Jump to content

What will counter the K4 up high?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

The problem with the P-38 had nothing to do with it's turn, it's the roll rate that let the P-38 down and can make it seem like a slow turner, when in reality is was very good.

 

Well I mean if we look at the numbers (admittedly these are just the basic W/L & P/W), it just doesn't look very good:

 

P-38 W/L = ~260 kg/m2  

P-51 W/L = ~200 kg/m2 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Well I mean if we look at the numbers (admittedly these are just the basic W/L & P/W), it just doesn't look very good:

 

P-38 W/L = ~260 kg/m2  

P-51 W/L = ~200 kg/m2 

 

Turn radius of the P-38 is around 838 ft

Turn radius of P-51 is around 883 ft

 

Keep in mind this is sustained turn iirc. Instantaneous turns would be quite a bit better, even the P-47 can turn inside a 109 in the right conditions.

 

While not a huge difference the P-38 is a better turner than the P-51.

Edited by Legioneod
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

You’re on ;)

 

Sounds good Gambit, will be fun :)

 

Btw, just want to clarify that I am not saying the 262 is invincible, any plane can be shot down and I have certainly been shot down flying the Me262. But in a fair 10 out of 10 match up it was very one sided in the 262s favour,  and I wouldnt call myself an expert at dogfighting by any means. Longest fight I ever had was against a P-47D btw, kept flying even after taking a 30mm mine shot to the cockpit area :P 

 

But still, even in the 1 v 1 fights (which means they were 100% aware) I had against pilots who were undoubtedly better than me, I would win the fight 9 times out of 10 if I was in the 262 and he was in the prop, and the same if the roles were reversed. The 262 is just a really frustrating aircraft to be up against, not least due to how quickly it can reengage after a failed pass.

 

On a large open map where your prey won't always see you coming and/or also has to contend with other aircraft in the area, the Me262 is downright brutal.

 

20 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Turn radius of the P-38 is around 838 ft

Turn radius of P-51 is around 883 ft

 

Keep in mind this is sustained turn iirc. Instantaneous turns would be quite a bit better, even the P-47 can turn inside a 109 in the right conditions.

 

While not a huge difference the P-38 is a better turner than the P-51.

 

Well any plane can turn inside another if the conditions are right, all it takes is a bit of speed difference. But how the P-38 should supposedly be better sustained than a P-51 I can't really see. Keep in mind that not only does the P-38 have to make those turns with less wing for every unit of weight (which is penalized in the form of extra induced drag), it also has to fight against a noticably higher amount of parasitic drag due to its larger size. Hence the P-38 would need a massive advantage in thrust to beat the smaller P-51 in a sustained fight.

 

That said where are those turn radius figures from though, and are they with flaps for one and not the other? 

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Well I mean if we look at the numbers (admittedly these are just the basic W/L & P/W), it just doesn't look very good:

 

P-38 W/L = ~260 kg/m2  

P-51 W/L = ~200 kg/m2 

You are discounting things like the P-51's wing having a worse drag bucket compared to conventional aerofoils and P-38's slow speed characteristics such as 73/53 mph power on 1g stall (at full fuel weight btw) with no flaps/full (fowler) flaps.  Also P-38 has a higher P/W ratio and the best climb rate of the american aircraft with 4000 ft/min with 300 gal of fuel, stable gunnery due to no effective torque, concentrated firepower with all guns in the nose. Overall I see the P-38 as an aircraft that can throw a surprise to a LW pilot (sort of like the A-20 does currently)

Edited by RoflSeal
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

You are discounting things like the P-51's wing having a worse drag bucket compared to conventional aerofoils and P-38's slow speed characteristics such as 73/53 mph power on 1g stall (at full fuel weight btw) with no flaps/full (fowler) flaps.  Also P-38 has a higher P/W ratio and the best climb rate of the american aircraft with 4000 ft/min with 300 gal of fuel, stable gunnery due to no effective torque, concentrated firepower with all guns in the nose. Overall I see the P-38 as an aircraft that can throw a surprise to a LW pilot (sort of like the A-20 does currently)

 

Well power on stall speeds are a bit dodgy for the times due to the (in)accuracy of that times gages at the AoA such a flight had to be at, hence I am a bit more interested in actual comparisons done by an airforce which operated and were intimately familiar with both aircraft, and AFAIK the P-51 was always rated better than the P-38 in the turn by the USAAF?

 

That said there is one advantage the P-38 has which would help it in a turn and that is a larger area of wing energized by propwash, something you don't see on the wind tunnel figures. So that might make a noticable difference.

