Spitfire Mk.IX vs Bf109-k4

[Sunde]

14 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Except of course the Spitfire with a Merlin 70 is faster than a K-4 above 10km currently, but I guess you've not bothered testing them.

 

Also the K-4 climbs slower than both the P-47D and the Merlin 66 Spitfires above 5km which leaves it very vulnerable in my experience.

Nearly all engagements in multiplayer occur at lower altitudes however? (Not all) but ALOT... So whilst the K4 does not regin supreme at those altitudes, it does have an edge in most of the fights that occur in multiplayer as the current meta is anyway. 

Also who the fk ever flies above 10 kilometers???

Edited December 14, 2018 by EAF_Sunde

[Talon_]

13 minutes ago, EAF_Sunde said:

Nearly all engagements in multiplayer occur at lower altitudes however? (Not all) but ALOT... So whilst the K4 does not regin supreme at those altitudes, it does have an edge in most of the fights that occur in multiplayer as the current meta is anyway. 

Also who the fk ever flies above 10 kilometers???

 

My P-47 ace video happened mostly up there against K-4s ?‍♂️

[DSR_A-24]

32 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

My P-47 ace video happened mostly up there against K-4s ?‍♂️

Would you care to share?

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, DSR_T-888 said:

Would you care to share?

Give us the liiiiiiiink!

[E69_geramos109]

4 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Except of course the Spitfire with a Merlin 70 is faster than a K-4 above 10km currently, but I guess you've not bothered testing them.

 

Also the K-4 climbs slower than both the P-47D and the Merlin 66 Spitfires above 5km which leaves it very vulnerable in my experience.

I dont think so. Data available on the game shows combat power, not boosted power for the K4 so you can expect a K4 to climb much faster than a P47 at 5000m. 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[CountZero]

just saw this new video by MeoW.Scharfi in k4 Df 3xSpit9s+47 on kota, fit for topic and plus is it looks awsome with all thouse spits in parts 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[Sunde]

13 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

just saw this new video by MeoW.Scharfi in k4 Df 3xSpit9s+47 on kota, fit for topic and plus is it looks awsome with all thouse spits in parts 

Awesome flying and gunnery, also - (LOOK AT THOSE FLYING TANKS :D...) 
In all fairness, whilst that really was a great display of air combat from Scharfi, it was also a fantastic showcase of "ineptitude" (sorry) from his opponents in the spitfires in particular... 
Not that it matters, i bet he felt pretty good after that fight there. Stuff like this is why good combat flights sims just rock, i bet his heart was racing abit during those minutes.   

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

8 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

But there's no denying that any aircraft can get E over another one, its just not relevant in a "which aircraft is better" discussion, because even the best airplane can be taken down by the worst aircraft if it's caught low and slow

 

I still think that part gets cast away too easily in combat comparisons.
A more maneuverable plane in that situation has more potential opportunity to avoid being taken down, or at least avoid it long enough for assistance to arrive.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by =EXPEND=Tripwire

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I dont think so. Data available on the game shows combat power, not boosted power for the K4 so you can expect a K4 to climb much faster than a P47 at 5000m. 

 

It depends on the fuel quantity in regards to the P-47, since it can carry around 1000 Kg of fuel (a 109 carries 300 Kg of fuel as comparison). Sheriff made some nice climb tests comparing different configurations of the P-47 vs other BoBP planes:


You can see that while for a fully loaded P-47 it stays at a climb disadvantage at all altitudes, the one with 400L fuel matches the 1.8 ata K-4 at 5000 meters and 1.98 ata one at 6000 meters, above it has a slight advantage until 8600-8700 meters where the K-4 regains the position as the turbocharger starts to lose power.

Then if you take a 400 L P-47 with just 4 guns you get further weight saving on the plane (although I personally think reducing the armament on the 47 is heresy lol) it matches both K-4's climbrate at 4000 meters and at 7000 meters achieves 20 m/s compared to K-4's ~16.3 m/s
 

Spoiler

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[E69_geramos109]

Problem with P47 is that the time you have this kind of performance is very low because it burns fuel as hell so you just can not take off with 400l. but yes if you are some time on the air on your alt you know that the performance will keep improoving with some time. 

