Jump to content

Panthera

Members
  • Content Count

    927
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

474 Excellent

About Panthera

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1104 profile views
  1. Still no change to 109 FM I presume?
  2. Probably a typo as it's 1 G according to all the testing documentation, and then 2.5 G's with the new suit, although I haven't seen any test documents for the new air inflatable suits, only for the liquid bladder derivatives of the Li belle which is what F-22 pilots are now wearing.
  3. Well in IL2 the 109K4 actually wont outturn the P-51 even at slow speeds, which is the problem, because it quite easily should be capable of doing so. Infact, power on, the K4 should be able to comfortably outturn the P-51 in both instantanous and sustained rate at all speeds up until the controls stiffen up around 500-550 km/h, which it also does in DCS. Well a gondola equipped G6 engaging bombers at 25,000 ft will be at a disadvantage, but a clean K4 is a different beast, esp. down low where I wouldn't call it remotely close. That said the pilot will always make a big difference, and by 44-45 Allied pilots were in general (safe from the few German experten left by then) much better trained.
  4. The difference is quite significant between the two according to those who fly them, so not sure what you mean by "for practical purposes". AFAIK they had access to flying examples of both aircraft, which is one of the reasons they got them flying so close to their real counterparts.
  5. They really should not, and DCS has got this right. The 109 enjoys more lift pr. square m of wing area (higher lift coefficient) than the Mustang, esp. in powered flight. In addition to this it has a higher aspect ratio wing, is much smaller in size and finally possesses a noticably better power to weight ratio. It really should be night and day when it comes to turning between these two fighters.
  6. This probably deserves it's own thread though, I shouldn't really have started this discussion in this one.
  7. Well I haven't heard of any other pilots on the type complain about it, and there should be no reason for them to snatch unless they're binding. One thing is for sure though, if the slats are binding and thus not operating as they should (opening unevenly/snatching etc), then turn performance will suffer a lot, which explains how the 109 came off so much worse than the 190 in terms of turning in RAF testing, the direct opposite of what German testing showed. Hans Werner Lerche, whom you qouted earlier, also makes it quite clear that the 109 is a better turner than the 190 when he compared the two in his test report on the La5FN. So I think it's safe to say that the RAF test pilots were having issues due to the slats, either due to inexperience with or damage to the devices.
  8. Well the problem with Brown's account is described by himself: The uneven opening and snatching of the slats when he attempted to turn. This indicates something was not right with the slats on that aircraft (AFAIK it was a crashed specimen?) and that they weren't functioning correctly (German maintenance manuals stress how important it is to keep the slats in prestine condition to avoid uneven deployment or even jammed slats which could be fatal). This would lead to premature wing drop in turns and not inspire any confidence to push any further. As Dave Southwood who flies the 109G2 himself put it: "The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E [I think he's actually refering to Brown's test of the 109G2 here] rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this."
  9. Yes ofcourse, the real world is for sure also my focus for comparison, and I find the DCS 109 FM does come the closest to what I consider the most reliable real world data available whilst at the same time standing up to scrutiny in mathematical aerodynamics.
  10. Aah ok, wasn't sure so just wanted to be on the safe side You can test it by first getting into a stable sustained turn, and then when settled pull back further and note the max amount of G's you can reliably pull at a specific speed before you start feeling the inside wing dropping. The biggest disparity noted between the match up in DCS vs IL2 is found in the sustained turn performance however, in IL2 the 109 for some reason seems to be penalized a lot more in drag when turning than other aircraft, which is a mistake if its actually the case.
  11. Tested it with a friend a couple days ago to make sure we both had similar energy states and the P-51 will outturn both in IL2, even in a low speed sustained turn fight which is where it usually ended up anyway. At high speed it's no contest as the 109 pilot very quickly blacks out whilst the P-51 pilot has no issues (I think German pilots in IL2 suffer from low blood pressure 😁) Did the same rounds of tests in D*S and the results were completely different, there really being no contest once we ended up in sustained turns.
  12. It's 5,855 lbs (2,655 kg) empty according to the data on Skip Holm's website: http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm Wiki claims 2,475 kg empty for the Hispano Suiza powered K1L and 2,666 kg empty for the Merlin powered M1L: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano_Aviación_HA-1112
  13. They are both modelled down to the last detail in D*S, perfectly exhibiting their described flight behavior as far as I can tell, and every button, lever or knob can be operated. So far I've bought the Spitfire Mk.IX, BF109K4, FW190D9 and P-51D, and in terms of agility in the horizontal (turning) the Spitfire IX reigns supreme (as it should), followed some ways behind by the K4 (it's not close, so don't ever attempt to turn with a Spit), and then a good ways further down by the P-51 and 190D9 and so on. Next module coming up is the P-47D and then the Mosquito which I'm quite excited to try. D*S does lack the excellent online maps and diversity of WW2 aircraft that IL2 offers however, so each sim has something on the other. Which is why I'd love to see 777 spend a little more time on the FM's.
  14. @QB.Shallot Skip & Hanna flew the Buchon M1L AFAIK which empty weight is ~2,700 kg. It is more draggy than the other 109's too. That said in D*S (where the 109 & 51's models were made with modern pilot input) the difference is significant irrespective of fuel load, such that a 300 kg (~700 lbs) difference doesn't remotely change who outturns who, the 109 is comfortably ahead, as I think it should be based on the aerodynamic data available. We're afterall talking a noticably smaller aircraft with a much better power to weight ratio and a similar wing loading but noticably higher lift coefficient in powered flight. I really think they nailed the FM in D*S, so I'm hoping 777 can take some inspiration from there.
  15. I don't think the RAE's 109 was pushed to a stall in a turn (accelerated stall), at least evidently not beyond what the pilot thought was a stall, which was when the slats initially came out, same as what inexperienced pilots on the type typically thought. (also mentions no stall checks were made) As for the Tempest, I don't think the concensus is that the Mustang outturned it at anything but high altitude, which is where the AFDU trials took place. Down low I'd very much expect the Tempest to have the advantage. Finally regarding the modern pilots, I actually think their evaluation weighes more due to their far more extensive flight training, education and general understanding of the aircraft's components and aerodynamics. And whilst it's certainly is true that the engines aren't pushed as hard, this doesn't matter as much outside of sustained performance, and remember the Buchon & P-51 are both flown at same power levels, ~40" Hg. So atleast we know how they compare with similar engine power.
×
×
  • Create New...