 

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Well power on stall speeds are a bit dodgy for the times due to the (in)accuracy of that times gages at the AoA such a flight had to be at, hence I am a bit more interested in actual comparisons done by an airforce which operated both aircraft, and AFAIK the P-51 was always rated better than the P-38 in the turn by the USAAF?

 

Those figures are with correction for instrument error

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Those figures are with correction for instrument error

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38-67869.html

 

We're still talking indicated airspeed though. A good indication of the uncertainty of those measurements is the lower indicated stall speed with just the gear down, this is typically seen when just relying on std. cockpit instrumentation. In reality only lowering the gear (and not the flaps) will inevitably increase the true 1 G stall speed by increasing form drag and nose down pitching moment, which in turn will require a higher amount of lift (and thus AoA) from the wings to stay airborne due to the increased down force having to be generated by the tailplane. So what you're seeing there is most likely the result of airflow interference around the pitot tube at increased AoA flight. 

 

 

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I think there is nothing wrong or disapointing with the P47 in the game. It is how it is. Maybe people see the comparation and thinks thay the P47 is shit. But remember when this two planes face each other. K4 was not there till october 1944 and the P47 was on the early verssions fighting from 43. If you compare the P47 with the G6s and G6 AM that luft had on 43 and early 44 the american is a excelent fighter. We just dont have the theatre to show the superiority of this plane.

I would like to see a theatre on Italy battle of gustav line or whatever fighting with the P47D22 against A5s and 109s G6.


Would be interesting to have Italy 1943/ early 1944, although it would be somewhat the low point of the 109, since the G-6 would be the main 109 variant, and it would have a hard time against Spit LF Mk Vc at low altitude (iirc ~550 km/h at +18 boost), early Spit Mk IX/VIII at med/high alts and also early P-51s and 47s

I guess the "meta" for LW side would be Fw 190 A-5/A-6 and the Italian 5 series fighters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I think there is nothing wrong or disapointing with the P47 in the game.

What about the inability to pull any more G than the famously stiff-elevatored 109 can pull at 400+mph IAS? (The 109 can pull more if he uses trim, trim doesn't do much for the 47). That is not only disappointing, inability to pull for a shot or an evasive is nigh unto a fatal flaw in an aircraft whose primary advantage over others if any is diving at high speed.

Edited by CMBailey
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

Sounds good Gambit, will be fun :)

 

Btw, just want to clarify that I am not saying the 262 is invincible, any plane can be shot down and I have certainly been shot down flying the Me262. But in a fair 10 out of 10 match up it was very one sided in the 262s favour,  and I wouldnt call myself an expert at dogfighting by any means. Longest fight I ever had was against a P-47D btw, kept flying even after taking a 30mm mine shot to the cockpit area :P 

 

But still, even in the 1 v 1 fights (which means they were 100% aware) I had against pilots who were undoubtedly better than me, I would win the fight 9 times out of 10 if I was in the 262 and he was in the prop, and the same if the roles were reversed. The 262 is just a really frustrating aircraft to be up against, not least due to how quickly it can reengage after a failed pass.

 

 

If you can even put a single round in my Mustang, one v one in 10 minutes I'll call you the winner and send you a pound of coffee.

I don't say that from ego, just based on my own experience with it in 1946.

 

Now I wasn't the ace of aces, but I did have a 13/1 kill ratio in CoOps...which isn't too shabby even though some guys nowadays would scoff at it. :)

Not only could I avoid a 262 all day while eating a sandwich, flying one myself I couldn't hit crap with it..ever. Not even once LOL

 

Only tried a handful of times but shooting down an aircraft eluded me.

I didn't know anyone, none of my regular CoOp guys who'd ever been hit by one either. 'shrug'

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is we wont have the whole Europe as map and we wont have the strategic bombers which were escorted by P51s. Also its a game not a real WW2 so theres no point to make missions with 5:1 numbers ratio. So what we will have is what we will have and mission designers will need to make some planes limited. Also they should limit the number of K4s with best engine and we will have something.

Edited by blackram
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

If you can even put a single round in my Mustang, one v one in 10 minutes I'll call you the winner and send you a pound of coffee.

I don't say that from ego, just based on my own experience with it in 1946.

 

Now I wasn't the ace of aces, but I did have a 13/1 kill ratio in CoOps...which isn't too shabby even though some guys nowadays would scoff at it. :)

Not only could I avoid a 262 all day while eating a sandwich, flying one myself I couldn't hit crap with it..ever. Not even once LOL

 

Only tried a handful of times but shooting down an aircraft eluded me.

