PDA

View Full Version : P-51 FM



JtD
04-18-2004, 07:29 AM
I recently begun to wonder about the P-51's flight model. Admittedly I don't fly it very often and therefore have to take IL2-compare as reference. I know it differs a little from true flight performance, but the relation should be there.

The P-51 comes with an empty weight of about 3100kg and an indicated 1450 hp. Still, it outclimbs an Bf 109 G-6 which is not only 500kg lighter but also about 100 hp more powerful. Comparing the P-51B to other planes in this way, it is by far the best climber. No other plane lifts this much weight so fast with this little power.

Also, the wing area of the P-51 is about 21.7 m^2, where the Ki-84 has 21.0 m^2. The Ki-84 is about 500kg lighter, having a much lower wing load and with it's 1970hp a much better power load. I might be wrong with this one, but the P-51's wings weren't the best as far as low speed lift is concerned. However, the P-51 seems to outturn the Ki-84.

But that is not all: For the 51B I found 260 kph IAS to be the contiuos turning speed @ 1000m alt. I deployed take off flaps. In this configuration and at this speed, the P-51B outturns all Yak's and La's as well as three of the four Spitfires and all German planes. There is a number of planes that can stay with it or beat it, the I-16 and the Zero, the P-39 Q-10 and the P-40M among a few others. The low speed turn performance of the P-51 seems to be incredibly overmodelled.

For the P-51 D it's basically the same, even though slightly supported by the much more powerful engine.

The turn times get even more funny with landings flaps at 220kph.

To my knowledge the P-51 was excellent as far as range and speed were concerned, it also had good high speed handling and superb high altitude performance. But nonetheless pilots were told not to go slower than 400kph and to stay out of low speed dogfights with their German counterparts.

Do I have to read different books?

Is the P-51 grossly overmodeled as far as low speed charateristics are concerned?

What do you more frequent P-51 jockeys think about climb and turn?

JtD
04-18-2004, 07:29 AM
I recently begun to wonder about the P-51's flight model. Admittedly I don't fly it very often and therefore have to take IL2-compare as reference. I know it differs a little from true flight performance, but the relation should be there.

The P-51 comes with an empty weight of about 3100kg and an indicated 1450 hp. Still, it outclimbs an Bf 109 G-6 which is not only 500kg lighter but also about 100 hp more powerful. Comparing the P-51B to other planes in this way, it is by far the best climber. No other plane lifts this much weight so fast with this little power.

Also, the wing area of the P-51 is about 21.7 m^2, where the Ki-84 has 21.0 m^2. The Ki-84 is about 500kg lighter, having a much lower wing load and with it's 1970hp a much better power load. I might be wrong with this one, but the P-51's wings weren't the best as far as low speed lift is concerned. However, the P-51 seems to outturn the Ki-84.

But that is not all: For the 51B I found 260 kph IAS to be the contiuos turning speed @ 1000m alt. I deployed take off flaps. In this configuration and at this speed, the P-51B outturns all Yak's and La's as well as three of the four Spitfires and all German planes. There is a number of planes that can stay with it or beat it, the I-16 and the Zero, the P-39 Q-10 and the P-40M among a few others. The low speed turn performance of the P-51 seems to be incredibly overmodelled.

For the P-51 D it's basically the same, even though slightly supported by the much more powerful engine.

The turn times get even more funny with landings flaps at 220kph.

To my knowledge the P-51 was excellent as far as range and speed were concerned, it also had good high speed handling and superb high altitude performance. But nonetheless pilots were told not to go slower than 400kph and to stay out of low speed dogfights with their German counterparts.

Do I have to read different books?

Is the P-51 grossly overmodeled as far as low speed charateristics are concerned?

What do you more frequent P-51 jockeys think about climb and turn?

FW190fan
04-18-2004, 07:36 AM
No, I wouldn't say the P-51 is grossly overmodeled at all.

The sim is not perfect in all aspects, but I think it does a great job considering the very large number of a/c that are modeled.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

JtD
04-18-2004, 07:47 AM
So, what do you think:

Was a P-51 historically able to outturn a Yak-3 or am I mistaken in assuming it can in FB? (I did it against AI, but that doesn't really count, does it?)

crazyivan1970
04-18-2004, 07:53 AM
Even K4 can outturn AI Yak3 mate. Try human opponent http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Maple_Tiger
04-18-2004, 08:01 AM
The P-51 does not out climb the BF109 nor the KI-84. Also note that most guys take only 25% fuel. This means at this wheight it will climb a littel better then at combat wheight.

With WEP the P-51B has 1650 HP. P-51D has 1750 HP with WEP.

Also the P-51B was faster then the D at high altitude, where is the P-51D was a little faster then the B at lower altitude.

My point is that the D has better performance at lower alt then the B. I know this because i fly them both and that is the way it was in real life.

In game the P-51B can out turn all late BF109's. I don't think it could out turn the KI-84 if the KI was using combat flaps.

Is the P-51B's low speed turning performance correct? I have no clue.


But the P-51D cannot out turn the KI-84 and BF109 at low speeds lol.


I agree that the P-51B may turn a little too good at low speeds but it's not the best climber lol.


It's obviouse you do not fly the P-51's very much.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/suntb.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Maple_Tiger
04-18-2004, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
So, what do you think:

Was a P-51 historically able to outturn a Yak-3 or am I mistaken in assuming it can in FB? (I did it against AI, but that doesn't really count, does it?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most of us can easly out turn AI's. Humans are another story.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/suntb.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JtD
04-18-2004, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Even K4 can outturn AI Yak3 mate. Try human opponent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How? I can't.

Imho and btw, K-4 shouldn't be a worse turner than P-51B, it has a slightly higher wingloading, but better low speed lift and a much better power weight ratio.

JtD
04-18-2004, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
The P-51 does not out climb the BF109 nor the KI-84. Also note that most guys take only 25% fuel. This means at this wheight it will climb a littel better then at combat wheight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on the Bf model. It will outclimb G-6, but not G-2 or K-4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With WEP the P-51B has 1650 HP. P-51D has 1750 HP with WEP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL-2 says 1450, other soruces usually say 1400 (which I know is wrong). Where can I find backup for the 1650? Which Packard version?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But the P-51D cannot out turn the KI-84 and BF109 at low speeds lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you try? You and another guy staying horizontal and pulling the stick as much as possible?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I agree that the P-51B may turn a little too good at low speeds but it's not the best climber lol.

It's obviouse you do not fly the P-51's very much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most efficient climber, not best in total. Thx for your feedback anyway.

KaRaYa-X
04-18-2004, 08:28 AM
The P51B/C/D actually DOES outturn late war Bfs like the K4 in FB which should NOT be the case. However that's more of an issue of the Bf not the P51.

The K4 is less maneuvrable than the G6AS,G10,G14 by some unknown reason. All of these planes have about the same take-off weight with the K being the heaviest by only a very small margin. However the K4 has the best aerodynamic profile and a more efficient prop than all of the other MW50 Bf109s...which should easily compensate the weight difference...

-- flying online as JG=52Karaya-X --

Kwiatos
04-18-2004, 08:43 AM
When P-51 came to FB with patch 1.2 it was very good moddeled aircraft. But with next patches became more easy handling and better climb rate. I remember that in 1.2 i could fight in FW190 A-5 and D-9 in equal terms but now P-51 could easly outmanouevr me (except roll rate). Now in AEP P-51 could slow speed doghfight even with BF which is incorrect.(i speak about online games). Maby its gift from Oleg to American players.

Eagle_361st
04-18-2004, 08:49 AM
The P-51 should and does out turn the late model 109's at high speeds. The P-51B/C should out turn the late G models and the K-4 and does when not loaded with more than 50 percent fuel. This is historically correct, sorry. But none of the P-51's out climb any 109's especially the K-4(which is one of the best climbers in the game), as well as the KI-84. The P-51 is one of the most accurately modeled aircraft in the game.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Ugly_Kid
04-18-2004, 08:52 AM
According to this it would look as if it indeed climbed faster:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/p_51vsG6.jpg

However, some testing shows P-51NT-20 climbs to 5000m at 5 min 50 s with 100% fuel, 100% throttle and 4 min 48 s with 25% fuel. The real value for fully loaded one should be about the same.

G-6 Late climbs now about 5 min 30 s to 5000m, real values is about 5min 15s (also 100% throttle 100% fuel)

robban75
04-18-2004, 09:03 AM
The P-51 is hardly grossly overmodelled. It is very well balanced in its performance. It's a good climber but not stellar, it wont outclimb any of the top birds in this sim but it can remain close to most opponents apart from the K-4 and La-7. Its closest rival is the Fw 190D-9. These birds are remarkably similar, at least that's what I've come to realise after several online fights. The P-51 might turn just a little too well, it feels really light in the turns, and turning with it is very easy it actually feels very similar to the Spitfire and La-7 in this regard. In the Fw 190 one can feel the high wingloading, not so in the P-51. The turning radius of the P-51 is probably not as tight as that of the Spit and La though.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Eagle_361st
04-18-2004, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
According to this it would look as if it indeed climbed faster:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/p_51vsG6.jpg

However, some testing shows P-51NT-20 climbs to 5000m at 5 min 50 s with 100% fuel, 100% throttle and 4 min 48 s with 25% fuel. The real value for fully loaded one should be about the same.

G-6 Late climbs now about 5 min 30 s to 5000m, real values is about 5min 15s (also 100% throttle 100% fuel)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems about right to me. You must remember the huge weight savings although not historic by flying with 25% fuel in the P-51. Even with 25% fuel the P-51 has the same and perhaps a little more combat radius than any 109. While saving a considerable amount of weight, which in turn will improve it's climb rate, and turn performance.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1079.jpg

Ugly_Kid
04-18-2004, 09:07 AM
Yeah it turns very well but only if you push the nose down. That is to say sustained turn is nothing particular, worse than Bf better than Fw. I don't think it's too good actually quite accurately modeled - I like it a lot

crazyivan1970
04-18-2004, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Even K4 can outturn AI Yak3 mate. Try human opponent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How? I can't.

Imho and btw, K-4 shouldn't be a worse turner than P-51B, it has a slightly higher wingloading, but better low speed lift and a much better power weight ratio.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That depence on the speed that you travel with and the way you turn. 109s love nose down turns, not the flat ones. Try full power with combat flaps, you will be amazed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

VW-IceFire
04-18-2004, 09:14 AM
Couple of things to point out.

IL2 Compair is useful but even the author quite explicity says that it will not reflect in-engine performance 100%. So you cannot strictly use the program to show you how exactly things are going to be in the game. Relative performance perhaps but not total performance.

P-51 at low speeds is a pig...both in climb, turn, and roll rate. That seems fairly consistent with reports. At high speeds the P-51 may be a tad bit too good on elevator response but its pretty easy to black out anyways so I generally believe this to be a moot point.

Anyone in a Spitfire, La-7, or Ki-84 will, if experienced, out turn a P-51 without too much trouble...especially if you sucker them into a turning fight the P-51 will continue to loose speed and manuverability and it will take a short dive for it to regain that ability. Meantime you have a much more agile plane that can circle around and blast the P-51 who is just trying to get back to speed.

As far as Bf 109 VS P-51 in turn...I'd say there is a point where the two are equal. At high speed the P-51 overtakes...at low speed the Bf 109 overtakes...especially the G-2, the F-4, and the G-6/14. The G-10 and the K-4 are a little worse on the turns but much more capable at climbing.

If there is anything wrong on the P-51 FM its the stick forces which were supposedly higher at very high speeds than we see them now. Even so, its probably one of the most accurate FM's we have in the game. It was worked over extensively from the sounds of it and tested by a veteran P-51 pilot.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

FA_Maddog
04-18-2004, 09:24 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
The P-51 should and does out turn the late model 109's at high speeds. The P-51B/C should out turn the late G models and the K-4 and does when not loaded with more than 50 percent fuel. This is historically correct, sorry. But none of the P-51's out climb any 109's especially the K-4(which is one of the best climbers in the game), as well as the KI-84. The P-51 is one of the most accurately modeled aircraft in the game.

~S!
Eagle
Commanding Officer 361st vFG


Agree, except for the top speed of this plane.

crazyivan1970
04-18-2004, 09:31 AM
As mister IceFire already mentioned, main weapon of P-51 series is outstanding high speel handling, the only 109 that can kinda come close is G-2, other G models and K-4 are falling behind, especially K4.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Bearcat99
04-18-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Even K4 can outturn AI Yak3 mate. Try human opponent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How? I can't.

