Turning with the P51and tempest vs 109s. Changed on last path??

[E69_geramos109]

Hi there guys. I would like to open the discussion about the Fm on this planes to put your impressions here about the new planes.

 

Today I managed to make some test making all kind of turning between the different planes against each others. I was very surprised that P51 is a very good dogfighter against K4s and of course Doras.

On turning on high speeds the G suit is performing good and you can pull more time and gs than the oponent, that is great feature from devs. But what I was not expecting is how easy is to turn sustained against 109s. 109s are lighter, have more power to weight ratio, have slats to turn better at low speeds on the limit of the Angle of Attack and they have a wing with a more conventional profile better for lower speeds compared to laminar flow . On the other hand P51 has not very good power to weight ratio and a laminar flow wing that should bleed energy much faster with no slats. On the 109 you really fight with the plane below 300 kph on a sustained turn. The wings want to drop, the speed drops, the torque is insine, and with the P51 at 200 mph you are easy and stable, not bleeding as much and you really start having problems at 150 mph. with flaps at 20% you gain more and the only thing you have to take care is not giving to much yaw or you will spin. 

Tempest can keep as well with 109s but strugling quite more than the P51 and with 2700 hp you  really have not torque problems compared with the 2000 hp on the 109 but well is a fatter plane so I guess that helps.

 

So what do you think guys?

Edited October 5, 2019 by E69_geramos109

[Voidhunger]

Yep, Mustang turns really well to my surprise, but I dont know if its historical or not. Good is, that due to its good maneuverability Mustang is not a flying brick like Jug in SP. In qmb 2xregular Doras vs 4x ace 150octane Mustangs its finally some challenge now.

Of course when I switch to fly in Mustang its too easy. Its fast, maneuverable, no blackouts and I dont even know ho to fly her properly. Full throttle, 3000rpm, shot everything down, land.  Its like flying with La5FM against 109g6.

 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Without any indication how much G you pull it is hard to say if those Pony G-pants are modelled too good or not. They were in no way comparable to more modern ones that are lighter, thinner and much better functionality. Have  read many pilots did not use them while flying Pony due clunkiness and getting stuck if need to bail out. Again anecdotal evidence, mileage may vary between pilots. 

 

If you wonder about Tempest and it's performance in turns despite contradicting reports by pilots saying avoid turn fights below 400km/h, wonder no more. You can fly it around in game with gear down and flaps down at 78-82mph without slightest tendency to roll, stall or anything else. It was easy to handle. 

 

Flying the Pony in GB is a breeze compared to DCS. Have not tested it that much yet, but very docile first impressions. 

 

P38 is one of favorite aircrafts. It feels very smooth to fly, good response. Again, need more testing to say anything more about it. 

[Bullets]

It turns as well as you would expect and the stall behaviour is as you would expect with the wing profile too. Very sudden and very harsh. I think you could find the 109s could probably turn harder but are limited by the G tolerance which the Mustang guys can get around because of their G suits.

My advice would be to utilise the fact I find the Stang rolls quite slowly so just out roll and pull away  

[LColony_Kong]

well for one, this is a 150 octane P-51. so you have 200 more bhp than a normal one. You can do nearly 380mph on the deck and climb rate goes from 3600ft/min to 4300ft/min.

 

Second, the P-51 generally turns about 1 second slower for a 360 than a 109, and 1 second faster than a 190. This relative relationship has been seen over and over in numerous sims and independent calculations. That relationship is for the 67inch P-51. With 150 grade, you  are probably pretty close to equal turning. Additionally, the P-51 has a much better flaps system than the Bf109. Plus you have alot of people taking extremely light fuel loads. I personally only take 35% fuel with the P-51.

 

From my testing the K4 and G-14 turn slightly better than the 51. But with 150 grade its so close it might as well not make a difference. And thats for sea level, at high alts the 51 (even 67 inches) most likely out turns the G14.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Lord_Flashheart

[Panthera]

Odd, according to what I've atleast been able to calculate myself to the 109K4 should be noticably better in the turn, esp. sustained. Even if the Pony is only loaded with 30% fuel.