I didn't know anyone, none of my regular CoOp guys who'd ever been hit by one either. 'shrug'

 

 

That's interesting, it was by far the easiest LW aircraft for me in which to shoot down enemy fighters, eventhough I hardly ever got to fly it online in the end due to it mostly being banned from most servers. 

 

Sounds like you're a great pilot though, so it's going to be a very exciting challenge :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blackram said:

The problem is we wont have the whole Europe as map and we wont have the strategic bombers which were escorted by P51s. Also its a game not a real WW2 so theres no point to make missions with 5:1 numbers ratio. So what we will have is what we will have and mission designers will need to make some planes limited. Also they should limit the number of K4s with best engine and we will have something.

Yeah, look at last night with K-4 available on server......37 axis vs 18 allies.

Going to objective knowing there is swarm of 109's waiting there orbiting in outer atmosphere 😜

Maybe P51D popularity will drawn more players on allied side, it's easier if they are distracted by more targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What will counter the K4 up high? It depends what you mean by high altitude. If above 7km then Spitfire HF IX with Merlin 70. It is the only plane which can really manuver above ~8km, it can abuse it's big wings and high alt tuned engine. K-4 still can disengage, dive and run.

After all pilot skill will decide as always.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bies said:

What will counter the K4 up high? It depends what you mean by high altitude. If above 7km then Spitfire HF IX with Merlin 70. It is the only plane which can really manuver above ~8km, it can abuse it's big wings and high alt tuned engine. K-4 still can disengage, dive and run.

After all pilot skill will decide as always.

dogfight above 7km in this game rarely occurs. I was thinking more in range 5 to 7m...yeah, Spit IX is ok with Merlin 70 but the K4 is still better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the reds cant just mow lawn and dominate the deck like you have since the beginning of the sim.

 

Fly the jug like a lagg or a p40..... Energy fight from high and the element of surprise surprise will be your friend. Work in a pack above the enemy and you will do well. Welcome to the world of a luftwaffe pilot!😁😁

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =EXPEND=DendroAspis said:

Now the reds cant just mow lawn and dominate the deck like you have since the beginning of the sim.

 

Fly the jug like a lagg or a p40..... Energy fight from high and the element of surprise surprise will be your friend. Work in a pack above the enemy and you will do well. Welcome to the world of a luftwaffe pilot!😁😁

 

 

Yep, your right. Though in 1 vs 1 the story is different...

Edited by blackram
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 or five jugs attacking ground targets with bombs will be a formidable force much like a pack of 110's. Once the reds have gotten over the shock of having to use LW type tactics they will get used to it and it will be a force to be reckoned with. A K4 getting clipped by 6x50 cals aint gonna be worth much for long.  

 

In the meantime I am loving all the RED wine.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, blackram said:

Yep, your right. Though in 1 vs 1 the story is different...

For honorable 1v1 duel the plane with better P/W and smaller wing loading will be better (namely Spitfire, Bf109). Nearly always. As it was in real life.

In more realistic scenario with many planes involved K-4 will be somewhat crippled with small high speed manuverability and restricted visibility.

Edited by Bies
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CMBailey said:

I own the DCS P-51 module. Something I find interesting is that if it is the most realistic computer representation of the Mustang it is also by a wide margin the easiest to fly I’ve tried. I sometimes think instability, tricky handling and etc are added in in many cases because a lot of people believe harder to fly=more realistic.

DCS prop driven aircraft are horribly modeled. There is no torque at all in the P-51. The 190 and 109 have some. They all fly and stall like swept wing jets. Do not use them as any sort of "standard". Here is the video I made of the no-torque DCS P-51 

 

14 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

Sounds good Gambit, will be fun :)

 

Btw, just want to clarify that I am not saying the 262 is invincible, any plane can be shot down and I have certainly been shot down flying the Me262. But in a fair 10 out of 10 match up it was very one sided in the 262s favour,  and I wouldnt call myself an expert at dogfighting by any means. Longest fight I ever had was against a P-47D btw, kept flying even after taking a 30mm mine shot to the cockpit area :P 

 

But still, even in the 1 v 1 fights (which means they were 100% aware) I had against pilots who were undoubtedly better than me, I would win the fight 9 times out of 10 if I was in the 262 and he was in the prop, and the same if the roles were reversed. The 262 is just a really frustrating aircraft to be up against, not least due to how quickly it can reengage after a failed pass.

