way. Long gun shot despite being faster, was reported to be more susceptible to being slowed or stopped by thicker mediums.

 

So, the mass of something through another medium seems relevant. Imagine throwing a light tennis ball through the air. It'll travel a distance, but not as far as a baseball of similar size. I'm guessing that the greater mass helps the baseball retain more energy as it pierces the air it's flying through, pushing aside the particles of air as it displaces them. The air has more success fighting the presence of the less massive object. (For a better experiment, you could compare empty tennis balls to ones stuffed with lead shot thrown at the same angle and speed.)

 

So, I'm guessing here that two planes, controlled for shape, size, drag, and so on, traveling at the same high speed (notice that I specified speed and not total kinetic energy) after a dive or whatnot, one with a lot of fuel in the tank would probably retain its speed longer than another with nearly empty tanks at the same angle of climb and power setting. Yes, gravity is fighting both, but the more massive plane has an advantage against the air itself.

 

Now, once it has lost that energy, it'll obviously have a harder time getting it back. It'll accelerate more slowly than the otherwise identical lighter plane.

 

As this relates to tactics against everyone's favorite "unbeatable" 109K, the concensus of "keep your speed high at all costs" sounds dead-on. Obviously the shapes of the planes are different, but I'd hypothesize that at similar power settings and speeds, the Mustang would retain energy longer into a climb than a 109K.

 

The real challenge now, is to convince the 109K driver to drop his power settings to match yours. :D

 

As for the 7.5% power increase, I'd rather have it than not, but as you say it's not often likely to be too critical except in a few instances where the match is so close that a smidgen of extra power might help put your gunsight on something.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Zilch
Making wording more specific.

[David OC]

When a 3.3 ton aircraft cannot be beaten in the 4.5 ton aircraft, expect a 7 ton aircraft to be able to do it. Because reasons.

 

Yet using tactics suited to the P-47 that's not even a better fighter than the P-51 it got more Ace kills by a single pilot Col. Frances Gabreski in Europe.

 

P-47 can out dive any aircraft in speed and was better at high speed maneuverability back then and I'm guessing when some of these new inexperienced German pilots thought they could dive away from the P-47, then Col. Frances Gabreski would Swoop down. The lack of rear visibility probably didn't help either here.

 

 

-

Edited April 29, 2017 by David OC

[Zilch]

Yet using tactics suited to the P-47 that's not even a better fighter than the P-51 it got more Ace kills by a single pilot Col. Frances Gabreski in Europe.

 

P-47 can out dive any aircraft in speed and had better at high speed maneuverability back then and I'm guessing when some of these new inexperienced German pilots through they could dive away from the P-47, then Col. Frances Gabreski would Swoop down. The lack of rear visibility properly didn't help either here.

 

You're highlighting a *key* concept that tends to get lost in these debates over what "wins" or is "best."

 

There are so many variables in this subject, such as those you mentioned, that you can't predict outcomes in any meaningful way by comparison of stats, be it T/W ratios, Max weapon range, roll rate, pilot seat height, durability, or any mix of combination thereof.

 

These are very important pieces of a very dynamic, highly variable and high speed split second contest. Would 72" help? Yeah, sure. Would it help more than 200 hours of mindful practice and training? Hell no.

 

It's an untenable statement to say, without qualifying, that "the faster plane wins" or "the longest range shot wins" or "turn rate (instantaneous or sustained) always wins."

 

These traits combined with appropriate tactics and training increase your probability of winning.

 

There are no certainties. Only probabilities.

 

Always remember that in these" who would win in a fight" discussions. Ultimately, you're gonna have to get in there and mix it up. It will be cold comfort to you if and when you're beaten by someone with an "inferior" plane nails you because he trained more in it.

 

Ultimately, it'll be far more time effective to fly more, using mindful practice techniques, than wait for ED to change our planes. "Soon" isn't as soon as this weekend's training session can be.