 

At high speed a Mustang pilot with a G suit obviously has an advantage, but how big it was with these first generation G suits I don't know. AFAIK these first gen G-suits were also not good for sudden G's as they inflated too slowly. 

 

Should ofcourse also be noted that German pilots had the advantage of raised footrests, so their G tolerance without G suits would've been higher than that of an Allied pilot without G suit (all else being equal). 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Panthera

[E69_geramos109]

2 hours ago, Bullets said:

It turns as well as you would expect and the stall behaviour is as you would expect with the wing profile too. Very sudden and very harsh. I think you could find the 109s could probably turn harder but are limited by the G tolerance which the Mustang guys can get around because of their G suits.

My advice would be to utilise the fact I find the Stang rolls quite slowly so just out roll and pull away  

Well. the stall behaviour is sudden when you use rudder but on a sustined turn you can pull quite a lot on costant imput not talking about sudenly pulling a lot that would cause an spin. With the 109 what happens is that the wings want to fall on a turn and is very unstable. When the slats go out instead of helping they just brake completelly the wing that has the slat and your plane just stops like hitting a wall with this wing. At least is what happens in game but the 109 has one of the more hars stall behaviour quite oposite everythinh i hear and i read. 

2 hours ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

well for one, this is a 150 octane P-51. so you have 200 more bhp than a normal one. You can do nearly 380mph on the deck and climb rate goes from 3600ft/min to 4300ft/min.

 

Second, the P-51 generally turns about 1 second slower for a 360 than a 109, and 1 second faster than a 190. This relative relationship has been seen over and over in numerous sims and independent calculations. That relationship is for the 67inch P-51. With 150 grade, you  are probably pretty close to equal turning. Additionally, the P-51 has a much better flaps system than the Bf109. Plus you have alot of people taking extremely light fuel loads. I personally only take 35% fuel with the P-51.

 

From my testing the K4 and G-14 turn slightly better than the 51. But with 150 grade its so close it might as well not make a difference. And thats for sea level, at high alts the 51 (even 67 inches) most likely out turns the G14.

 

 

I have tested K4 30 fuel against P51 30 fuel so P51 has more weight on fuel and even like that he could outturn with ease the 109.

Even the 150 Octane fuel has 200 more bhp the K4 has 2000 bhp and is a lighter plane so the power weight ratio is quite better on the 109. Why P51 flap system is better? they have same flap profile but 109 is manual. 

We can test it if you want but from my test even without the 150 oc grade fuel I can outturn 109S at low speeds with ease 

[RedKestrel]

19 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Well. the stall behaviour is sudden when you use rudder but on a sustined turn you can pull quite a lot on costant imput not talking about sudenly pulling a lot that would cause an spin. With the 109 what happens is that the wings want to fall on a turn and is very unstable. When the slats go out instead of helping they just brake completelly the wing that has the slat and your plane just stops like hitting a wall with this wing. At least is what happens in game but the 109 has one of the more hars stall behaviour quite oposite everythinh i hear and i read. 

I have tested K4 30 fuel against P51 30 fuel so P51 has more weight on fuel and even like that he could outturn with ease the 109.

Even the 150 Octane fuel has 200 more bhp the K4 has 2000 bhp and is a lighter plane so the power weight ratio is quite better on the 109. Why P51 flap system is better? they have same flap profile but 109 is manual. 

We can test it if you want but from my test even without the 150 oc grade fuel I can outturn 109S at low speeds with ease 

Are you testing against AI? Even with the new updates I don't think the AI flies as aggressively as a human pilot.

[E69_geramos109]

12 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Are you testing against AI? Even with the new updates I don't think the AI flies as aggressively as a human pilot.

No. I made the test with squadmate. We repeated the test and after that we changed planes to see if one is performing better than the other

[3./JG15_Kampf]

16 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

On turning on high speeds the G suit is performing good and you can pull more time and gs than the oponent, that is great feature from devs. But what I was not expecting is how easy is to turn sustained against 109s. 109s are lighter, have more power to weight ratio, have slats to turn better at low speeds on the limit of the Angle of Attack and they have a wing with a more conventional profile better for lower speeds compared to laminar flow . On the other hand P51 has not very good power to weight ratio and a laminar flow wing that should bleed energy much faster with no slats. On the 109 you really fight with the plane below 300 kph on a sustained turn. The wings want to drop, the speed drops, the torque is insine, and with the P51 at 200 mph you are easy and stable, not bleeding as much and you really start having problems at 150 mph. with flaps at 20% you gain more and the only thing you have to take care is not giving to much yaw or you will spin. 