Imho and btw, K-4 shouldn't be a worse turner than P-51B, it has a slightly higher wingloading, but better low speed lift and a much better power weight ratio.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Theres the rub..bud... YOUR OPINION... no offense meant at all but your opinion is......irrelevent. The FMs in here... even the worse ones are pretty close and a lot closer than any other sim I have seen. I dont know charts and such so I kind of ignore that sort of thing.. what I use to test how accurate a flight model is is I try to use real world tactics that WW2 pilots used in certain planes.. for the most part they work. The Jug could be a bit tougher and dive a bit better holding its E more in the climb.... but as far as the Pony goes.. it seems lie tis pretty tight. You asked how to turn better? Try a touch of trim and combat flaps.. combat flaps in particular.. but timing is everything. You should use it at the beginning of the turn.. for for a second or two, then raise them back.... youd be amazed.... Be carefullthough.. if you go beyond combat flaps or if you keep them down too long (we are talking seconds here..) they may jam depending on your speed... then you are toast.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
04-18-2004, 11:17 AM
Salute

The P-51 is actually undermodelled, since one of its strongest characteristics, ie. Dive acceleration is not modelled well. This is because dive acceleration due to gravity does not seem to be modelled in the Sim, and the fact that the extremely low CdO of the P-51 would give it a very good dive acceleration, since drag and weight are the only factor affecting acceleration in dives over the max. normal level speed of an aircraft.

The energy retention characteristics of the P-51 also seem undermodelled for maneuvers which are done at less than 2G's. Wind tunnel testing suggested that this aircraft had very good drag characteristics in low G situations.

Ugly_Kid
04-18-2004, 12:08 PM
I don't know which game you bought in my AEP P-51 is the best diving prop fighter (also from acceleration). That advantage is also not small you just have to know how to use it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gravity not included? Yeah, right
Where do you see Gs in P-51, BTW?

[This message was edited by Ugly_Kid on Sun April 18 2004 at 12:58 PM.]

Magister__Ludi
04-18-2004, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

The P-51 is actually undermodelled, since one of its strongest characteristics, ie. Dive acceleration is not modelled well. This is because dive acceleration due to gravity does not seem to be modelled in the Sim, and the fact that the extremely low CdO of the P-51 would give it a very good dive acceleration, since drag and weight are the only factor affecting acceleration in dives over the max. normal level speed of an aircraft.

The energy retention characteristics of the P-51 also seem undermodelled for maneuvers which are done at less than 2G's. Wind tunnel testing suggested that this aircraft had very good drag characteristics in low G situations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Cd0 alone is not enough if you want to compare the drag. Flat plate, which is Cd0 multiplied by wing area, can give you a much better idea. Flat plate can be used for drag comparisons where high speeds and low Gs are involved.

For low speeds and high Gs the aspect ratio is much more important. For the usual ww2 fighter parasitic drag (important at high speeds) counts for more than 95% of the total drag at max speed (low alts), at best climb speed parasitic drag is half of the total drag (the rest is induced drag, dependent of aspect ratio), in a 3G sustained turn is 3 times smaller than induced drag and at 7G instantaneous turn it is 7 times !!! smaller than induced drag.

So flat plate (not Cd0!) is good for max speed, aspect ratio is good for maneuvers.

Magister__Ludi
04-18-2004, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
I don't know which game you bought in my AEP P-51 is the best diving prop fighter (also from acceleration). That advantage is also not small you just have to know how to use it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gravity not included? Yeah, right
Where do you see Gs in P-51, BTW?

[This message was edited by Ugly_Kid on Sun April 18 2004 at 12:58 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course P-51 is the best diver if you do not count P-47. Because if you start the dive at 550km/h nothing outdives the Jug. Buzzsaw probably still tries to outdive planes with better initial dive acceleration.

Actually Jug is much better than in real life. The elevators do not lock when P-47 reaches compressibility, like they did in RL.

Now I do Mach 1 with Jug http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif then return to airbase with the plane in one piece.

LuftLuver
04-18-2004, 04:46 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Now that P51 pilots are learning their craft and getting the most out of it, it MUST be overmodeled.

Sigh.

BlitzPig_DDT
04-18-2004, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Now that P51 pilots are learning their craft and getting the most out of it, it MUST be overmodeled.

Sigh.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol. Yeah, that is pretty much the way it works around here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

==================================
The Blitz Pigs - Not a squad, a Movement!

Come and spam on our front porch.

http://www.blitzpigs.com

WUAF_Badsight
04-18-2004, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:

I dont know charts and such so I kind of ignore that sort of thing..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh wow ......



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:

what I use to test how accurate a flight model is is I try to use real world tactics that WW2 pilots used in certain planes..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


but we dont have real world limitations

doing that kind of stuff makes people think the KI is overmoddeled

what JTD is pointing out is the low speed turning ability of the Mustang

laminar flow wings were not good for low speed manoevers

but the D Mustangs top speed is bang on correct with the Object Viewer

test for yourself on the Crimea map

FA_Maddog
04-18-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:



but we dont have real world limitations

doing that kind of stuff makes people think the KI is overmoddeled

what JTD is pointing out is the low speed turning ability of the Mustang

laminar flow wings were not good for low speed manoevers

but the D Mustangs top speed is bang on correct with the Object Viewer

test for yourself on the Crimea map<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did test the top speeds at 6250m to 6300m. I never could get over 470km/h with radiator closed. Overheated after a few minutes. The top speed should be 704km/h. Sea level I was around 540km/h. Could you post track of level flight of around five minutes to show me what I'm doing wrong?

TooCooL34
04-18-2004, 06:15 PM
You're confusing TAS and IAS.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Maddog:
I did test the top speeds at 6250m to 6300m. I never could get over 470km/h with radiator closed. Overheated after a few minutes. The top speed should be 704km/h. Sea level I was around 540km/h. Could you post track of level flight of around five minutes to show me what I'm doing wrong?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-----------------

=815=TooCooL34,=815=Squadron

-= 8 1 5 =- FB Dedi Server is coming soon. (with AEP Dedicated Server)
100Mb IDC line, P4 2.8G server.
Full real but limited icon, minimap path and spdbar.
You can expect something, since I run the server myself. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chuck_Older
04-18-2004, 06:32 PM
Before, the P-51 was a lousy plane. Now it's "overmodelled" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif Make up your minds


In the meantime, I will continue to learn how to fly it, and be surprised how changing my preconceived notions about how to fight with the P-51 reap results.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

WUAF_Badsight
04-18-2004, 09:46 PM
what isnt cool is how some planes *ONLY* get their top speed on the Crimea map where as other planes will also get their top speed (with overheating) on other maps

FA_Maddog
04-18-2004, 10:31 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TooCooL34:
You're confusing TAS and IAS.


Your right, I didn't think about true air speed. I did calcalate it, and the speeds came out close to what they are suppose to be. Thanks for setting me straight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BuzzU
04-18-2004, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Maddog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TooCooL34:
You're confusing TAS and IAS.


Your right, I didn't think about true air speed. I did calcalate it, and the speeds came out close to what they are suppose to be. Thanks for setting me straight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't need to calcalate it. Just go to no cockpit view. That's TAS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

FA_Maddog
04-18-2004, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Maddog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TooCooL34:
You're confusing TAS and IAS.


Your right, I didn't think about true air speed. I did calcalate it, and the speeds came out close to what they are suppose to be. Thanks for setting me straight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't need to calcalate it. Just go to no cockpit view. That's TAS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Never flew with no cockpit view. I will use it next time. Thanks Buzz.

tttiger
04-19-2004, 02:46 AM
"When comparing the P-51 against the Me 109 or the FW 190 I did not prefer to fight one over the other. I would use the same tactics against either aircraft. The best and favored tactic was to catch them by surprise and close in from the rear to a close range before opening fire. If they saw you and stayed in a turning dogfight I always felt I could outturn them."

That's from an interview with Bud Anderson (that fellow BuzzU has in his sig) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Read the last sentence carefully and several times:

"If they saw you and stayed in a turning dogfight I always felt I could outturn them."

He outturned them 16.5 times.

What more needs to be said?

Yes, JtD, you must be reading different books. And all that "testing" is bogus. Forget the charts. Forget the graphs. As the old car ad used to say: "Ask the man who owns one."

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

JtD
04-19-2004, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> crazyivan: That depence on the speed that you travel with and the way you turn. 109s love nose down turns, not the flat ones. Try full power with combat flaps, you will be amazed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that woulnd't be continuous level turning, would it? So not valid here. Apart from that: I tried, but Yak-3 stayed at my six. I personally belive climbing turn to be better, because this way you can utilize the better climbrate of the K-4. (Anyway, I don't turn neither with K-4 nor against Yak-3 so it's not really important.) Thx for the hint, maybe I find some more time to try again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> bearcat99: You asked how to turn better? Try a touch of trim and combat flaps.. combat flaps in particular.. but timing is everything. You should use it at the beginning of the turn.. for for a second or two, then raise them back.... youd be amazed.... Be carefullthough.. if you go beyond combat flaps or if you keep them down too long (we are talking seconds here..) they may jam depending on your speed... then you are toast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that I am talking about continuous level turning which will in all planes take place at speeds that don't jam flaps. I know how and when to deploy them and tested that. I have little troubles outmaneuvering AI in general, but while a P-51B can turn with a Ki-84/Yak-3, a Bf 109 K-4 can't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> LuftLuver: Now that P51 pilots are learning their craft and getting the most out of it, it MUST be overmodeled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read again: I think it has a too good low speed turning and a too good climb, after I flew it. Note: Not because I met an online ace.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> tttiger:

Read the last sentence carefully and several times:

"If they saw you and stayed in a turning dogfight I always felt I could outturn them."

He outturned them 16.5 times.

What more needs to be said?

Yes, JtD, you must be reading different books. And all that "testing" is bogus. Forget the charts. Forget the graphs. As the old car ad used to say: "Ask the man who owns one."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't really say to much, does it? It doesn't say at which alitiude, which speed, against which pilots, for how long...

He had 16.5 claims? All of them in a classic turnfight? I doubt it.

1st hand experience, even if taken from bogus testing, is still better than hearsay from a single ace.

Sorry, tttiger, can't agree with you.



Thanks everyone for your feedback, I take everything in consideration even if I don't sound like that. ;-)

clint-ruin
04-19-2004, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Thanks everyone for your feedback, I take everything in consideration even if I don't sound like that. ;-)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could try testing it through the no cockpit view, logging speed and heading [and a stopwatch would be useful] at 1/4 time, marking off how many degrees/sec can be held continuously. Time consuming and probably not much fun to do though.

Personally I don't have much of an opinion on the P-51s turn time. There's a few things that make me raise an eyebrow in FBs flight models, mainly to do with the way some planes [FW-190, Spitfire, P-51] can seem to shed speed and turn incredibly quickly at high speed, rolling their socks down in a turn. Some measurements were done a while ago showing that a lot of planes only actually need about 200m of alt to pull out from a near vertical dive to level flight at high speeds, but I can't remember who posted them or when. Might be looking at a similar sort of issue.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

HayateKid
04-19-2004, 10:02 AM
Wow, looks like the community has grown weary of whining about the Ki-84?

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

robban75
04-19-2004, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Some measurements were done a while ago showing that a lot of planes only actually need about 200m of alt to pull out from a near vertical dive to level flight at high speeds, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was several patches ago. Back then the Fw 190 had an insanely effective elevator throughout the entire speed range. This has been fixed now, aswell as the excessive rollrate at speed. Planes with good elevators are P-51, P-47, Spitfire, Fw 190, Ki 84, and the La-7(to some extent).

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

BuzzU
04-19-2004, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Maddog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Maddog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TooCooL34:
You're confusing TAS and IAS.


Your right, I didn't think about true air speed. I did calcalate it, and the speeds came out close to what they are suppose to be. Thanks for setting me straight. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't need to calcalate it. Just go to no cockpit view. That's TAS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Never flew with no cockpit view. I will use it next time. Thanks Buzz.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want you to think I do either. I only use it when i'm testing to get the TAS. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

lrrp22
04-19-2004, 12:58 PM
MapleTiger,

The majority of P-51B/C's were equipped with the same V-1650-7 engine as the P-51D and should be a little faster than the D at all altitudes.

The object viewer lists the in-game P-51B as being equipped with the V-1650-3 and P-51C with the -7 but both seem to have -3's performance numbers (560 kph at sea level).

*Obligatory Whine in 3, 2, 1...

Oleg, please give us a B/C/D with more than 67" WEP!!! By the Summer of '44, 72" to 81" WEP was standard.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
The P-51 does not out climb the BF109 nor the KI-84. Also note that most guys take only 25% fuel. This means at this wheight it will climb a littel better then at combat wheight.

With WEP the P-51B has 1650 HP. P-51D has 1750 HP with WEP.