 

On a large open map where your prey won't always see you coming and/or also has to contend with other aircraft in the area, the Me262 is downright brutal.

 

 

Well any plane can turn inside another if the conditions are right, all it takes is a bit of speed difference. But how the P-38 should supposedly be better sustained than a P-51 I can't really see. Keep in mind that not only does the P-38 have to make those turns with less wing for every unit of weight (which is penalized in the form of extra induced drag), it also has to fight against a noticably higher amount of parasitic drag due to its larger size. Hence the P-38 would need a massive advantage in thrust to beat the smaller P-51 in a sustained fight.

 

That said where are those turn radius figures from though, and are they with flaps for one and not the other? 

Wing loading is a terrible method of determining turn performance.

 

The only things that matter are stall speed and excess power.

 

The P-38 has excellent  power on stall performance because it has two powerful engines blowing air over big, fat wing roots where most of the lift is created. Add in the maneuver flap setting and the P-38 will easily turn with the 109 series. It also has lots of excess power. It was the best accelerating American fighter, beating the P-51.

 

The P-38 both out turns and out accelerates the P-51 in a slow speed fight(below 250 mph). The Pony advantage is in instantaneous turn rate at high speed.

 

The P-38 should out turn the 109K4 and should be easily able to torque out the 109K in a sustained right turn (if torque is modeled at real world levels)

The 109K should be the better climber and probably accelerate better. It will be faster but not by a margin that will make it untouchable.

 

The P-38 had terrible roll rate. This was fixed with the boosted ailerons. If we get the unboosted version then it will be its most glaring weakness. I would think that since the 367th Fighter Group was operating P-38J-25-LO's with the boosted ailerons and dive flaps in the summer of 1944 that will be the version we get.

 

The size of the P-38 makes it have to overcome more inertia. It will enter and exit maneuvers a bit slower than its smaller contemporaries because of its mass. This will only present an issue against opponents savvy enough to take advantage of it.

Edited by =475FG=DAWGER
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

DCS prop driven aircraft are horribly modeled. There is no torque at all in the P-51. The 190 and 109 have some. They all fly and stall like swept wing jets. Do not use them as any sort of "standard". Here is the video I made of the no-torque DCS P-51 

 

 

This is false. If you accelerated stall the DCS P-51 and do nothing to correct the thing will do an immediate roll from the torque. Thus there is torque present. You can claim it is not *enough* torque, but in that case I must ask on what evidence you make that case?
And anyway the P-47 in Il-2 feels similar in that regard, it can be held nose up at full power to very low speeds.

2 hours ago, =EXPEND=DendroAspis said:

Once the reds have gotten over the shock of having to use LW type tactics they will get used to it and it will be a force to be reckoned with. A K4 getting clipped by 6x50 cals aint gonna be worth much for long.  

 

In the meantime I am loving all the RED wine.

My favorite plane outside the Jug, and the plane I have flown most in this game is the Fw-190. You cannot effectively use 190-esque tactics in the current Il-2 interpretation of the Jug because of poor handling at high speeds (no better than the 109) and very short restrictions on competitive power settings. You have almost no elevator authority with which to make adjustments to your firing solutions, or with which to pull evasive maneuvers when over 400mph IAS. No one is asking for a Jug that will turn well or climb with a 109, anything ridiculous like that. But one that won't even make boom and zoom passes better than a 109 can do is really leaving the pilots with nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

DCS prop driven aircraft are horribly modeled. There is no torque at all in the P-51. The 190 and 109 have some. They all fly and stall like swept wing jets. Do not use them as any sort of "standard". Here is the video I made of the no-torque DCS P-51 

 

Wing loading is a terrible method of determining turn performance.

 

The only things that matter are stall speed and excess power.

 

The P-38 has excellent  power on stall performance because it has two powerful engines blowing air over big, fat wing roots where most of the lift is created. Add in the maneuver flap setting and the P-38 will easily turn with the 109 series. It also has lots of excess power. It was the best accelerating American fighter, beating the P-51.

 

The P-38 both out turns and out accelerates the P-51 in a slow speed fight(below 250 mph). The Pony advantage is in instantaneous turn rate at high speed.

 

The P-38 should out turn the 109K4 and should be easily able to torque out the 109K in a sustained right turn (if torque is modeled at real world levels)

The 109K should be the better climber and probably accelerate better. It will be faster but not by a margin that will make it untouchable.

