Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

464 Excellent

About Panthera

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1051 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. This probably deserves it's own thread though, I shouldn't really have started this discussion in this one.
  3. 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.
  4. 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."
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. @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.
  11. 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.
  12. That explains the odd ranking, as I'm quite sure the Spitfire 21 would have no issues outturning the Mustang for example, and I'm also confident the Tempest was slightly better at low altitude thanks to the lower wing loading and better power down low.
  13. I was talking of the Fw190, which the 109 was always said to outturn in German testing, yet it was curiously the other way round in RAE testing, for which the explanation is to be found with the pilot not pushing past initial slat extension, a common problem with new pilots on the type according to several experienced 109 pilots: "Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out." - Erwin Leykauf You see this problem mentioned directly in the AFDU tactical trials where the 109 is said to be "embarrased by the opening of its slats near the stall", indicating the RAF pilot, just like most new pilots on the type, saw this as the limit and didn't push further, and thus for this reason the 109 was found worse than both the 190, 51 and Tempest in turning during the RAF trials. There is no comparison made to the 51 in German testing, there are however modern day comparisons where again the difference is said to be night and day, and the 109 even being said to be close with the Spitfire albeit not quite as good. "I like the airplane, 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, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight. 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 ability would probably be the deciding factor." - Mark Hanna Mark Hanna flew the Spanish Buchon version btw, which weighes approx. the same as the K4, but with much less power.
  14. I've seen that, but IIRC it's partly based on RAE testing which apparently didnt go further than the initial extension of the slats and also took place at quite some altitude. Hence why the 190 was actually found similar to the Mustang in turning in tactical trials whilst the 109 was found worse than both, which is directly contrary to German testing. Also modern pilots of both types are pretty unanimous in their opinion that the 109 is in completely different class to the Mustang when it comes to turning, and that it isn't subtantially behind the Spitfire - provided you actually keep turning when the slats are out.
  15. I only tried it near SL in both sims, but the difference is night and day. In DCS the K4 very easily outturns the P51(even in a 100 vs 25% fuel load match up) due to a combination of a higher powered lift coefficient + a much lower power loading. In IL2 the roles are oddly reversed and it feels as though the 109 is penalized with a lot of extra drag in turns (negating the power loading advantage) whilst also lacking the advantage of a higher powered Cl that the slats should provide. I really believe the 109 FM in IL2 is in need of a revision, because something is definitely off.
  • Create New...