Also the P-51B was faster then the D at high altitude, where is the P-51D was a little faster then the B at lower altitude.

My point is that the D has better performance at lower alt then the B. I know this because i fly them both and that is the way it was in real life.

In game the P-51B can out turn all late BF109's. I don't think it could out turn the KI-84 if the KI was using combat flaps.

Is the P-51B's low speed turning performance correct? I have no clue.


But the P-51D cannot out turn the KI-84 and BF109 at low speeds lol.


I agree that the P-51B may turn a little too good at low speeds but it's not the best climber lol.


It's obviouse you do not fly the P-51's very much.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/suntb.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
04-19-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

The P-51 is actually undermodelled, since one of its strongest characteristics, ie. Dive acceleration is not modelled well. This is because dive acceleration due to gravity does not seem to be modelled in the Sim, and the fact that the extremely low CdO of the P-51 would give it a very good dive acceleration, since drag and weight are the only factor affecting acceleration in dives over the max. normal level speed of an aircraft.

The energy retention characteristics of the P-51 also seem undermodelled for maneuvers which are done at less than 2G's. Wind tunnel testing suggested that this aircraft had very good drag characteristics in low G situations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have to agree with Buzzsaw 100% on this one. Heavy a/c like the P-51 and Fw190 do not seem to have their historical dive/zoom climb advantages in FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Maple_Tiger
04-19-2004, 01:49 PM
JtDIt depends on the Bf model. It will outclimb G-6, but not G-2 or K-4.


Out climb a G-6? Thats the first i have ever heard of this lol. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif


JtD[quote]IL-2 says 1450, other soruces usually say 1400 (which I know is wrong). Where can I find backup for the 1650? Which Packard version?[/qoute]

Again it's obviouse you know very little about the P-51. In the Objects veiwer it says P-51B with WEP/1695 HP. P-51D with WEP/1720 HP.

In this sight

http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51specs.shtml

it says Normal T.O. HP is 1380 for the B/C with the Packard V-1650-3. With WEP 1620 HP

The P-51B/C and D with the Packard V-1650-7 had a Normal T.O. HP of 1490. With WEP, 1720 HP.

JtDquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the P-51D cannot out turn the KI-84 and BF109 at low speeds lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Did you try? You and another guy staying horizontal and pulling the stick as much as possible?



What do you think we as a squad have been doing since the P-51 became available?

Human against human the P-51D cannot out turn a KI-84 at low speeds. That just crazy.

You can't compare your results when flying against AI's

Normaly the P-51D cannot out turn a BF109K4 at low speeds, although they are close. It just depends how much fuel each plane has. P-51D with 25% fuel against the BF109K4 with 50% fuel should be very very close. But if the BF109K4 had 75% fuel, then the P-51D will out turn it at low speeds.

This i know from experaince.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/suntb.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Mon April 19 2004 at 01:05 PM.]

Ugly_Kid
04-19-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Have to agree with Buzzsaw 100% on this one. Heavy a/c like the P-51 and Fw190 do not seem to have their historical dive/zoom climb advantages in FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another one with a faulty copy of AEP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif
If more of these pop up, I have to consider myself really lucky.

LeadSpitter_
04-19-2004, 02:19 PM
Uglykid those graphs you posted at simhq, are they from a program ROSS squad made I was wondering where to find the program.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

Ugly_Kid
04-19-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Uglykid those graphs you posted at simhq, are they from a program ROSS squad made I was wondering where to find the program.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

?You mean IL-2 Compare charts. Yeah that's the one from Youss, just don't take the figures as absolute fact they are nowhere near exact but they still give general idea I think.

Try this link:
IL2 Compare 2.3 (http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/il2c_v23.zip)

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-19-2004, 02:45 PM
Thats some special P-51 you got bud. Does it have aftermarket parts or is it stock http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As far as using AI to base your theory on, I can tell you that I can beat every plane in the game on Ace AI easily at any alt using the P-47. And yes I can even turn with some of them. So whats that tell ya? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

=S=
www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
{The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2}

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

Aaron_GT
04-19-2004, 03:21 PM
JtD: you are wrong, you know all US planes are woefully undermodelled because Oleg hates the USA http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
04-19-2004, 03:25 PM
UglyKid wrote:
"Yeah it turns very well but only if you push the nose down. That is to say sustained turn is nothing particular, worse than Bf better than Fw. I don't think it's too good actually quite accurately modeled - I like it a lot"

Sounds about the right relative turn performance.

It subjectively 'feels' about right. It
certainly has an efficient high altitude cruise.
(By which I don't mean it is necessarily as
fast at the maximum as it should, but that you
can throttle back and reduce RPM at altitude,
and it retains speed well, allowing you to
loiter at 4000 to 5000m very efficiently and
for a long period even on 25% fuel, allowing
you to pick your moment to BnZ). Efficient
high speed and high altitude cruise seems
correct to me.

Aaron_GT
04-19-2004, 03:37 PM
faustnik wrote:
"Have to agree with Buzzsaw 100% on this one. Heavy a/c like the P-51 and Fw190 do not seem to have their historical dive/zoom climb advantages in FB."

Below maximum level speed at any given
altitude mass isn't really the issue, it's
excess power loading. It's only when at the
same maximum level speed that the heavier planes
(more correctly less total drag:mass) will
do better.

One of the advantages of the P47 isn't it's
mass anyway, it's that it has lots of excess
power at high altitude at high speed cruise
due to its efficient design and large
turbocharger. For a relatively heavy plane,
the 190 doesn't have too bad a power loading
with boost, so it isn't too far behind in the
initial acceleration stakes if at cruise, and
its drag:mass ratio is healthy at high speeds.
Whether or not it is accurately represented
in the game I don't know - we'd need planes
that match the AFDU reports so I could test
against those! So once we have the Spit XIV
and that is debugged we can test more :-)

With zoom initially the drag:mass dominates,
but it can soon end up back at the power
loading. There might be energy retention issues,
but once you are slow, the P47 shouldn't be
a great climber compared to planes with high
power loading like the 109K4 if you are down
low. That's why with a P47 you are best keeping
it high and fast making the best of the
efficient aerodynamics and high altitude
power. Sadly online combat tends
to be more low and TnB based very often, so
the P47 isn't going to shine under those
conditions.

What we need are reasons for the combat to be
high - i.e. people to do online missions with
B17s in airstarts (not too many B17s or it
will be a slide show, sadly) up high with 109s
having to climb to meet them. That would then
give the P47s their historical advantage. Some
of the same is true of the P51 (although it
doesn't retain power quite as well as the P47).

DaBallz
04-19-2004, 04:02 PM
The P-51 turns quite well in real life when compared
to other contempoary European aircraft.
Funny you guys say it should not turn with a Bf-109
or a Fw, maybe even with a spit.
Turn rate is relative, at low speed a Spit V
would make short work of a P-51D, I don't
doubt that. At high speeds, 300 mph+ the Spit would
get it's butt handed to it.
Same is true for the bf-109.
I have NEVER read a pilot combat account
of a Bf-109, any model, out turning a P-51.
Combat flaps are a big reason, the P-51 was
designed from the start with the flaps designed
to be deployed at high speeds. This is incorrectly
modeled in FB. The flaps should not be nearly so prone to jamming.

But speed and zoom climb were the primary advantaged
for the P-51D. The P-51H would have been even more
deadly in this performance parameter.

The USAAF disagrees with everyone here. It
says the highest terminal speed of the prop aircraft
was the P-51D (the H was no better in this respect).
Yes folks, it could dive to higher speeds than a P-47.

One thing that made the P-51 a great race plane is
that it holds speed in a turn very well.
A zoom climb is a turn in the vertical.
If you try to run away from a P-51 by climbing
you had better have a big head start. He will
likely scrub less energy in the "pull up".
You might not live to show your superior power to weight.

Da...

SkyChimp
04-19-2004, 07:11 PM
I still get a kick out of the notion that dives were performed at full throttle. Yeah, you can do that in FB, but in real life that was a good way to ruin an engine, gearbox or lose a prop. A pilot could enter a dive at full trottle, but he could not exceed his over-rev limitations. The main pratice was to enter a dive and then throttle back to prevent over-reving.

Bf-109s in FB dive too well. In real life, parts flew off of them in excees of 750 kmh, but not in FB. Oleg, please tone down the Bf-109.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Aaron_GT
04-20-2004, 01:25 AM
"I still get a kick out of the notion that dives were performed at full throttle. Yeah, you can do that in FB, but in real life that was a good way to ruin an engine, gearbox or lose a prop. A pilot could enter a dive at full trottle, but he could not exceed his over-rev limitations. The main pratice was to enter a dive and then throttle back to prevent over-reving. "

I think you are misunderstanding things, Chimp.
If you are at cruise (less than full level
speed for that altitude) then the excess power
is a determining factor in the initial dive
acceleration. At this point you are in no danger
of overrevving the engine - you are not at
maximum speed for that altitude, and so no more
in danger of overrevving than opening the
throttle for maximum level speed. This is what
I am talking about when discussing excess power.

If you are already at maximum level speed for
that altitude, then excess power is irrelevant
anyway. If you are diving at maximum level
speed then you do want to modify engine settings
pretty rapidly to avoid overrevving. By the
time this sets in, it is drag:mass that is the
dominating factor in any continued dive
acceleration. But the initial factor for a
dive from cruise speed is excess power loading.

However often in dives it is the initial
acceleration from non max speed that makes
the difference, and here excess power makes
a difference. Hence the 109s will beat the
P47 from cruise low down, but the P47s should
spank the *** of 109s up high. In a long dive
the P47 is going to win over the 109
at any altitude due to better aerodynamics.

750 km/h is the Vne listed in the
pilot's manual for the 109G2. I somehow doubt
that the second that you went over the Vne
bits started to fall off - I suspect that
there was some tolerance built in here.
Indeed the G10 could manage about 700 km/h
in level flight with boos, and the K4 720 km/h .
I don't think they would allow them to fly
that fast in level flight if at 20mph more
the thing was going to fall apart!

JtD
04-20-2004, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Out climb a G-6? Thats the first i have ever heard of this lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might want to give it a try, than.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again it's obviouse you know very little about the P-51. In the Objects veiwer it says P-51B with WEP/1695 HP. P-51D with WEP/1720 HP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

? My object viewer says something different. 1695 is there for the 1650-7 of the C model, for whichever reason. For the 1650-3, however, the highest number written down is 1450.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In this sight

http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51specs.shtml

it says Normal T.O. HP is 1380 for the B/C with the Packard V-1650-3. With WEP 1620 HP

The P-51B/C and D with the Packard V-1650-7 had a Normal T.O. HP of 1490. With WEP, 1720 HP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I found two other sites, saying it was 1600 max.

http://www.onmarkint.com/eagles/merlin/
http://www.enginehistory.org/Packard/StatsAllPackardAero.pdf

Anyway, thanks for pointing out it was more than 1450.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What do you think we as a squad have been doing since the P-51 became available?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you show your test results? I'd really like to see them. If you don't, treating it as top secret like many squads do, how am I supposed to know?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Human against human the P-51D cannot out turn a KI-84 at low speeds. That just crazy.

You can't compare your results when flying against AI's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am taking this from IL-2 compare mainly, backed up by a little flying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as using AI to base your theory on, I can tell you that I can beat every plane in the game on Ace AI easily at any alt using the P-47. And yes I can even turn with some of them. So whats that tell ya?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are about as good as me?

Skychimp, I know the 750 were the limit for the E Models. Like Aaron, I think the limits were increased on later, faster models. (I am a little surprised to see it is the same on the G-2.)

TheGozr
04-20-2004, 03:17 AM
The P51 outurning the Ki-84... hum.. thats new http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/forgotten-battles/images/IOCompetition.jpg &lt;--Competition Level IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/forgotten-battles/)

clint-ruin
04-20-2004, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
The P51 outurning the Ki-84... hum.. thats new http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it out-turn the KI84-IA at between 220 and 300 kmh at 1000m?

Il-2 Compare 2.3 says ..

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/P51B-KI84IA-IL2C2.3GENERATED.jpg

.. yes it does. Is this just a case of Il-2 Compares generated data being wrong compared to real in-game data?

I would suggest that JTD is simply trying to find out if this is historically correct P-51 performance rather than any attempt to neuter the plane. Certainly it would be hard to make accusations of bias stick to him considering his previous excellent work posted here.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Maple_Tiger
04-20-2004, 04:42 AM
http://www.onmarkint.com/eagles/merlin/

This sight does not state the HP correctly.