 

The P-38 had terrible roll rate. This was fixed with the boosted ailerons. If we get the unboosted version then it will be its most glaring weakness. I would think that since the 367th Fighter Group was operating P-38J-25-LO's with the boosted ailerons and dive flaps in the summer of 1944 that will be the version we get.

 

The size of the P-38 makes it have to overcome more inertia. It will enter and exit maneuvers a bit slower than its smaller contemporaries because of its mass. This will only present an issue against opponents savvy enough to take advantage of it.

 

Well I'm sorry but that's not what the math says.

 

Also whilst wing loading is a rough measure, using stall speeds measured from the cockpit instrumentation of the day is an even worse basis to start with. You need more accurate measurements (e.g. from a windtunnel), or direct side by side comparisons to get a better idea of in which ballpark the basic figures are at.

 

That said wing loading is important when it comes to Cdi as it determines how high a CL is needed to produce the needed lift, the direct byproduct of which is drag and hence having a lower wing loading to start with is always beneficial. So wing loading can never be overlooked, it's just at the very beginning of determining turn performance however.

 

As for the P-38, you seem to have a lot of faith in its ability to turn, but IMO you are seriously misleading yourself if you think it would ever come close to the 109 in either an instantanous or sustained turning contest (esp. a K4), infact I don't even see it beating the P-51 here (at least not down low), and neither did the LW pilots who met it in combat. There was infact also a direct comparison conducted between the P-51 (unknown version), P-39D, P-40F & P-38F by USAAF in early 43, and it had all three single engined fighters outturn the P-38 quite clearly up to 12 kft, after which point the gap would progressively diminish.

 

Thus if you honestly believe that it will approach a K4 in turning performance then IMHO you're setting yourself up for a very rude awakening, I mean let's again just look at the basic numbers:

 

Bf-109K4

W/L = ~200 kg/m2

P/W = ~0.6 hp/kg (1.98ata) or  ~0.54 hp/kg (1.8ata)

 

P-38L

W/L = ~260 kg/m2

P/W = ~0.4 hp/kg

 

Now the P-38 has maneuver flaps, but the 109 has slats covering the area not energized by the propwash, so I don't think either aircraft have an advantage in lift coefficient during a dogfight. Hence it's basically going to come down to wing area vs weight and drag vs thrust, and since the 109 is both A LOT smaller and possesses a far more favorable wing area & power to weight ratio it should win any turn contest rather easily, irrespective of wether it's the 1.98ata or 1.8ata version. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Well I'm sorry but that's not what the math says.

 

Also whilst wing loading is a rough measure, using stall speeds measured from the cockpit instrumentation of the day is an even worse basis to start with. You need more accurate measurements (e.g. from a windtunnel), or direct side by side comparisons to get a better idea of in which ballpark the basic figures are at.

 

That said wing loading is important when it comes to Cdi as it determines how high a CL is needed to produce the needed lift, the direct byproduct of which is drag and hence having a lower wing loading to start with is always beneficial. So wing loading can never be overlooked, it's just at the very beginning of determining turn performance however.

 

As for the P-38, you seem to have a lot of faith in its ability to turn, but IMO you are seriously misleading yourself if you think it would ever come close to the 109 in either an instantanous or sustained turning contest (esp. a K4), infact I don't even see it beating the P-51 here (at least not down low), and neither did the LW pilots who met it in combat. There was infact also a direct comparison conducted between the P-51 (unknown version), P-39D, P-40F & P-38F by USAAF in early 43, and it had all three single engined fighters outturn the P-38 quite clearly up to 12 kft, after which point the gap would progressively diminish.

 

Thus if you honestly believe that it will approach a K4 in turning performance then IMHO you're setting yourself up for a very rude awakening, I mean let's again just look at the basic numbers:

 

Bf-109K4

W/L = ~200 kg/m2

P/W = ~0.6 hp/kg (1.98ata) or  ~0.54 hp/kg (1.8ata)

 

P-38L

W/L = ~260 kg/m2

P/W = ~0.4 hp/kg

 

Now the P-38 has maneuver flaps, but the 109 has slats covering the area not energized by the propwash, so I don't think either aircraft have an advantage in lift coefficient during a dogfight. Hence it's basically going to come down to wing area vs weight and drag vs thrust, and since the 109 is both A LOT smaller and possesses a far more favorable wing area & power to weight ratio it should win any turn contest rather easily, irrespective of wether it's the 1.98ata or 1.8ata version. 