Tempest can keep as well with 109s but strugling quite more than the P51 and with 2700 hp you  really have not torque problems compared with the 2000 hp on the 109 but well is a fatter plane so I guess that helps.

 

You just described what I said to my squad mates. I am surprised by Tempest and p51 seems to have very little effect of engine torque at low speeds. They can also make sustained turns without much imbalance while 109 and 190 are quite unstable

[LColony_Kong]

4 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I have tested K4 30 fuel against P51 30 fuel so P51 has more weight on fuel and even like that he could outturn with ease the 109.

Even the 150 Octane fuel has 200 more bhp the K4 has 2000 bhp and is a lighter plane so the power weight ratio is quite better on the 109. Why P51 flap system is better? they have same flap profile but 109 is manual. 

We can test it if you want but from my test even without the 150 oc grade fuel I can outturn 109S at low speeds with ease 

You tested wrong. I have done repeated tests with a P-51 150 grade at 25% fuel vs K4 at 50%. The K4 and 51 tie at those conditions. Without 150 grade, the 51 loses. Testing against your friend is not how you do it. The difference in pilot will make the difference especially when it is this close.

4 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Why P51 flap system is better? they have same flap profile but 109 is manual. 

This why. Also the 51 can deploy them at up to 400mph IAS

 

This is the exact same characteristics we have seen with the DCS 109K4 and DCS P-51. Same difference in turn times, same torque characteristics.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Lord_Flashheart

[E69_geramos109]

30 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

You tested wrong. I have done repeated tests with a P-51 150 grade at 25% fuel vs K4 at 50%. The K4 and 51 tie at those conditions. Without 150 grade, the 51 loses. Testing against your friend is not how you do it. The difference in pilot will make the difference especially when it is this close.

This why. Also the 51 can deploy them at up to 400mph IAS

 

This is the exact same characteristics we have seen with the DCS 109K4 and DCS P-51. Same difference in turn times, same torque characteristics.

Well thats why we changed planes between us. To see if the pilot was making the difference. Even with the 150 grade fuel the 51 should be not eve close to a K4 on a sustained low speed turn. 

Use flaps to turn at 400 mph is useless you dont need flaps at those speeds. We can meet to make the test between us if you are not convinded. ?

[LColony_Kong]

23 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Well thats why we changed planes between us. To see if the pilot was making the difference. Even with the 150 grade fuel the 51 should be not eve close to a K4 on a sustained low speed turn. 

Use flaps to turn at 400 mph is useless you dont need flaps at those speeds. We can meet to make the test between us if you are not convinded. ?

Even if you change pilots this is not a good methodology.

 

And your second point is just false. The P-51 has always been only slightly worse than a K4 in sustained turns on the deck. That is for 67inches. Every sim dev since the year 2000 has gotten virtually the same numbers for these planes. Test the DCS K4 and DCS P-51 if you own them. You will find the exact same relationship, with the P-51 at 67inches being slightly worse, roughly 0.5 to 1 degree per second worse. With 150 grade in il2, they are basically evenly matched. I might also add that you completely left out wing loading at drag in your factors that affect a turn. At weights I mentioned a P-51 has a wing loading of 37.5 and a 109K 40.5.

 

400mph flaps is a big advantage because it allows you to turn harder at high speeds and because it lets you dump speed faster if the fight starts at higher speeds. If a 109 and a 51 merge at anything greater than the 109s flap speeds, the 51 can gain a large angles grab early because it has flaps that deploy faster and at higher speeds. Which means it is getting both an air brake and a boost to lift long before the 109 does.