The V-1650-3, V-1650-7 and V-1650-9 had differant amount of HP... not the same. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


http://www.enginehistory.org/Packard/StatsAllPackardAero.pdf

This sight says the Max HP for the V-1650-7 was 1720/3000 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out climb a G-6? Thats the first i have ever heard of this lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JtD:You might want to give it a try, than.



I have flown the G-6, K4, G/AS, G10, G14 and the G2. But i disagree with you.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think we as a squad have been doing since the P-51 became available?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JtD:Where do you show your test results? I'd really like to see them. If you don't, treating it as top secret like many squads do, how am I supposed to know?


Who said anything about top secret? It's called trial and error, practice and experaince.

Spend 6 months online flying against Human pilots instead of AI's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/suntb.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Cajun76
04-20-2004, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In a long dive
the P47 is going to win over the 109
at any altitude due to better aerodynamics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif What!? I have been told by the foremost authority on the Bf-109 series since Willy Messerschmitt (and sometimes usurping Willy himself) that the 109 series had better, more effiecient aerodynamics than the P-47 "sedated cow." This uberority, I mean, this authority was totally convinced of this fact. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/Real_35a.gif
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

hop2002
04-20-2004, 05:03 AM
There's a power chart for the V-1650-7 at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

Go to the Spit IX page, scroll down to the bottom, it's linked as Merlin 66 HP Chart

These are dynamic (rammed) numbers, so static numbers would be higher below critical alt, but with a lower critical alt.

[This message was edited by hop2002 on Tue April 20 2004 at 04:13 AM.]

JtD
04-20-2004, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I would suggest that JTD is simply trying to find out if this is historically correct P-51 performance rather than any attempt to neuter the plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's it. I want to know if
a) the plane does behave like that in FB
b) if it did in real life.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This sight does not state the HP correctly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's only for the -3, I think. Rest is wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have flown the G-6, K4, G/AS, G10, G14 and the G2. But i disagree with you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you ever really outclimb a P-51 in a G-6 in a direct comparism (squad testing or so)? That would be a fairly strong argument. I just tried against AI and couldn't really do this.

-----

A couple of moth's ago I found that link about the P-51:

http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/cover.htm

I found it fairly interesting but no number in this text matches with FB.

Aaron_GT
04-20-2004, 06:49 AM
"What!? I have been told by the foremost authority on the Bf-109 series since Willy Messerschmitt (and sometimes usurping Willy himself) that the 109 series had better, more effiecient aerodynamics than the P-47 "sedated cow." This uberority, I mean, this authority was totally convinced of this fact. "

I think probably what was said was that the
P47 had a lower drag coefficient (more efficient
aerodynamics) but lower total drag (being
a lot smaller). With cleaner aerodynamics when
diving the drag on the P47 builds up less
quickly.

At sea level, at max speed, with no excess
power loading, the resistance to acceleration
is g-drag/mass. We can assume at sea level,
since the P47 and the 109G have similar speeds
there, that the total drag is roughly
proportional to the engine power. The 109
has less drag than the P47 in total, but a
higher coefficient of drag.

For the 109G you are talking around 1500 hp,
and about 5900lb empty weight, or drag:mass at
max sea level speed is 1500:5900 (0.25).

For the P47D you are talking about 2300hp,
11000lb empty or 2300:11000 (0.21). This is
less to ****** the acceleration due to gravity.

So when at maximum speed at sea level, you'd
expect the P47 to pull ahead (g dominates
over excess power loading, as there is no
excess power as you tip over into the dive).

If they were both at 50% power (assuming
this translates to the same speed) then the
excess power loading for the 109 is 0.13hp/lb
and for the P47 it is 0.10hp/lb, so the 109
should accelerate faster initially. Soon the
drag will dominate over excess power loading,
though.

At high altitude the P47's engine will retain
power much better, so the power loadings are
reversed relative to each other, so the P47
will both accelerate faster from cruise, or
from maximum speed.

In a long dive the way drag increases with
speed dominates over any excess power,
especially as you'd need to throttle back the
engine.

So like I said - if you keep the P47 fast
(near its max speed) then an enemy at an
energy disadvantage will need to use all their
excess power to catch up to you, so their
better power loading won't be a huge advantage,
and you will be able to dive away as the
efficient, denser plane will win. If you
let the P47 get slow, then a plane with higher
power loading and/or E advantage can catch you.
Plus up high, you likely have the power loading
advantage as well.

The more I play with the P47 and the equations
the more I get the sense that people complaining
about the P47 are fighting low and slow where
the P47 is vulnerable.

Snoop_Baron
04-20-2004, 09:24 AM
"while a P-51B can turn with a Ki-84/Yak-3, a Bf 109 K-4 can't."

I haven't flown the P-51B any where near as much as the P-51D. But I really doubt that it can turn with a Yak-3 or Ki-84. I normaly don't try to turn with those planes but I'll give it a try.

I can say this without a doubth though. If you try to out turn a Yak-3 or Ki-84 in a flat horizontal turn in a P-51D the Yak-3 and Ki-84 will easily out turn you and get on your six.

If you are basing this solely on IL2 Compare then I can see why you are miss lead. I don't know how they do their turn calculations but there are quite a few plane comparisons where it showed to planes as being close when in a real flat turn fight one of them had a big advantage. I believe the reason for this is that it might not take into considerations things like acceleration and energy retention. Those figures might only be good for one turn after which the heavier plane just can't keep up.


s!

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

Snoop_Baron
04-20-2004, 10:10 AM
Ok, I just did some testing in the QMB. I flew the P-51B/D, Yak3, Ki-84 against one another every combo. I used ACE AI and gave the P51s 25% fuel and Yak3 and Ki-84 50% fuel. I would rate their relative turn performance in this order from best to worst: Yak3, Ki84, P51B, and P51D. Of course if I went off just Il2 compare the P51D would turn just as well as the P51B but it doesn't. The Yak3 would only be a little bit better at turning but it is much better. The Ki84 turned well but the AI didn't turn with it as much as I did when I flew it tried more B&Z and climbing.

Now I didn't try the 109K4 maybe it can't turn as well as the P51B but the Yak3 and Ki84 are both better at turning than a P51B as I expected and they should be both be better than the K4 regarless of how the P51B compares to the K4. I've had turn fights online against good K4 pilots in a P51D and the turn fight can be very even at first but in the long run the K4 wins.

s!

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

clint-ruin
04-20-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoop_Baron:
Ok, I just did some testing in the QMB. I flew the P-51B/D, Yak3, Ki-84 against one another every combo. I used ACE AI and gave the P51s 25% fuel and Yak3 and Ki-84 50% fuel. I would rate their relative turn performance in this order from best to worst: Yak3, Ki84, P51B, and P51D. Of course if I went off just Il2 compare the P51D would turn just as well as the P51B but it doesn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know you are going to be carrying less weight at 25% fuel in a P-51b than in a P-51d.

I would suggest that we take another look at JTDs initial post:


But that is not all: For the 51B I found 260 kph IAS to be the contiuos turning speed @ 1000m alt. I deployed take off flaps. In this configuration and at this speed, the P-51B outturns all Yak's and La's as well as three of the four Spitfires and all German planes. There is a number of planes that can stay with it or beat it, the I-16 and the Zero, the P-39 Q-10 and the P-40M among a few others. The low speed turn performance of the P-51 seems to be incredibly overmodelled.

For the P-51 D it's basically the same, even though slightly supported by the much more powerful engine.

The turn times get even more funny with landings flaps at 220kph.

...

Is the P-51 grossly overmodeled as far as low speed charateristics are concerned?

He is asking what is going on with the P-51s turn speed at sub 300kmh speeds and with flaps deployed. It would be good if we could get some E-retention/turn radius data done on this along the lines of Alex Voicus excellent K4/La7 comparison, or at least a track of it turning similarly to the Il-2compare data. I would offer but unfortunately I don't think I'll have much luck doing sustained turn tests with a gamepad.

Does anyone have any real life sustained turn rate data for the P-51b/d at low speeds?

Il2Compare says the best times for for 360 degree turns @ 1000m with the D-20 are:

226kmh, landing flaps, 19.838 seconds.

276kmh, takeoff flaps, 19.308 seconds

294kmh, combat flaps, 19.327 seconds

338kmh, no flaps, 20.282 seconds.

The landing flaps figure especially gives an incredibly small turning circle even if the time is not spectacular. You have to go to quite early war birds to find anything similar in Il-2compare at least.

A great deal of our understanding of the inner workings of Il-2 gunnery come from JTDs very objective and time consuming work on the subject, it would be nice if some people [not you snoop_baron] could keep themselves from being snotty to the guy just for asking about this.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Snoop_Baron
04-20-2004, 11:23 AM
Your right clint-ruin! By the time I got to page 4 on this thread I didn't even remember this! I did all my testing with *just combat flaps*. I really respect JTDs work on IL2 gunnery. He could be right about this, I've always tried my best to avoid using anything beyond combat flaps because of my expectations on how the P51 would perform with those settings. In my experience getting slow in the P51 has been very dangerous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm not at home anymore so I can't bring up the QMB. But the best way to test this for me to startup a test server with a squad mate and do some flat turn tests between the P51s and Yak3 and Ki84. TacticalSkirmish is a huge Yak3 fan so I'm sure he wouldn't mind testing it with me. We could record a track of our turns and post it here. If I can get some time this Wednesay (squad training day) I will do it. But since I'm planning on going on a trip I might not be able to make practice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

Enough with the rambling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I'll try to produce online test tracks this Wednesday otherwise if someone else could run tests and post it that would be great. The AI doesn't always do what you want it to so it's best to test with someone online especialy since you know the flap setting s of both planes this way.

Just echoing clint here, JTD has been very objective so lets take this seriously.

s!

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

Kurfurst__
04-20-2004, 01:42 PM
Is there any test with actual numbers for Merlin P-51s turn time or radius for 20 000 ft ? Then we might have something to compare to...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

Ugly_Kid
04-20-2004, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
At this point you are in no danger
of overrevving the engine - you are not at
maximum speed for that altitude, and so no more
in danger of overrevving than opening the
throttle for maximum level speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the rest of your stuff was correct (sorry the narrow formating makes my right eye hurt) - just a minor note, there are cases where prop control can't compensate with rapid acceleration even in this area (below level flight top speed). LaGG-3 suffered from such a shortcoming AFAIK, for example (no dives steeper than 85‚? regardless of speed). It's because governor or whatever can't adjust the pitch of blades rapidly enough, the prop goes into area where airstream suddenly pumps up the revs and the prop's runaway -&gt; overrevving. The second case of overrevving occurs when the the blades hit the stops, the is no more adjustment available.

It's difficult to say which aircraft suffered from such a limitation and where so they simply decided to go for a ideal CSP system...(for all)

Maple_Tiger
04-20-2004, 02:30 PM
Qoute: JtD

Did you ever really outclimb a P-51 in a G-6 in a direct comparism (squad testing or so)? That would be a fairly strong argument. I just tried against AI and couldn't really do this.



I can't realy give you a clear answer on that. There are alot of factors to think about in regards to how one plane performs compared to another.


Most of us know that the P-51 was about 60kmh TAS faster then the G6. I could be wronge but i think the G6 is a 43 plane?

Climb time:

P-51D-20NA, 6,000m/7 min.

BF109-G6, 6,000m/6 min.


Wheight is the mager factor i would look at first. If I took a P-51D with only 25% fuel then i would proubly achieve better climb rate then what was listed. Mayby 6,000m/6.5min?

Angle of climb plays a factor also. The BF1096 should out climb the pony at low speeds and higher angle of climb. Thats why it's not a good idea to fight the BF109 in the Vertical, it will gain the advantage.

If these two birds where not climbing at a very high angle, but at a very low angle, then the P-51D would very slowly pull away.


knowing stuff like this will help keep someone alive.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/suntb.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

BpGemini
04-20-2004, 02:39 PM
Warning: If you're getting pwned by the AI then you need to quit complaining about FMs and need to practice more.

Besides the AI somewhat flies their planes like UFO's.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/P-39_BlitzPig_Sig_01.jpg
IL-2 original P-39 vet soon to be P-63 vet.

CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

GK.
04-20-2004, 04:10 PM
i can bat turn the p51 at slow speeds with landing flaps. makes scissors easy to win if you know what speeds to do it and how to maintain that speed (220kmph?) Take my word for it, I am a master online pilot.
i dont know if its realistic or not.

http://data.photodump.com/gk/shidensig.jpg
*Proud Chute Shooter*
"P40's can't out run the zero, so we'll have to outfly them." -Ben Affleck

SkyChimp
04-20-2004, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I think you are misunderstanding things, Chimp.
If you are at cruise (less than full level
speed for that altitude) then the excess power
is a determining factor in the initial dive
acceleration. At this point you are in no danger
of overrevving the engine - you are not at
maximum speed for that altitude, and so no more
in danger of overrevving than opening the
throttle for maximum level speed. This is what
I am talking about when discussing excess power.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm not misunderstanding. I just don't think comparing dive accelerations of planes from cruise settings in useful, or realistic. It's interesting, but academic. Planes rarely fought each other at cruise settings.