 

I don't mean to stifle the discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only one learning some cool stuff from it, especially about different versions of the P-51D. There just seems to be debate over something that's objectively true or not (what version was in use and when) or totally subjective due to other complex variables (what it takes to kill a 109K in a Mustang.)

 

I think it's important to keep this stuff framed where it ought to be and maybe uh...not be so harsh at one another. We're all aviation enthusiasts here. I'd rather see us sharing beer than smashing the virtual bottle in one another's faces. :pilotfly:

[BuzzU]

Y

I did a quick test from take-off to max speed, and the most I could pull from the P-51D in level flight is 559 kph, but I was only able to pull 553 kph from the 109K-4.

 

The test I did was from Batumi, and shows the P-51D being about 6 kph faster at sea level (literally). I went with 68% in the P-51D, so the wings were completely full, and I went with 100% in the K-4. I also took the K-4 down to 65%, but it didn't change the results. It went right up to 553 kph.

 

 

 

Did you time them to top speed to see which one accelerates better?

[BodyOrgan]

Did you time them to top speed to see which one accelerates better?

No, I didn't time it, but you can pretty much tell the 109 accelerates much quicker. Not sure about total time to absolute max though. Getting to 500 kph in the 109 is very quick, but after that it's more slow going.... though the 51 is similar. Getting initial speed is somewhat quick, but then it's slow going to max.

[OnlyforDCS]

The 109 accelerates better that much is clear. However the P51 will retain its speed more easily. (See Zilch's nice Age of Sail analogy)

[OnlyforDCS]

@BodyOrgan: I've used several handles online in the past. My latest one is "Only11"

[BuzzU]

Which means?

[OnlyforDCS]

Which means?

 

Which means that in a fight against a 109, you want to engage with an energy advantage and try to keep it throughout the fight. This is of course much easier said than done for a variety of reasons most of which have to do with pilot skill. It takes a lot of discipline and smart flying, not to mention that you need eyes like a hawk. :pilotfly:

[Solty]

He actually took the time to do and record this test. Have you done that? Or are we supposed to take your word for it.

 

You can do the test yourself.

 

TAS = IAS at Sea level. Or are you claiming differently? (assuming no wind) Eather way it doesn't matter. The relative speed difference is all that matters, and if we take into account that both fighters are flying through the same airmass then IAS is perfectly fine.

Not realy, its close but not equal and any difference in altitude can make it less acurate. Besides, the test from Ohio is in TAS and it's standard to calculate it to TAS, so why make it less credible by going IAS only?

 

Both are running at full power. As for conditions, I assume they are the same. Why would they not be run in the same conditions? Are you suggesting Otto would falsify temperature and pressure so that the P51 comes out on top?

 

We don't know the weight, the temperature, pressure, testing data is important to be sure we get the same conditions to the standard of testing aka 15°C and 760 mmHg. The P51D should be at 9760 pounds or 4427kg

 

The P51 is trimmed out perfectly. The 109 is kind of wobbly, which means its inducing some drag. How much is a matter of debate. Is it 20km/h worth of drag? I don't think so, but I agree better trim is needed for another test.

 

Yes sideslip and pitch can shave off a lot of speed. Always get your flight coordinated. Sure there are always imperfections, but Otto's video showed a significant sideslip.

 

 

That makes no difference to their top speeds. None at all. This is physics 101, common!

 

It makes a big difference. Your engine heats up and your radiators open. You need to reach max speed via acceleration or your whole test is skewed. Not to mention that changes in speed during dive change the way plane flies so you need to adjust your trim quicker.

 

I agree. Care to make a repeat test and post the results?

Response in Bold.

 

PS. Both Otto's tests do not show the sustained speed at WEP. They merely point out that his flying in the 109 makes the plane bleed speed faster. He cuts off the footage when the plane is still decelerating and has not set on one SUSTAINED SPEED.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Solty