 

The other advantage the 51s flaps provide is that they are hydraulic. The 109s flaps take too long to put up and down, which is a problem because there are parts of a fight you want them up, and others you want them down. When you deploy plain flaps in a dogfight, you get an initial turn rate boost for as long as you have excess PS. Once the turn is sustained again, turn rate will be worse than with them up but radius will remain improved. With a 109 it make no sense to put them down because it is hard to put them back up once speed falls off. Additionally, the the benefit of flaps to the 109 is less (same problem can be seen on la5) because the slats provide lift at higher AoA, while the flaps reduce the critical AoA. So the net effect is less.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Lord_Flashheart

[Mac_Messer]

The Stang performs too good of turning performance under 350kph IAS, goes with 109 well until 150kph.

[E69_geramos109]

1 hour ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

Even if you change pilots this is not a good methodology.

 

And your second point is just false. The P-51 has always been only slightly worse than a K4 in sustained turns on the deck. That is for 67inches. Every sim dev since the year 2000 has gotten virtually the same numbers for these planes. Test the DCS K4 and DCS P-51 if you own them. You will find the exact same relationship, with the P-51 at 67inches being slightly worse, roughly 0.5 to 1 degree per second worse. With 150 grade in il2, they are basically evenly matched. I might also add that you completely left out wing loading at drag in your factors that affect a turn. At weights I mentioned a P-51 has a wing loading of 37.5 and a 109K 40.5.

 

400mph flaps is a big advantage because it allows you to turn harder at high speeds and because it lets you dump speed faster if the fight starts at higher speeds. If a 109 and a 51 merge at anything greater than the 109s flap speeds, the 51 can gain a large angles grab early because it has flaps that deploy faster and at higher speeds. Which means it is getting both an air brake and a boost to lift long before the 109 does.

 

The other advantage the 51s flaps provide is that they are hydraulic. The 109s flaps take too long to put up and down, which is a problem because there are parts of a fight you want them up, and others you want them down. When you deploy plain flaps in a dogfight, you get an initial turn rate boost for as long as you have excess PS. Once the turn is sustained again, turn rate will be worse than with them up but radius will remain improved. With a 109 it make no sense to put them down because it is hard to put them back up once speed falls off. Additionally, the the benefit of flaps to the 109 is less (same problem can be seen on la5) because the slats provide lift at higher AoA, while the flaps reduce the critical AoA. So the net effect is less.

Well to change pilots is a very good indicator because the comparation can tell you how much the skill of each is playing there. For example, if I take the K4 and I try to turn inside and i manage to pull inside his turn but when i change planes he is not able then the test is not reliable but if both can outturn the other with the same plane and when changing planes we can not then the test is reliable. Maybe one strugles more than the other but you can notice the difference on skill at that point. 

 

About the flaps yes, they are easyer to operate compared to the 109 even the 109 does not require a lot to use flaps at 20% but turning at 400mph you are not going to need the flaps on the game because the plane without flap already can black out you so there is not point to use them rather than losing speed because of dragg. 

 

Anyway if you want to make a test with me I will be pleased instead of discussing who is wright lest test it. I will try to upload a video on this post. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

4 hours ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

The P-51 has always been only slightly worse than a K4 in sustained turns on the deck. That is for 67inches. Every sim dev since the year 2000 has gotten virtually the same numbers for these planes.

 

I tried to test turntimes and this is more or less what I get, that being said it isn't easy to do and my results contain some errors due to not being a robot perfectly mantaining a circle without some slight change altitude and speed, to help diminish that I made many circles (from 8 to 12) and took the whole time and divided it, getting an average turn time that I guess it is close to the real turn time of the planes.

At sea level and roughly 280 km/h:

Bf 109 K-4 at full fuel and 1.8 ata I get 18.9 seconds turn time.
Bf 109 G-14 at full fuel and 1.7 ata I get 18.2 seconds.
P-51D-15 at 67" and 68% fuel (full wing tanks, empty fuselage tank) I get 20.1 seconds.
P-51D-15 at 75" and 45% fuel  (450 liters, enough for 1 hour sortie or so), the turn time decreases to 18 seconds.
Tempest at +11lb and full fuel I get 18.6 seconds.

Edited October 3, 2019 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[LColony_Kong]

3 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

I tried to test turntimes and this is more or less what I get, that being said it isn't easy to do and my results contain some errors due to not being a robot perfectly mantaining a circle without some slight change altitude and speed, to help diminish that I made many circles (from 8 to 12) and took the whole time and divided it, getting an average turn time that I guess it is close to the real turn time of the planes.