Also, it's important that one doesn't confuse power setting with engine speed. Engine speeds is not entirely dependant on power setting. Take for instance the Mustang's V-1650-7 engine. Military power was 61"hg manifold pressure at 3,000 rpm. Combat power was 67"hg manifold pressure at the same 3,000 rpm.

The point I was trying to make is that dive isn't a process of simply slamming the throttle forward, nosing over, and going hell-bent-for-leather. Dives, even in combat situtation, had to be controlled. Not just for the sake of keeping your wings, but also for keeping your engine in working order to get home.

Back to the Mustang - enter a dive at either military or combat power and before long that engine rpm, which was already 3,000, is going to climb significantly higher. Not only that, but manifold pressure will climb, as will oil pressure. Maximum allowable overrev for the V-1650-7 according to the Mustang manual was 3,240 rpm. If that rpm was exceeded, or if maximum allowable manifold pressure was exceeded (both of which can happen in a dive), the pilot was instructed to land immediately at the nearest airbase, record highest manifold pressure, engine rpm, oil pressure and reason for overrev.

I know what you are saying, but excess power come into play for a very, very short duration. Whether a pilot enters a dive at cruise or at combat power, he's going to be throttling back in short order to avoid over revving the engine.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
However often in dives it is the initial
acceleration from non max speed that makes
the difference, and here excess power makes
a difference. Hence the 109s will beat the
P47 from cruise low down, but the P47s should
spank the *** of 109s up high.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, "non-max speed" is not the same as "non-max engine speed." You can be at a "non-max speed" but still be at "max" engine speed. See my example with the Mustang above.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
750 km/h is the Vne listed in the
pilot's manual for the 109G2. I somehow doubt
that the second that you went over the Vne
bits started to fall off - I suspect that
there was some tolerance built in here.
Indeed the G10 could manage about 700 km/h
in level flight with boos, and the K4 720 km/h .
I don't think they would allow them to fly
that fast in level flight if at 20mph more
the thing was going to fall apart!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point I was making was in the context of overevving, thus, overstraining, the engine.

Examples exist:

Uffz. Georg Genth recalls that the Messerschmitts could not maintain close formation, but lurched around in the sky like so many drunks. The canopy of his Bf-109K-4 ised over, and he could only see straight ahead through the armored glass panel. He cleared a small spot on the left canopy pane by breathing on it, so he could see to the rear. He was at the rear of the formation, and when he saw two p-47s banking on an attack curve gave a warning and fled for the clouds below, swithcing on hi artificial horizon as he dived. The cloud proved to be thousands of feet thick, and he would up flying at terminal speed - 750 km/h - in an inverted bank, from which he barely complete recovery after he left the clouds at 500 meters above the ground. His cowling panels had popped off, and his opil lines had burst from overstraining the engine...

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Aaron_GT
04-21-2004, 01:17 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
"No, I'm not misunderstanding. I just don't think comparing dive accelerations of planes from cruise settings in useful, or realistic. It's interesting, but academic. Planes rarely fought each other at cruise settings. "

I can see your point partially here. The
dive comparasions people are making in the
game often have these factors, though. So
if people see a plane with a low power loading
at low altitude (the classic example being
the P47) being beaten in the initial portions
of a dive from cruise by a 109, and they call
foul they are incorrect. This is the point I
am trying to make.

With regard to high speed dive performance,
you are correct.

However I would add that dive acceleration
from cruise was quite relevant in WW2 since
a fairly typical combat engagement involved
being bounced unawares while at cruise. Being
able to quickly accelerate away to regroup
would be useful. One of the big advantages
of the P51 and P47 was the high cruise speed
possible, though, at altitude which immediately
gives them advantage in this situation.

With regard to the 109, the Vne of 750 km/h
for the 109G2 is from the translation of the
Finnish version of the manual which also
specifies that the engine should be on idle.
The Finnish manual is very conservative, though,
proscribing the use of WEP in any form.

Aaron_GT
04-21-2004, 01:22 AM
Skychimp wrote:
"The point I was making was in the context of overevving, thus, overstraining, the engine. "

It wasn't clear when you posted:
"In real life, parts flew off of them in excees of 750 kmh, but not in FB"

I presumed that you meant things like the
wings and so on. It would seem unlikely that
the wings would suddenly come off at 750km/h.

JtD
04-21-2004, 04:12 AM
I finally found some time to fly a small test against the clock.

I took a couple of horizontal right-turns @ 1000m, 25% fuel, 110% engine, auto rad.

For the P-51 at optimum turning speeds as suggested by IL-2compare:
220kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 19.8, me: 21
270kph, starting flaps: IL-2c: 19.3, me: 20
290kph, combat flaps: IL-2c: 19.3, me: 20

Since I usually suck at turning I think IL-2 compare is about correct with the P-51 in game performance.

For the Ki-84Ia at optimum turning speeds as suggested by IL-2compare and P-51 optimum turning speed in flaps down config:
220kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 25, me: 19.5
260kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 21.5, me: 18.4
320kph, starting flaps: IL-2c: 19.9, me: 17.4

The Ki-84 flight model hasn't got much to do with IL-2 compare, as far as low speed turning is concerned.

Leads to the following conclusion:
A Ki-84 will outturn a P-51 at any speed, as long as it doesn't explode due to high g.

I still think that the P-51's low speed performance and handling is way to good, as is the Ki-84's. I guess if I went on testing, I find this strange behaviour with almost any plane.

The P-51 smoothly pulls 2g at 1.5 times stalling speed with high AoA, almost vertical wings and strong rudder. I don't believe you'll ever see this at a flight show.

Maple_Tiger
04-21-2004, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
I finally found some time to fly a small test against the clock.

I took a couple of horizontal right-turns @ 1000m, 25% fuel, 110% engine, auto rad.

For the P-51 at optimum turning speeds as suggested by IL-2compare:
220kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 19.8, me: 21
270kph, starting flaps: IL-2c: 19.3, me: 20
290kph, combat flaps: IL-2c: 19.3, me: 20

Since I usually suck at turning I think IL-2 compare is about correct with the P-51 in game performance.

For the Ki-84Ia at optimum turning speeds as suggested by IL-2compare and P-51 optimum turning speed in flaps down config:
220kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 25, me: 19.5
260kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 21.5, me: 18.4
320kph, starting flaps: IL-2c: 19.9, me: 17.4

The Ki-84 flight model hasn't got much to do with IL-2 compare, as far as low speed turning is concerned.

Leads to the following conclusion:
A Ki-84 will outturn a P-51 at any speed, as long as it doesn't explode due to high g.

I still think that the P-51's low speed performance and handling is way to good, as is the Ki-84's. I guess if I went on testing, I find this strange behaviour with almost any plane.

The P-51 smoothly pulls 2g at 1.5 times stalling speed with high AoA, almost vertical wings and strong rudder. I don't believe you'll ever see this at a flight show.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



JtD[Qoute]I still think that the P-51's low speed performance and handling is way to good, as is the Ki-84's. I guess if I went on testing, I find this strange behaviour with almost any plane.


I disagree.

When you say P-51 are you talking about the both the B/C and D?

The B has way better low speed turn performane then the D. Historlical the B was a little more manuverble though; how much more? Who knows.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/suntb.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JtD
04-22-2004, 03:02 AM
Thx for your work, Snoop_Baron. I shouldn't have only flow P-51 vs. target, but also target vs. P-51. This would have saved some time, I guess.

Did you do some online trials now?

Maple_Tiger, I know about the different climbing speeds of P-51 and Bf 109. It's the same with FW 190 and Spitfire. However, while the FW has a worse top climb than the Spit, the P-51 apparently beats the Bf 109.
Where are the 7mins/6000 for the P-51 from?

My turning tests were in a D model, -5 I think.
Are you suggesting that pulling 2 g at 220kph in a sharp right turn @ maybe 60‚? banking is real?

VFA-195 Snacky
04-22-2004, 03:11 AM
I dont think the P51 is too far off, but I am curious about the 85gl aux tank behind the pilot and whether or not this weight is hurting performance as it did in real life. If in fact this weight is throwing off the COG then is it possible to fix it in a patch where if you select %50 fuel you only fill the wings and leave the aux tank dry??


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
I finally found some time to fly a small test against the clock.

I took a couple of horizontal right-turns @ 1000m, 25% fuel, 110% engine, auto rad.

For the P-51 at optimum turning speeds as suggested by IL-2compare:
220kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 19.8, me: 21
270kph, starting flaps: IL-2c: 19.3, me: 20
290kph, combat flaps: IL-2c: 19.3, me: 20

Since I usually suck at turning I think IL-2 compare is about correct with the P-51 in game performance.

For the Ki-84Ia at optimum turning speeds as suggested by IL-2compare and P-51 optimum turning speed in flaps down config:
220kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 25, me: 19.5
260kph, landing flaps: IL-2c: 21.5, me: 18.4
320kph, starting flaps: IL-2c: 19.9, me: 17.4

The Ki-84 flight model hasn't got much to do with IL-2 compare, as far as low speed turning is concerned.

Leads to the following conclusion:
A Ki-84 will outturn a P-51 at any speed, as long as it doesn't explode due to high g.

I still think that the P-51's low speed performance and handling is way to good, as is the Ki-84's. I guess if I went on testing, I find this strange behaviour with almost any plane.

The P-51 smoothly pulls 2g at 1.5 times stalling speed with high AoA, almost vertical wings and strong rudder. I don't believe you'll ever see this at a flight show.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



JtD[Qoute]I still think that the P-51's low speed performance and handling is way to good, as is the Ki-84's. I guess if I went on testing, I find this strange behaviour with almost any plane.


I disagree.

When you say P-51 are you talking about the both the B/C and D?

The B has way better low speed turn performane then the D. Historlical the B was a little more manuverble though; how much more? Who knows.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/suntb.jpg
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/Corsairs.jpg

Maple_Tiger
04-22-2004, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Thx for your work, Snoop_Baron. I shouldn't have only flow P-51 vs. target, but also target vs. P-51. This would have saved some time, I guess.

Did you do some online trials now?

Maple_Tiger, I know about the different climbing speeds of P-51 and Bf 109. It's the same with FW 190 and Spitfire. However, while the FW has a worse top climb than the Spit, the P-51 apparently beats the Bf 109.
Where are the 7mins/6000 for the P-51 from?

My turning tests were in a D model, -5 I think.
Are you suggesting that pulling 2 g at 220kph in a sharp right turn @ maybe 60‚? banking is real?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 6000m/7min for the P-51D-20NA is in the FB/AEP Objects veiwer.


Turning test's in the D, making sharp right turns at 220/kmh? Mayby in the P-51B/C, but not in the P-51D. Unless you had stalls and spins turned off lol. Don't matter any way. Most of us who actualy fly the D know it does not have very good low speed handling. That is why you'l guys in P-51D's BnZen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I find this hard to beleave http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JtD
04-22-2004, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

Turning test's in the D, making sharp right turns at 220/kmh? Mayby in the P-51B/C, but not in the P-51D.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might want to take a look at this track, then.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/p51dturn.TRK

Take a watch and stop the time from heading 180 until two turns later. Switch off cockpit to see TAS and digital heading. My watch showed 39.8 seconds. Turning isn't absolutely clean, I am loosing a bit of speed and alt. 21 sec like above are constant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unless you had stalls and spins turned off lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything on except:
- no external
- always cockpit
- no instant sucess
- minmap path
- hud

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Don't matter any way. Most of us who actualy fly the D know it does not have very good low speed handling. That is why you'l guys in P-51D's BnZen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Low speed handling is good, Zero is better, though. ;-) Maybe you'lll give turning a try next time you're up against a K-4 or A-9.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I find this hard to beleave http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Watch the track.

Locust_
04-22-2004, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
So, what do you think:

Was a P-51 historically able to outturn a Yak-3 or am I mistaken in assuming it can in FB? (I did it against AI, but that doesn't really count, does it?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

hey man that ai dosent count test vs humans

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/161sig.jpg

Fighter Sweeps is here come join the fun.....
http://alloutwar.com/IL2FS/

hop2002
04-22-2004, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With regard to the 109, the Vne of 750 km/h
for the 109G2 is from the translation of the
Finnish version of the manual which also
specifies that the engine should be on idle.
The Finnish manual is very conservative, though,
proscribing the use of WEP in any form.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't the Finns being conservative, all the DB 605A engines were restricted to 1.3 ata. At least until June 43, but Butch has rechecked documents and it seems they couldn't use 1.42 ata until April 44.