[Ehret]

5 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

You can see that while for a fully loaded P-47 it stays at a climb disadvantage at all altitudes, the one with 400L fuel matches the 1.8 ata K-4 at 5000 meters and 1.98 ata one at 6000 meters, above it has a slight advantage until 8600-8700 meters where the K-4 regains the position as the turbocharger starts to lose power.

 

There is a nice trick when you are +8000m in the Thunderbolt - switch the pitch to the manual and over-rev engine to 2900rpm. This will increase boost and the Jug will regain performance edge. The engine will work for about 5 minutes in that mode so it's not worse than "normal" emergency power.

 

Another interesting trick is with inter-cooler cowls. If you open them quickly the carb temps will drop immediately thus increasing boost briefly. Not sure how to use it, thought. Perhaps, could increase acceleration when high and slow; I just need to test it.

[CountZero]

1 minute ago, Ehret said:

 

There is a nice trick when you are +8000m in the Thunderbolt - switch the pitch to the manual and over-rev engine to 2900rpm. This will increase boost and the Jug will regain performance edge. The engine will work for about 5 minutes in that mode so it's not worse than "normal" emergency power.

 

Another interesting trick is with inter-cooler cowls. If you open them quickly the carb temps will drop immediately thus increasing boost briefly. Not sure how to use it, thought. Perhaps, could increase acceleration when high and slow; I just need to test it.

 

Manual incress of RPM is big bost up high in climb and speed, but need to be cerfule not to go abow 3300 its engine fail 

[HR_Zunzun]

5 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

It depends on the fuel quantity in regards to the P-47, since it can carry around 1000 Kg of fuel (a 109 carries 300 Kg of fuel as comparison). Sheriff made some nice climb tests comparing different configurations of the P-47 vs other BoBP planes:


You can see that while for a fully loaded P-47 it stays at a climb disadvantage at all altitudes, the one with 400L fuel matches the 1.8 ata K-4 at 5000 meters and 1.98 ata one at 6000 meters, above it has a slight advantage until 8600-8700 meters where the K-4 regains the position as the turbocharger starts to lose power.

Then if you take a 400 L P-47 with just 4 guns you get further weight saving on the plane (although I personally think reducing the armament on the 47 is heresy lol) it matches both K-4's climbrate at 4000 meters and at 7000 meters achieves 20 m/s compared to K-4's ~16.3 m/s
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

The question is how much fuel is the 109 holding? Obviously, fuel fraction of the 109 is lower but a 109k4 with 50% fuel should climb faster too. So the difference wouldn´t be as in the chart, would it?

[Talon_]

48 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

The question is how much fuel is the 109 holding? Obviously, fuel fraction of the 109 is lower but a 109k4 with 50% fuel should climb faster too. So the difference wouldn´t be as in the chart, would it?

 

The performance difference of a K-4 at 1/3rd fuel vs a P-47D at 1/3rd fuel is much smaller - plus the K-4 will need to go home for more with that little left.

 

I guess half the fuel in the K-4 is about the same weight reduction as taking 4 guns instead of 8 in your P-47.

13 hours ago, DSR_T-888 said:

Would you care to share?

 

12 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Give us the liiiiiiiink!

 

 

 

Bear in mind this is over 2 consecutive sorties rather than 1 so not quite "in a flight".

[HR_Zunzun]

I agree that the amount of increase of performance difference favours the P-47D as it has a bigger fuel fraction. My question was that at the figures given I assumed that the k4 was at 100% while it more typically would meet the P-47 at something around 50-60% of fuel. So the climbing performance of the k4 would be higher than in the chart provided.