 

 

 

 

Go to WWII aircraft performance and check out how low the 38 can get its stall speed with the Fowlers. It will definitely out-turn the 51, whose plain flaps are less effective. There is a direct relationship between 1G stall speed and being able to pull X number of Gs at a given speed. Turn rate is G loading (higher is better) in relation to that speed needed to attain that loading without stalling (lower is better)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

Go to WWII aircraft performance and check out how low the 38 can get its stall speed with the Fowlers. It will definitely out-turn the 51, whose plain flaps are less effective. There is a direct relationship between 1G stall speed and being able to pull X number of Gs at a given speed. Turn rate is G loading (higher is better) in relation to that speed needed to attain that loading without stalling (lower is better)

 

Again as mentioned earlier you cannot rely on the indicated stall speeds based solely on the built in instrumentation of the time, they are simply not accurate during such flight profiles. The higher the AoA the less accurate they became. The fact that the P-51 proved superior in direct comparisons also illustrates this problem.

 

That said I am not saying the difference between the P-51 & P-38 is necessarily that great, and that because the P-38 has two advantages, one being a larger area of wing energized by prop wash and the other being the fowler flaps. But remember using flaps can become a problem in a sustained fight. 

 

The biggest problems facing the P-38 is its size & weight relative to it's wing area & power, it suffers a lot of extra drag to deal with because of this.

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Again as mentioned earlier you cannot rely on the indicated stall speeds based solely on the built in instrumentation of the time, they are simply not accurate during such flight profiles. The fact that the P-51 proved superior in direct comparisons also hints to that.

You also cannot rely entirely on wing-loading (because a plane with higher wingloading can nonetheless have more lift in relation to its weight), power-loading (it literally has nothing to do with *instantaneous* turn rate anyway) or mock dogfightIng (decided as much by who can stand more G and/or fly closer to the ragged edge as turning ability when the planes are remotely close. You can almost always find a contradictory report on the murky subject of what “turns” better).

If you want to sniff-test flight models against reality regarding turning  then working from the stall speed given is as objective as it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

You also cannot rely entirely on wing-loading (because a plane with higher wingloading can nonetheless have more lift in relation to its weight), power-loading (it literally has nothing to do with *instantaneous* turn rate anyway) or mock dogfightIng (decided as much by who can stand more G and/or fly closer to the ragged edge as turning ability when the planes are remotely close. You can almost always find a contradictory report on the murky subject of what “turns” better).

If you want to sniff-test flight models against reality regarding turning  then working from the stall speed given is as objective as it gets.

 

No you cannot rely just on wing loading, that is true, but I already covered that :)

 

As for the stall speeds, again it's only initially objective if its the true stall speed, something which is hard to find for any WWII aircraft due to the inaccuracy of the instrumentation available at the time at high AoA flight profiles and the reliance on these in most period test flights. But even then the 1 G stall speed is not the correct way to determine lift in turns as these happen under both a higher G load & wind speed, resulting in a number of Cl altering effects (changing planform lift distribution due to aeroelasticity, Cl vs mach curve etc.) which raises big issues with using that approach even if you have the true 1 G stall speed. 

 

PS: Flight testing from the day can indeed also lead to some very misleading conclusions, esp. when they involved enemy equipment. Here we definitely agree, and thats where aerodynamics theory becomes very deciding at ruling out certain things. 

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note: ability pull high AoA, having very low stall speed, having small turn radius and turning quickly are all different things. Flaps can give some aircraft impressive maneuverability and handling at very low speeds, but exploiting those in actual combat is very difficult(and not the least because typical dogfight starts at 450 km/h and ends in 20 seconds). I need to catch up to this thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

 

Sounds like you're a great pilot though, so it's going to be a very exciting challenge :)

 

I don't imagine that I'll ever be in that kind of shape again, but who knows.

Right now I'm certainly not.

 

When PTO arrives I'll start getting online again regularly perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I don't imagine that I'll ever be in that kind of shape again, but who knows.

Right now I'm certainly not.

 

When PTO arrives I'll start getting online again regularly perhaps.

 

Oh I definitely need some practice myself, haven't had an online sim flight for almost a year now I think, and before that I had a long break as well.

 

But I'm sure we can muster up some of our skills from the past if we just allow ourselves a week or so to familiarize ourselves with MP simming again. I am certainly planning on getting back into it again once BOBP releases.

 

Oh and the PTO would be amazing, definitely on my wishlist as well.