As to the speed limits, I've got a tanslation of an update on dive limits for the 109, dated August 1942:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Technical Instructions of the Generalluftzeugmeister:

Reference Bf 109 - wing breakages. Owing to
continually recurring accidents caused by wing
breakages in Bf 109 aircraft attention is
drawn to the following:

The maximum permissible indicated air speeds
in the different heights are not being
observed and are being widely exceeded. On the
basis of evidence which is now available the
speed limitations ordered by the teleprint
message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are
cancelled and replaced by the following data:

Altitude Speed Previous limit
Up to 3KM 750 km/h (466mph) 466 mph
At 5 km 700 km/h (435mph) 425 mph
At 7 km 575 km/h (357mph) 382 mph
At 9 km 450 km/h (280mph) 341 mph
At 11 km 400 km/h (248mph) 304 mph



These limitations are valid for the time being
for all building series including the Bf 109 G.

Yawing in a dive leads to high one-sided wing
stresses which, under certain circumstances,
the wing tip cannot support. When a yawing
condition is detected the dive is to be broken
off without exercising force. In a flying
condition of yawing and turning at the same
time correction must be made with the rudder
and not with the ailerons.</pre>

Kwiatos
04-22-2004, 08:09 AM
Opinion Marka Hanna about BF 109:

"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.
The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! THe only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands ! "

Comparing to P-51:
"It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better."

So we have overmodeeled P-5 in slow speed dogfight. When P-51 come to FB with patch 1.21 had very good FM. From patch to patch became more easy to fly and better slow speed dogfight performance.

BSS_Goat
04-22-2004, 08:27 AM
Just wait untill the 50's get fixed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 08:59 AM
Kwiatos,

I'm not sure what speeds you are talking about, in all versions of FB and AEP the 109G/K easily outrolls the P-51 at speeds up to 350 kph. The Mustang rolls painfully slow below 300 kph indicated while the 109 rolls very well.


I notice you left out the rest of Hanna's comparison http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif : "At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Opinion Marka Hanna about BF 109:

"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem.
The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! THe only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands ! "

Comparing to P-51:
"It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better."

So we have overmodeeled P-5 in slow speed dogfight. When P-51 come to FB with patch 1.21 had very good FM. From patch to patch became more easy to fly and better slow speed dogfight performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu April 22 2004 at 08:08 AM.]

Skalgrim
04-22-2004, 09:11 AM
109g outroll p51 up to 480km/h ias

that much higher as 350km/h ias

and she turn much better at typical dogfight speed,

p51d turn with 100% fuel 23-24sec, say butch2k,
that almost same as a9 24sec

with 25% fuel perhaps 22sec, that is same as a4 with 100% fuel

russia test for a4 she turn 22sec

that means,

p51d can not better turn with 25% fuel as a4/a5 with 100% fuel



[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
Kwiatos,

I'm not sure what speeds you are talking about, in all versions of FB and AEP the 109G/K easily outrolls the P-51 at speeds up to 350 kph. The Mustang rolls painfully slow below 300 kph indicated while the 109 rolls very well.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 09:47 AM.]

Kwiatos
04-22-2004, 09:34 AM
Im not speaking about roll performance but about overall slow speed performance. According Mark Hanna opinion P-51 have no match with Bf 109 at slow speed dogfight. In 1.21 when P-51 came to FB its slow speed handling was very good modelled. But now in AEP P-51 could fight very good at slow speed with Bf 109 ( slow speed turn, vertical siccissors). Something change to bad way here.
Of course P-51 was better than Bf at high speed what we have in FB.

lrrp22 said:
"I notice you left out the rest of Hanna's comparison : "At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.""

What i left out? So who present here Mark Hanna opinion? You?

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 09:53 AM
Skalgrim,

The P-51 should roll 87 deg/sec at 400 kph and 95 deg/sec at 480. What numbers do you have for the 109G at these speeds?

What evidence do you have that the 109G/K should outturn the P-51 above 350-400 kph or so? What's "typical" dogfight speed?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
109g outroll p51 up to 480km/h ias

that much higher as 350km/h ias

and she turn much better at typical dogfight speed,

p51d turn with 100% fuel 23-24sec that almost same as a9 24sec

with 25% fuel perhaps 22sec, that is same as a4 with 100% fuel

russia test for a4 she turn 22sec

that means,

p51d can not better turn with 25% fuel as a4/a5 with 100% fuel



[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
Kwiatos,

I'm not sure what speeds you are talking about, in all versions of FB and AEP the 109G/K easily outrolls the P-51 at speeds up to 350 kph. The Mustang rolls painfully slow below 300 kph indicated while the 109 rolls very well.

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 08:43 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
04-22-2004, 10:06 AM
read mark hanna test, 109g has until 480km/h ias better rollrate as p51

that means 480km/h ias roll both plane same good

it was post rollchart from 109 in this forum, 110dec get she, but know not the speed

so it seem rollrate from 109g, was not bad compare p51


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Im not speaking about roll performance but about overall slow speed performance. According Mark Hanna opinion P-51 have no match with Bf 109 at slow speed dogfight. In 1.21 when P-51 came to FB its slow speed handling was very good modelled. But now in AEP P-51 could fight very good at slow speed with Bf 109 ( slow speed turn, vertical siccissors). Something change to bad way here.
Of course P-51 was better than Bf at high speed what we have in FB.

lrrp22 said:
"I notice you left out the rest of Hanna's comparison : "At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.""

What i left out? So who present here Mark Hanna opinion? You?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 09:36 AM.]

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 10:18 AM
There is no Mark Hanna test. There are only his remarks concerning various warbirds flown in configurations and under circumstances that are far, far from combat conditions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
read mark hanna test, 109g has until 480km/h ias better rollrate as p51

that means 480km/h ias roll both plane same good

it was post rollchart from 109 in this forum, 110dec get she, but know not the speed

so it seem rollrate from 109g was not bad



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Im not speaking about roll performance but about overall slow speed performance. According Mark Hanna opinion P-51 have no match with Bf 109 at slow speed dogfight. In 1.21 when P-51 came to FB its slow speed handling was very good modelled. But now in AEP P-51 could fight very good at slow speed with Bf 109 ( slow speed turn, vertical siccissors). Something change to bad way here.
Of course P-51 was better than Bf at high speed what we have in FB.

lrrp22 said:
"I notice you left out the rest of Hanna's comparison : "At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109.""

What i left out? So who present here Mark Hanna opinion? You?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
04-22-2004, 10:44 AM
ok was not test, wrong worded

but he means at least, she was better dogfighter, could better roll under 480km/h and much better turner low speed

that is at least indicate, that 109 was better dogfigter as p51

p51 turn only 23-24sec, say butch2k,
think he has data

that is almost same as a9

so it seem, mark hanna opinion, is not so far from realistic

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 10:04 AM.]

Kwiatos
04-22-2004, 11:00 AM
See power to weight and weight to wing area ratio between BF and P-51 and everything clear.

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 11:09 AM
No, power loading and wing loading does not make everything clear.

Depending on relative fuel state the Mustang will frequently have better wing loading than a later 109G or K and will always have better turn and roll performance at higher speeds.

The 109 will always have a powerloading advantage but that is not the end-all and be-all of flight performance that some here would have us believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
See power to weight and weight to wing area ratio between BF and P-51 and everything clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
04-22-2004, 11:17 AM
109g have very good liftloading almost same good as spit,

some wing shape make more lift with same wing area as other,

that is too importan for sustain turn
and many more

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 10:25 AM.]

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 11:23 AM
Near the stall, the 109 should be the better dogfighter. In the real world smart fighter pilots avoided fighting near the stall.

Besides, the power settings that Hanna flew at (wasn't he flying a Buchon?) resulted in a much tamer 109 than could be expected for a 109G/K pilot flying at combat power 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
ok was not test, wrong worded

but he means at least, she was better dogfighter, could better roll under 480km/h and much better turner low speed

that is at least indicate, that 109 was better dogfigter as p51

p51 turn only 23-24sec, say butch2k,
think he has data

that is almost same as a9

so it seem, mark hanna opinion, is not so far from realistic

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 10:04 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
04-22-2004, 11:33 AM
g2 is much tamer 109, but meverheless 20sec sustain turn with 1,31ata 1300ps

near the stall turn almost all plane better as p51, noting especially

but the turn time from g2 20sec is not for stall

and explain why should 109 not better turn with 350km/h ias or 400km/h ias as p51,


only with higher speed as 450km/h ias begin 109 trouble with elevator and too only without help from trimm

with trimm can 109 recover from 750km/h ias dive and get thereby blackout problem, that means 7-8gs



[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
Near the stall, the 109 should be the better dogfighter. In the real world smart fighter pilots avoided fighting near the stall.

Besides, the power settings that Hanna flew at (wasn't he flying a Buchon?) resulted in a much tamer 109 than could be expected for a 109G/K pilot flying at combat power 1944.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skalgrim:
ok was not test, wrong worded

but he means at least, she was better dogfighter, could better roll under 480km/h and much better turner low speed

that is at least indicate, that 109 was better dogfigter as p51

p51 turn only 23-24sec, say butch2k,
think he has data

that is almost same as a9

so it seem, mark hanna opinion, is not so far from realistic

[

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 11:35 AM
Skalgrim,

It's easy to cherry-pick certain statistics but the historical record doesn't support the argument that the 109 enjoyed any great turn advantage over the P-51. Mustang pilots regularly and successfully turn-fought with 109's.

Under certain conditions, no doubt the 109 could out-turn the P-51, but the way the war was fought over Europe Mustang pilots were fully confident in their ability to turn with a 109.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
109g have very good liftloading almost same good as spit,

that is too importan for sustain turn
and many more


best go simhq, there give many threat over such topic<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 11:48 AM
How many G-2's did P-51B/C/D/K pilots face? Very likely the answer is none.

If Butch does have data that shows the Mustang turning at 23-24 seconds I can guarantee you that is at the full 269 gal internal fuel load. Anybody fighting with that amount of fuel in FB is a fool.

25% fuel will save the P-51 over 1200 lbs- and that ain't a little! Add 10 to 20 degrees of flap into the equation and the Mustang should turn with a G-2 at all but the lowest speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
g2 is much tamer 109, but meverheless 20sec sustain turn with 1,31ata 1300ps

near the stall turn almost all plane better as p51, noting especially

but the turn time from g2 20sec is not for stall

and explain why should 109 not better turn with 350km/h ias or 400km/h ias as p51,


only with higher speed as 450km/h ias begin 109 trouble with elevator and too only without help from trimm

with trimm can 109 recover from 750km/h ias dive and get thereby blackout problem, that means 7-8gs



[QUOTE]Originally posted by lrrp22:
Near the stall, the 109 should be the better dogfighter. In the real world smart fighter pilots avoided fighting near the stall.

Besides, the power settings that Hanna flew at (wasn't he flying a Buchon?) resulted in a much tamer 109 than could be expected for a 109G/K pilot flying at combat power 1944.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skalgrim:
ok was not test, wrong worded

but he means at least, she was better dogfighter, could better roll under 480km/h and much better turner low speed

that is at least indicate, that 109 was better dogfigter as p51

p51 turn only 23-24sec, say butch2k,
think he has data

that is almost same as a9

so it seem, mark hanna opinion, is not so far from realistic

[<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
04-22-2004, 11:53 AM
p51 has right fly not problem against g6 or g2 real to fb ,

she is much faster, so can you dictate the fight

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 11:03 AM.]

JtD
04-22-2004, 12:04 PM
Just tested K-4:

In FB you won't turn much faster than 360‚? in 21 seconds in this bird. At 290 kph, the Bf gets 21, the P-51 gets 20 seconds and thus outturns the Bf 109. This is not realistic.

Btw, usual combat weight including some fuel, ammo, pilot and the like was around 4000-4500kg for the P-51. For the 109 it was about 3000kg, giving both planes a comparable wing load. The Bf's wing however generated a much higher lift at low speeds than the P-51's and the power load is with the Bf 109 as well. I can't see one argument
to support the relative behaviour of the two aircraft in FB.

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 12:39 PM
At what fuel levels?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Just tested K-4:

In FB you won't turn much faster than 360‚? in 21 seconds in this bird. At 290 kph, the Bf gets 21, the P-51 gets 20 seconds and thus outturns the Bf 109. This is not realistic.