[Talon_]

10 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I agree that the amount of increase of performance difference favours the P-47D as it has a bigger fuel fraction. My question was that at the figures given I assumed that the k4 was at 100% while it more typically would meet the P-47 at something around 50-60% of fuel. So the climbing performance of the k4 would be higher than in the chart provided.

 

I asked the author and the charts are made at 50% fuel

[HR_Zunzun]

Ok, so the differences are accurate then. Good to know.

Btw, thank you for asking ?

[D3adCZE]

17 hours ago, EAF_Sunde said:

Nearly all engagements in multiplayer occur at lower altitudes however? (Not all) but ALOT... So whilst the K4 does not regin supreme at those altitudes, it does have an edge in most of the fights that occur in multiplayer as the current meta is anyway. 

Also who the fk ever flies above 10 kilometers???

I fly above 10km, especially on KOTA server, where everything below 8km is unsuitable to the Jug. Hell I even fought at 11.5km with a K4 against LA5FN(which managed to stay with me) untill my engine seized due to lack of fuel. 

Altitude is life insurance, and I like to hoard it.

[Ehret]

2 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

Altitude is life insurance, and I like to hoard it.

 

Because of contrails a high altitude is early warning system, too. Even when engaged there is some time to think as high speeds and thin air stretch maneuvers. The problem is visibility and it goes beyond the current 10km limitation. It easy to lose a contact because it takes about a minute to pass 10km. If the potential target is flying 180 degree to me it's much quicker, still; often so fast there is no time to make the turn to follow. I wonder how hard it will be in the 262? G-loads will ensure that turns will take space and when you are flying +250m/s you have just few seconds to aim. It was manageable against big bombers but we will not have those in BOBP; not initially at least.

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Because of contrails a high altitude is early warning system, too. Even when engaged there is some time to think as high speeds and thin air stretch maneuvers. The problem is visibility and it goes beyond the current 10km limitation. It easy to lose a contact because it takes about a minute to pass 10km. If the potential target is flying 180 degree to me it's much quicker, still; often so fast there is no time to make the turn to follow. I wonder how hard it will be in the 262? G-loads will ensure that turns will take space and when you are flying +250m/s you have just few seconds to aim. It was manageable against big bombers but we will not have those in BOBP; not initially at least.

One of the reasons they need to figure out how to increase view distance, even 5-10km more would do alot to help imo.

[Kurfurst]

13 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

just saw this new video by MeoW.Scharfi in k4 Df 3xSpit9s+47 on kota, fit for topic and plus is it looks awsome with all thouse spits in parts 

 

 

Brilliant flying and shooting in the last minute! 

[ForceToast]

Very nice!

[RedKestrel]

15 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

just saw this new video by MeoW.Scharfi in k4 Df 3xSpit9s+47 on kota, fit for topic and plus is it looks awsome with all thouse spits in parts 

 

In fairness, I think Scharfi could do that with a Stuka, given previous viewing of some of her videos...

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

The 30mm in the K-4 hits like a 20mm in the G-14.

[DSR_A-24]

17 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

It depends on the fuel quantity in regards to the P-47, since it can carry around 1000 Kg of fuel (a 109 carries 300 Kg of fuel as comparison). Sheriff made some nice climb tests comparing different configurations of the P-47 vs other BoBP planes:


You can see that while for a fully loaded P-47 it stays at a climb disadvantage at all altitudes, the one with 400L fuel matches the 1.8 ata K-4 at 5000 meters and 1.98 ata one at 6000 meters, above it has a slight advantage until 8600-8700 meters where the K-4 regains the position as the turbocharger starts to lose power.

Then if you take a 400 L P-47 with just 4 guns you get further weight saving on the plane (although I personally think reducing the armament on the 47 is heresy lol) it matches both K-4's climbrate at 4000 meters and at 7000 meters achieves 20 m/s compared to K-4's ~16.3 m/s
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

That's actually pretty impressive, imagine a P-47M :O.

 

However I'd never sacrifice the 4 guns especially with the new damage model.