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

No you cannot rely just on wing loading, that is true, but I already covered that :)

 

As for the stall speeds, again it's only initially objective if its the true stall speed, something which is hard to find for any WWII aircraft due to the inaccuracy of the instrumentation available at the time at high AoA flight profiles and the reliance on these in most period test flights. But even then the 1 G stall speed is not the correct way to determine lift in turns as these happen under both a higher G load & wind speed, resulting in a number of Cl altering effects (changing planform lift distribution due to aeroelasticity, Cl vs mach curve etc.) which raises big issues with using that approach even if you have the true 1 G stall speed. 

 

PS: Flight testing from the day can indeed also lead to some very misleading conclusions, esp. when they involved enemy equipment. Here we definitely agree, and thats where aerodynamics theory becomes very deciding at ruling out certain things. 

If the accelerated stall formula doesn’t tell you at least approximately the minimum speed needed to pull X Gs then a lot of people are being lied to in flight school.

 

You do realize that you’re essentially saying “The only way to check our simulation is to run a simulation!”. (It’s a simulation whether it is run very slowly on a blackboard and worked out with a slide rule or done quickly with a program like Il-2.) The undeniable fact that the various computer simulators get different results leaves me quite agnostic about “accuracy”, except within a very big ballpark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

If the accelerated stall formula doesn’t tell you at least approximately the minimum speed needed to pull X Gs then a lot of people are being lied to in flight school.

 

You do realize that you’re essentially saying “The only way to check our simulation is to run a simulation!”. (It’s a simulation whether it is run very slowly on a blackboard and worked out with a slide rule or done quickly with a program like Il-2.) The undeniable fact that the various computer simulators get different results leaves me quite agnostic about “accuracy”, except within a very big ballpark.

 

No, the only way to truly check a simulation is to do an actual flight or windtunnel test, that's what you do in the business to this day as not even the most advanced programs can predict everything.

 

Relying on the 1 G stall speed will at best give you an approximate result if the measured speed is the true one, but most of the time it isn't particularly accurate for determining accelerated stalls at high speeds & G loads as the particular wings cl vs mach relation and the lift distribution changes associated with aeroelasticity then aren't accounted for. 

 

CL vs mach relation for a particular airfoil:

p114a.jpg

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800630.pdf

 

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/liftco.html

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2018 at 7:12 AM, =EXPEND=DendroAspis said:

Now the reds cant just mow lawn and dominate the deck like you have since the beginning of the sim.

 

On 11/29/2018 at 7:19 AM, =EXPEND=DendroAspis said:

In the meantime I am loving all the RED wine.

 

On 11/29/2018 at 2:38 AM, =EXPEND=DendroAspis said:

Nice to see so much red wine around for a change.😁

 

 

[Edited]

 

 

Edited by Bearcat
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CMBailey said:

What about the inability to pull any more G than the famously stiff-elevatored 109 can pull at 400+mph IAS? (The 109 can pull more if he uses trim, trim doesn't do much for the 47). That is not only disappointing, inability to pull for a shot or an evasive is nigh unto a fatal flaw in an aircraft whose primary advantage over others if any is diving at high speed.

Maybe that is why modern jets are using the trimable horizontal estabilicer like the 109s and not the trimable system from planes like p47

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

No, the only way to truly check a simulation is to do an actual flight or windtunnel test, that's what you do in the business to this day as not even the most advanced programs can predict everything.

 

Relying on the 1 G stall speed will at best give you an approximate result if the measured speed is the true one, but most of the time it isn't particularly accurate for determining accelerated stalls at high speeds & G loads as the particular wings cl vs mach relation and the lift distribution changes associated with aeroelasticity then aren't accounted for. 

 

CL vs mach relation for a particular airfoil:

p114a.jpg

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800630.pdf

 

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/liftco.html

I agree wholeheartedly about the actual flight/wind tunnel tests above all. So I assume you brought this up because you have data from tests indicating that in regards to turning Fw190>P-51>P-38, despite what the relative stall speeds point to? This discussion IIRC started because someone expressed doubt about P-51s turning a little better than 190s, which is perfectly plausible given all we know about the physical attributes of both planes and has been true in every WWII sim I’ve tried. Bear in mind that out of these 3 the 190 is my personal favorite, I lIke round engines. It has crossed my mind that since the fix the Il2 190 is perhaps turning a little *too well* relative some other craft these days, but because it is hardly an unbalancing world-beater even with better turn let it be I say.