Btw, usual combat weight including some fuel, ammo, pilot and the like was around 4000-4500kg for the P-51. For the 109 it was about 3000kg, giving both planes a comparable wing load. The Bf's wing however generated a much higher lift at low speeds than the P-51's and the power load is with the Bf 109 as well. I can't see one argument
to support the relative behaviour of the two aircraft in FB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

kubanloewe
04-22-2004, 12:54 PM
fuel levels in a Pony ???

with 25% it flies 35minutes with 100% Power at groundlevel !

ande the JUG flies over an hour with this settings !!

for comparison the 109 flies only 13 minutes; so evry 109 Pilot must take min 50% or better 75% because MW50 to finish a mission .

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

Skalgrim
04-22-2004, 01:10 PM
when p51d 25% fuel should able to turn like g2,

that would means, p51d turn 3-4 sec better with 25% as 100% fuel?

p51 turn with 100% fuel much better as a9 100% in fb, although real both turn similar

with 100% seem P51D turn performance overmodel

perhaps then too with 25%

p51d 25% fuel turn better as k4 100% fuel in fb

too when p51 has with 25% fuel similar wingloading like k4, what reason can she better turn as k4 fb,

powerlaoding is not the reason, p51d has
badly inferior powerloading compare
all late 109

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 12:40 PM.]

kubanloewe
04-22-2004, 01:58 PM
Julius Meimberg "Feindber√ľhrung" writes in his book that he fight‚¬īs with Ponies in his 109 and wonder why he can‚¬īt catch them in hard turn maneuvers; as he lucky survived this battle he managed to land and his engeneer aks :Why do you bring back the fuel tank ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Julius Meimberg flew in the BoB and later in Africa, Sizilien and was wounded two times badly
so he had to stay in hospital for longer times; but managed 53 airvictories in the war and survived....his Book is very good !!

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 02:09 PM
wingloading (lbs/sq. ft):

Bf 109K-4@100%-----42.27---106 gal
Bf 109K-4@ 50%-----40.46---53
Bf 109K-4@ 25%-----39.56---26.5

Fw 190A-9@100%-----49.25---168?

Fw 190D-9@100%-----47.93---168 gal
Fw 190D-9@ 50%-----45.37---84
Fw 190D-9@ 25%-----44.09---42

P-51D@100%---------43.35---269 gal
P-51D@ 25%---------38.15---67.25

P-51B-15NA@100%----42.06---269 gal
P-51B-15NA@ 25%----36.87---67.25

P-51B-1NA@100%-----39.48---184 gal
P-51B-1NA@ 25%-----35.93---46


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
when p51d 25% fuel should able to turn like g2,

that would means, p51d turn 3-4 sec better with 25% as 100% fuel?

p51 turn with 100% fuel much better as a9 100% in fb, although real both turn similar

with 100% seem P51D turn performance overmodel

perhaps then too with 25%

p51d 25% fuel turn better as k4 100% fuel in fb

too when p51 has with 25% fuel similar wingloading like k4, what reason can she better turn as k4 fb,

powerlaoding is not the reason, p51d has
badly inferior powerloading compare
all late 109

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Thu April 22 2004 at 12:40 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu April 22 2004 at 01:31 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu April 22 2004 at 02:58 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Thu April 22 2004 at 09:28 PM.]

Maple_Tiger
04-22-2004, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

Turning test's in the D, making sharp right turns at 220/kmh? Mayby in the P-51B/C, but not in the P-51D.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might want to take a look at this track, then.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/p51dturn.TRK

Take a watch and stop the time from heading 180 until two turns later. Switch off cockpit to see TAS and digital heading. My watch showed 39.8 seconds. Turning isn't absolutely clean, I am loosing a bit of speed and alt. 21 sec like above are constant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unless you had stalls and spins turned off lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything on except:
- no external
- always cockpit
- no instant sucess
- minmap path
- hud

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Don't matter any way. Most of us who actualy fly the D know it does not have very good low speed handling. That is why you'l guys in P-51D's BnZen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Low speed handling is good, Zero is better, though. ;-) Maybe you'lll give turning a try next time you're up against a K-4 or A-9.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I find this hard to beleave http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Watch the track.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



The thing is JtD, is that our squad flys alot of planes. Like the BF109's, FW190's.P-47's and P-51's ect.

My point is that the BF109K4, G10,G14,G2 and G/6as turn better then the P-51D.

Now the P-51D can out turn the BF109K4 If the P-51D has 25% or less fuel while the K4 has 50% or more fuel.

Try these two planes both having 50% fuel. The K4 will then out turn the P-51D http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Maple_Tiger
04-22-2004, 04:00 PM
I forgot to mention that the Alied planes turn better counter clockwize. The German planes turn better clockwize.

I bet some of you didn't know this http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ALl planes at 50% fuel and just using Combat flaps.

P-51D at 500m can bairly sustain 250kmhTAS(Counter Clockwize)

BF109-K4 at 500m can sustain 250kmhTAS a little better then the P-51D, not much though.(Clock wize)

G14/10, both of these at 500m can sustain 240kmh TAS(Clock wize)

G/AS at 500m can sustain 230kmh TAS or just bairly 220kmh TAS(Clock wise)

From my testing it seems as though the BF109's turn better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Note: the P-51 could possibly out turn the BF109K4(Counter Clockwize) if the P-51 had 25% or less fuel, depends on how good the pilot is though.



Basicaly i find this Thread is rather silly.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

lrrp22
04-22-2004, 10:26 PM
-

BuzzU
04-22-2004, 10:55 PM
The problem with running offline campaigns is, you can't choose the fuel load. Running the P-51 with a full fuel load is not the hot tip.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

JtD
04-23-2004, 03:00 AM
I took the Bf 109 with 75% fuel which gives it a similar flight duration to the P-51D at 25%. This is why it's bollocks to compare both planes at 50%. But at least, Maple Tiger's an my experiences match in one point.

Wing loading isn't everything. Even if the P-51 has lower wingloadings than the Bf 109 under certain circumstances, the wing shape of the P-51 does not give nearly as much lift as the one of the Bf (at low speed's).

Is there anyone who has reliable turning data of real life Mustangs? Can't believe NACA (or whoever) didn't test that.

Maple_Tiger
04-23-2004, 04:53 AM
Thanks JtD lol.

I try my best not to show favor to one plane or planes while running a test.

I beleave they used a combat weight? 75, 80% fuel or something like that for testing.

I beleave there are some pilot acounts that say the P-51 could out turn the BF109, especially at higher speeds. In real i can't see P-51 or BF109 pilots getting into a slow turn fights. They would most likely use hit and run tactics.

My point is that know one realy knows.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Ugly_Kid
04-23-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Wing loading isn't everything. Even if the P-51 has lower wingloadings than the Bf 109 under certain circumstances, the wing shape of the P-51 does not give nearly as much lift as the one of the Bf (at low speed's).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Additionally laminar profile has higher drag than a normal one when flying with higher AoA and liftfactor. It's advantage is only in small AoA and liftfactor, additionally the achievable max. liftfactor is often lower (and stall characteristics are also not that great).

DaBallz
04-23-2004, 01:46 PM
Interesting, but the P-51 is well known for
not scrubbing speed in a turn. This and other
aerodynamic advantages make it a great race plane.

Da...

Skalgrim
04-24-2004, 08:35 AM
plane that has less drag at speed,

must not means too,
by turn or climb,


la-5fn has sealevel topseed almost same speed like g6/as by almost same power and weigh

so both plane similar drag level fly,

but,

109g has with less power same initialclimb,
like la-5fn


109g with 1300ps has same initialclimb like
la-5fn with 1650ps


109g has better liftloading as la-5fn and need therefore less aoa to get same lift,

that make less drag and therefore need she less power

109 wings need not big wings for good lift,

therefore better use liftloading to compare plane


btw,

109g 9-12159 propeller has relative bad effective at low altidude,

therefrom get she not the good initialclimb

9-12159 is broad blade propeller, those blade has better effective high altitude as sealevel

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat April 24 2004 at 10:04 AM.]

Kurfurst__
04-24-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
25% fuel will save the P-51 over 1200 lbs- and that ain't a little! Add 10 to 20 degrees of flap into the equation and the Mustang should turn with a G-2 at all but the lowest speeds.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, fact remains that if the British tests, even the lighter P-51B/C could not turn better than the FW 190A, and we all know the 190s didnt really shine in turning - especially not compared to 109s.

Frankly, I am having troubles why some Mustang fans can`t accept that their plane is inferior in a close dogfight to just about any 109s.. the latter have all the cards, a lot better handling, higher critcal AoA, more lift, massively better power-to-weight ratio that allows them to hang on their propellor, and better roll rate.

Simply you should not fight a 109 in Mustang at low speeds, or try turning fights, simply because things are against you.

Trying to turn with 109s at high speed is a rather bad idea as well, ie. 109 K-4 at full load had a 360 deg turn time of only 24 secs even at 650 km/h or 405 mph.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

LuftLuver
04-24-2004, 04:28 PM
Of the millions of words written about the war, there are no common threads that emerge saying, "We would never consider turning with German aircraft, it was impossible!" Does this common thread come from the Pacific? Yes it does. We accept that just fine, so we find another tactic just like in real life. Do we accept that in a P47 you cannot turn more than one move with a 109? Yes we do. Even though it is false because of poor P47 FM. Oleg's beliefs about the P47 will doom it forever in FB series.

You may never accept it mr Kurnfurst, but these same 109s you attempt to glorify LOST their battles with early and late model P51s and P47s. The fact that you don't accept the truth, won't change the truth. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'll share a secret with you, German invicibility was always a myth. King Tiger penetrated by a Soviet 57mm AT gun :

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/king_06.jpg

lrrp22
04-24-2004, 04:59 PM
That's funny, Issy. Didn't those same British tests imply that the 190 out-turned the 109? It really is amazing how you quote (or mis-quote) those tests when it suits your cause yet summarily discard them when they don't.

And please, don't start again with the whole "109K (heaviest of the bunch) actually performed very well at high speed" BS. That opinion is your's and Huck's alone.

You can continue to believe that the 109K was state of the art in 1945 but everyone else, including Allied and Luftwaffe pilots, knew that it was far beyond its prime. You claim the Mustang was under-engined when the fact is that the 109K packed way too much engine for its anemic, yet dirty, airframe.

BTW, how much speed did the 109K bleed in that 360 deg turn? Didn't that turn time require throttling down as the turn was begun?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
25% fuel will save the P-51 over 1200 lbs- and that ain't a little! Add 10 to 20 degrees of flap into the equation and the Mustang should turn with a G-2 at all but the lowest speeds.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, fact remains that if the British tests, even the lighter P-51B/C could not turn better than the FW 190A, and we all know the 190s didnt really shine in turning - especially not compared to 109s.

Frankly, I am having troubles why some Mustang fans can`t accept that their plane is inferior in a close dogfight to just about any 109s.. the latter have all the cards, a lot better handling, higher critcal AoA, more lift, massively better power-to-weight ratio that allows them to hang on their propellor, and better roll rate.

Simply you should not fight a 109 in Mustang at low speeds, or try turning fights, simply because things are against you.

Trying to turn with 109s at high speed is a rather bad idea as well, ie. 109 K-4 at full load had a 360 deg turn time of only 24 secs even at 650 km/h or 405 mph.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat April 24 2004 at 04:19 PM.]

Kurfurst__
04-24-2004, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Do we accept that in a P47 you cannot turn more than one move with a 109? Yes we do. Even though it is false because of poor P47 FM. Oleg's beliefs about the P47 will doom it forever in FB series. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You REALLY think a P-47 could turn with a 109s..? Just curious.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You may never accept it mr Kurnfurst, but these same 109s you attempt to glorify LOST their battles with early and late model P51s and P47s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure they did, 109s also lost single battles vs. biplanes, so? It`s still a fact that the 109 was better than those biplanes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'll share a secret with you, German invicibility was always a myth. King Tiger penetrated by a Soviet 57mm AT gun :<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rather bad choice to use this photo, it was proven long time ago that these series are fakes, and become known`s as "Valera`s Magic Photoshop Penetrations", ie. same primitive technic of putting a black dot with a white circle on photos of German AFVS. If you want, I can search an example of two undamaged Tiger photos being blended into a third one, with those silly black dots applied in generous quantities. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Otherwise I find nothing special about the high-performer Soviet 57mm gun could penetrate the Tiger from the weaker side, even if the photo you show is a FAKE. There`s nothing special in it, even it was rather rare to happen in real life (ie. Tiger-B`s of 503. unit knocked out appx. 250 AT guns vs. 7 Tigers lost to AT guns...)

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

lrrp22
04-24-2004, 05:30 PM
Amazing, isn't he? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Most of those millions of words are more along the lines of Mustang pilots pretty much universally claiming that the their mounts were superior while 109 pilots refer to 'hating' the Mustang.