 

 

Sir, this chart starts at .4 Mach, which is about 350mph at sea level, IOW in the ball park of WWII fighter max level speeds. Which is above the speed any WWII fighter I know of needs to pull as much G as can be withstood. It mainly serves to demonstrate effects as one nears compressibility. I hone that it might have some bearing on turn performance at very high alt. But for it to make accelerated stall calculations grossly inaccurate at low levels at least there world have to be quite large differences for a given airfoil between in cl between .13 and .39 Mach.

34 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Maybe that is why modern jets are using the trimable horizontal estabilicer like the 109s and not the trimable system from planes like p47

All moving stabs are used on jets primarily because of greater effectiveness at transonic or beyond. A 400mph IAS dive at low level is not in that regime, and that is what is being discussed here. Your example is thus irrelevant.

 

What we are left with is that the ETO fighter most infamous for bad high speed elevator is doing as well or better than a fighter famous for being good at high speed. Thus leaving the latter with no playable advantages at all, it must be said. Bizarre and not good for the future of the game.

 

Before you jump on me for some dread anti-109s bias btw, understand that I find the extent of the game 109’s  elevator limitation at +~300mph IAS bizarre also. It is highly implausible that a fighter which can’t use the maximum turn it is aerodynamically capable of at speeds it easily attains in level flight without resorting to maximum nose-up trim  would have been accepted for service. Didn’t someone who has flown actual 109s describe the elevator as stiff, but still capable of putting on as much G as one can stand?

 

 

The difference between the 109 and 47  btw, is that even with its speed limitation the 109 with its power still has the low medium speed vertical regime where it is the best. The 47 certainly can’t do that, and it can’t own the high speed regime either since it can barely maneuver if it dives only a little faster than its maximum level flight speed.

Edited by CMBailey
Link to post
Share on other sites

The chart I presented was a quick grab meant to illustrate the fact that the Cl curve isn't static but actually changes with speed, which by itself raises issues with relying on 1 G stall speeds for predicting turn performance. The random chart I posted wasn't the best to illustrate how it would affect a WW2 fighter, on that we can agree, but it wasn't really meant to either, just to illustrate the effect of speed on Cl.

 

More relevant would be this chart from NACA TN1044 with the wing clmax vs mach relation for several WW2 aircraft:

PWkn0qs.png

 

Now you mentioned the Fw190 vs P-51, and indeed I've previously expressed my opinion on this board that most of the truly valid & useable evidence available (incl. the report from which the above graph originates) points toward the Fw190 & P-51 being incredibly close when it comes to turn performance, with perhaps a small advantage to the Fw190 at low altitudes and vice versa up high.

 

 

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites

The pitot tube on the P-38 is not interfered with the gear down. It is well outboard. Gear doors are the reason for decreased stall speed with gear down.

 

 

P38-Lightning-1.jpg

10 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Maybe that is why modern jets are using the trimable horizontal estabilicer like the 109s and not the trimable system from planes like p47

That is not why the trimmable HSTAB is standard on all swept wing jets now. The reason has to do with transonic shock waves and nothing to do with combat.

15 hours ago, CMBailey said:

This is false. If you accelerated stall the DCS P-51 and do nothing to correct the thing will do an immediate roll from the torque. Thus there is torque present. You can claim it is not *enough* torque, but in that case I must ask on what evidence you make that case?
And anyway the P-47 in Il-2 feels similar in that regard, it can be held nose up at full power to very low speeds.

My favorite plane outside the Jug, and the plane I have flown most in this game is the Fw-190. You cannot effectively use 190-esque tactics in the current Il-2 interpretation of the Jug because of poor handling at high speeds (no better than the 109) and very short restrictions on competitive power settings. You have almost no elevator authority with which to make adjustments to your firing solutions, or with which to pull evasive maneuvers when over 400mph IAS. No one is asking for a Jug that will turn well or climb with a 109, anything ridiculous like that. But one that won't even make boom and zoom passes better than a 109 can do is really leaving the pilots with nothing.

Above stall speed there is NO torque roll in the DCS P-51. NONE. Study a little Newton. In DCS P-51 you can trim the airplane at 15 inches and at any speed above stall speed you can jack the throttle stop to stop with no flight control inputs required. There is no equal and opposite reaction. It does fall off the left wing when stalled but this is just canned programming from a yoyo that doesnt understand prop airplanes. Torque is ever present in a prop airplane and must always be corrected for. The idea that you can go stop to stop with the throttle with no flight control input is indicative of a failure to understand basic physics.  It is blatantly wrong and anyone with time in actual prop airplanes knows this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...