And you're right, I have never once read of a Mustang pilot voicing concern over turn fighting a 109. That's not to say that there weren't instances where they were out-turned, but there are hundreds of accounts of the opposite being the case as well.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
Of the millions of words written about the war, there are no common threads that emerge saying, "We would never consider turning with German aircraft, it was impossible!" Does this common thread come from the Pacific? Yes it does. We accept that just fine, so we find another tactic just like in real life. Do we accept that in a P47 you cannot turn more than one move with a 109? Yes we do. Even though it is false because of poor P47 FM. Oleg's beliefs about the P47 will doom it forever in FB series.

You may never accept it mr Kurnfurst, but these same 109s you attempt to glorify LOST their battles with early and late model P51s and P47s. The fact that you don't accept the truth, won't change the truth. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'll share a secret with you, German invicibility was always a myth. King Tiger penetrated by a Soviet 57mm AT gun :

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/king_06.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skalgrim
04-24-2004, 05:52 PM
proplem,

we know not accurate speed which turn one plane better the other

it more complex as most think first

some plane like 109, could better turn as wingloading will say and much better climb as plane which same powerlaoding, but why?

so it would by nice, when oleg, but think no chance,

or some other from his team, that have time explain more, what is importin for aerodynamic

to get better turn, speed, climb, dive or zoomclimb

perhaps give less whinning, but only perhaps

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat April 24 2004 at 05:07 PM.]

BBB_Hyperion
04-24-2004, 06:23 PM
I would bet the 109 turns better at low speed while the p51 turns better at high speed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and its even modeled in FB,AEP and P51 is not a low alt turnfighter and it is not really fast at Sealevel and climbing isnt its strong point either compared to BF. As long you stay at high alt with it it works as it should as high alt escort fighter.
You can bounce away from this alt on lower flying BFs or FWs in historic numbers and get historical results. When you try to turnfight 109s at low alt against experienced pilots on same e level i would bet on the 109 cause its turning circle is smaller and the result is clear when the p51 pilot pulls harder to get in smaller circle he gets out of best turn and looses it except he pulls out of the turn and trys to run or uses e tactics. The 109 has the same problem with La7/La5 for example,

Regards,
Hyperion

SkyChimp
04-24-2004, 06:39 PM
I've read all kinds of accounts in many books that P-51 and P-47 pilots had a much higher regard for the Fw-190 than they did the Bf-109. Even P-47s pilots claimed they could out-turn the Bf-109 (at higher speeds no doubt) but that the Fw-190 was much more troublesome.

Seems the Bf-109 was at its best at low speeds, but outclassed in turns at high speeds.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

Kurfurst__
04-24-2004, 06:46 PM
Chimp, the heaviest 109 variant, the K-4, could do 5G turns even at 650 km/h and 6000m altitude in just 24 seconds. Lighter ones were of course more nimble.

Frankly I doubt a Mustang could do any better, or even as well under the same circumstances. The P-47 simply can`t compete in turns, with such wing/powerloading, expect perhaps at very high speeds.

It`s simple physics..

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

SkyChimp
04-24-2004, 07:19 PM
Whatever, Isegrim. I'm simply stating that many American pilots disregarded the Bf-109 as a turn fighter and more highly regarded the Fw-190.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

LuftLuver
04-24-2004, 08:21 PM
Does not matter, but for the record NO I do not believe you should be able to turn fight a 109 with a P47.

I also do not believe that one simple flick of the stick is enough to easily remove the 109 from the attacking P47. I believe the P47 could pursue through several turns until having to yo-yo for another try.

I do not want to leave topic, so I only suggest you expect far too little out of Mustang and P47.

So all photos of destroyed King Tigers are fake then? One other secret: King Tiger was inferior to T34/85, IS2 and JS3.

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/king_01.jpg

DaBallz
04-24-2004, 08:43 PM
I have to agree with the Chimpster. I have never
seen a combat report where a P-51 driver
had a problem turning with a Bf-109.

On the other hand the Fw-190 was feared and
respected in both turn fighting and speed.

Da...

Maple_Tiger
04-24-2004, 08:47 PM
Guess it's a good thing your not in charge of flight models LuftLuver.

You would have FW190's out turing Zero's and BF109's out turing P-51's at high speeds lol. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

DaBallz
04-24-2004, 09:24 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Guess it's a good thing your not in charge of flight models LuftLuver.

You would have FW190's out turing Zero's and BF109's out turing P-51's at high speeds lol. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

In my opinion the Fw-190A should easily out turn a Zero or a Bf-109 for that matter over
an air speed of roughly 350mph. Like the
P-51, the Fw still handles well at speeds
where it would take a superman to move the stick
on a Zero or Bf-109.

Turning performnce is relative. A P-51D is still
controllable at speeds that will lock up most
WWII fighter planes. It stands to reason that
it would easily out maneuver tham as well, including
out turning them.


da...

Skalgrim
04-24-2004, 10:02 PM
k4 turn 24sec 6000m

and la7 with 3 20mm 30sec 5000m

seem k4 was very good turner above 5000m

Aaron_GT
04-25-2004, 03:40 AM
Chimp wrote:
"Even P-47s pilots claimed they could out-turn the Bf-109 (at higher speeds no doubt) but that the Fw-190 was much more troublesome."

Is that specifically turn, or outmaneouvering?
At high speed the P47 should have much better
roll than the 109, so it could use the
climb/roll/ turn technique to gain on the 109,
perhaps. So in comparing basic turn figures we
might be missing the _maneouver_ element that
includes other axes.

For example, the 190 has a poorer turn than
the 109 in all tests I've seen, but you say that
USAAF pilots considered the 190 to be more of
a danger in turn fights, which seems to suggest
that they are as much talking about overall
maneouver, given the 190's high roll rate.

Also it is going to depend on what altitude
these things are happening at. At high altitude
(10,000m) the P47 is going to have a power
loading advantage over the 109.

I suspect that (and there are examples of the
planes to test with if we ever got access to
them!) in a turn at sub 500km/h at low altitude
the 109 would have no problems turning inside
the P47. At 10,000m it could easily be reversed.
At over 500km/h - who knows. But the P47 might
have a big maneouver advantage due to power
loading, high speed roll, etc., over 5000m and
500 km/h.

Kurfurst__
04-25-2004, 04:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
So all photos of destroyed King Tigers are fake then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OF course not. But many of those which are posted on Battlefield.ru are just poor fakes, in Stalin`s style. A number were destroyed by the Soviets, Allies etc. But the result were on the Tiger`s side, ie. the single 503. "Felhernhalle" alone destroyed over 1700 Soviet tanks and 2000 Soviet arty pieces betwwen May 1942 and May 1945. Not bad for a unit that consisted no more than 45 tanks on max. strenght. In combat in Hungary, this usnit was credited with destroying 121 Soviet tanks for a loss of 3 Tigers (none to enemy tanks, all 3 to SU 100s tank destroyers), and 244 ATGs for the loss of 7 Tigers.

In other words, when you see a picture of a Tiger destroyed by Soviet action, imagine 40 burning Soviet tanks and 35 destroyed Soviet ATGs laying around it. That`s the typical picture you would see when a Konigstiger is in combat. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the picture, it`s quite clear that this particular Tiger was a result of self destruct, ie. the left track was taken off, probably the tank broke down and was blown up to prevent falling into enemy hands, as evidenced by the missing turret.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One other secret: King Tiger was inferior to T34/85, IS2 and JS3.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gvien the above, such statements have considerable entertaining potential. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

JtD
04-25-2004, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LuftLuver
"We would never consider turning with German aircraft, it was impossible!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never read a German account stating: "We would never consider turning with Russian aircraft, it was impossible!" Still, in general the Russian ac were superior turners.

Also, I have never read anything indicating 109 jocks considered the P-51 a superior slow speed turnfighter.

LuftLuver
04-25-2004, 06:41 AM
You're OK Kurfurst (or isegrim),

I'm starting to find you funny. You sure like that King Tiger eh? Would I rather field 1,000 Tiger B's, or 10,000 T34/85? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ah well, back to the P51 now.

CU http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LuftLuver
04-25-2004, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Guess it's a good thing your not in charge of flight models LuftLuver.

You would have FW190's out turing Zero's and BF109's out turing P-51's at high speeds lol. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MapleMan, you are so right. I'm glad not to have this job either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif Too many people come to these boards to complain after they get shot down. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SkyChimp
04-25-2004, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Chimp wrote:
"Even P-47s pilots claimed they could out-turn the Bf-109 (at higher speeds no doubt) but that the Fw-190 was much more troublesome."

Is that specifically turn, or outmaneouvering?
At high speed the P47 should have much better
roll than the 109, so it could use the
climb/roll/ turn technique to gain on the 109,
perhaps. So in comparing basic turn figures we
might be missing the _maneouver_ element that
includes other axes.

For example, the 190 has a poorer turn than
the 109 in all tests I've seen, but you say that
USAAF pilots considered the 190 to be more of
a danger in turn fights, which seems to suggest
that they are as much talking about overall
maneouver, given the 190's high roll rate.

Also it is going to depend on what altitude
these things are happening at. At high altitude
(10,000m) the P47 is going to have a power
loading advantage over the 109.

I suspect that (and there are examples of the
planes to test with if we ever got access to
them!) in a turn at sub 500km/h at low altitude
the 109 would have no problems turning inside
the P47. At 10,000m it could easily be reversed.
At over 500km/h - who knows. But the P47 might
have a big maneouver advantage due to power
loading, high speed roll, etc., over 5000m and
500 km/h.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specifically turn

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

LeadSpitter_
04-25-2004, 06:58 AM
a p47 should be able to stay on a 109s tail especially at high speed. Of course a turn fight the p47 would loose but being able to stay on a enemys tail without them doing a 0 prop pitch and trottle instant stop and fish flop then overeving in manual and being able to catch a p47 even diving is pretty silly.

I also read from many different p47 pilots the 190 could slightly out roll the p47 but they can still stay with them during the roll. In fb the 190 can make a 360 degree snap roll in each direction before the p47 can complete one roll.

That dive speed accelaration dispurtion on the .50 cal super weak p47 dm it has no advantage at all except at 9100m and only by a couple kmph

The overheat problem 190s can run at 103 trottle rad 8 wep enabled and never overheat with 100 fuel

he p47 will over heat with radiator full open and 100 trottle very quickly with 25 fuel

I just hope things get looked at with more attention to detail. I really dont know how this stuff passes the testing phases.

Seeing skychimps posts when fb first came out the ones accurate charts and sources just gets the blind eye.

the 109 and 190 out perform pretty much everything 4000-8000m in manual the vvs aircraft have thier extra 10% power rich mix supercharger and wep thats the problem with the ki84 as well

110 trottle
120 mix = 10% + trottle
manual superchargers 10% +
wep 10% + trottle

look at the 41 lagg3 with 120 mix vs the p40e speed climb accelaration

p39 and p63 the best us fighters low and high alt. why didnt the us use them more then and lend lease them all makes no sense

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Sun April 25 2004 at 06:09 AM.]

Aaron_GT
04-25-2004, 07:34 AM
Chimp wrote:
"Specifically turn"

So if P47's feared the turn ability of the
190, but not that of the 109, this implies
that the 190 had a better turn rate than the
109? Would this be at specific fighting speeds?
I would find it hard to believe that the 190
had a better turn ability than the 109 at low
speed, but I can see that it might be possible
at higher speed.

Aaron_GT
04-25-2004, 07:35 AM
"I also read from many different p47 pilots the 190 could slightly out roll the p47 but they can still stay with them during the roll. In fb the 190 can make a 360 degree snap roll in each direction before the p47 can complete one roll."

Maybe time to repost that roll rate chart
with the P39D, P51, Spitfire, 190A, P47C, etc?
(I don't have a copy to hand - my hard disk
is a bit disorganised!)

Aaron_GT
04-25-2004, 07:40 AM
"p39 and p63 the best us fighters low and high alt. why didnt the us use them more then and lend lease them all makes no sense"

Actually it does make sense. The P39 got a bad
rap due to its handling. This was ultimately
fixed by the P63, and the USAAF was actually
rather impressed by it apart from for one
thing: range. The P63 did not have long enough
legs to justify replacing existing types with
a new type - it would have been too much of a
logistical nightmare. Already you had 3 main
army fighter types in Europe, and the war there
was all but over. The short legs made its use
in the Pacific a non starter. For the USSR
the short legs were not a problem. So Bell got
to continue production of their series and for
it to be militarily useful somewhere, at least.

The P39 high alt performance might well be
overdone in the game, though (I know less about
the P63, but it did have much improved
supercharging).