At sea level and roughly 280 km/h:

Bf 109 K-4 at full fuel and 1.8 ata I get 18.9 seconds turn time.
Bf 109 G-14 at full fuel and 1.7 ata I get 18.2 seconds.
P-51D-15 at 67" and 68% fuel (full wing tanks, empty fuselage tank) I get 20.1 seconds.
P-51D-15 at 75" and 45% fuel  (450 liters, enough for 1 hour sortie or so), the turn time decreases to 18 seconds.
Tempest at +11lb and full fuel I get 18,6 seconds.

This is pretty close to what I got. Although in my tests the 150 grade pony and K4 were practically even, I could not tell the difference. I got 19.5 deg a second for both. I got 18.5 for the 67 inch P-51. You results are only slightly different, probably explained by different fuel choices.

[LukeFF]

10 hours ago, Panthera said:

Should ofcourse also be noted that German pilots had the advantage of raised footrests, so their G tolerance without G suits would've been higher than that of an Allied pilot without G suit (all else being equal). 

 

[citation needed]

[unreasonable]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

[citation needed]

Not the primary source, but:

 

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=WmymCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=G+tolerance+without+G+suits+high+ruuder+bar&source=bl&ots=NxUFWAeE-n&sig=ACfU3U25fZtB_XgROVa7PcpPVSHIQPrc9Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx3tv-74HlAhUeiHAKHZbHAQsQ6AEwD3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=G tolerance without G suits high ruuder bar&f=false

[E69_geramos109]

I think Vodka also makes you to resist better the Gs XD

 

I heared something about the seating position being better for the G tolerance but dind t have the source. Thanks for posting

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

On 10/3/2019 at 1:30 PM, Panthera said:

Odd, according to what I've atleast been able to calculate myself to the 109K4 should be noticably better in the turn, esp. sustained. Even if the Pony is only loaded with 30% fuel.

 

At high speed a Mustang pilot with a G suit obviously has an advantage, but how big it was with these first generation G suits I don't know. AFAIK these first gen G-suits were also not good for sudden G's as they inflated too slowly. 

 

Should ofcourse also be noted that German pilots had the advantage of raised footrests, so their G tolerance without G suits would've been higher than that of an Allied pilot without G suit (all else being equal). 

Ahh yes, the uber German seating position 

[LColony_Kong]

reclined seating only helps with about 0,5G, and thats the much more aggressive seating of the F-16. I dont recall where i put the document for that or Id just post it.

[E69_geramos109]

9 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

reclined seating only helps with about 0,5G, and thats the much more aggressive seating of the F-16. I dont recall where i put the document for that or Id just post it.

G suit is about 1G and is noticeable so 0.5 is better than nothing. On a combat it means that you can pull and escape on a turn better than other plane behind if you know how to go to the limit

[LColony_Kong]

Just now, E69_geramos109 said:

G suit is about 1G and is noticeable so 0.5 is better than nothing. On a combat it means that you can pull and escape on a turn better than other plane behind if you know how to go to the limit

Notice I said, "with the aggressive incline of the F-16". The 109, a F-16 is not.

[E69_geramos109]

1 minute ago, YIPPEE said:

Notice I said, "with the aggressive incline of the F-16". The 109, a F-16 is not.

Well even 0.2 helps. if it is possible why not to do that? the more realistic the better

' 

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Well even 0.2 helps. if it is possible why not to do that? the more realistic the better

' 

Modeling it would be fine, but if you look at the image above where it is compared to the 51, it would be negligible even relative to the mustang. I seriously doubt you would be able to notice the difference if they did model it, which means it might already be modeled.

 

My point is that it neigh on makes no difference.

[JV69badatflyski]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Ahh yes, the uber German seating position 

Lol, a bad photoshop job using a badly scaled  illustrative image compared to a blueprint .
Do the same with blueprints and you'll see the difference in legs(and feet) height between the wurger and the poney.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, JV69badatflyski said:

Lol, a bad photoshop job using a badly scaled  illustrative image compared to a blueprint .
Do the same with blueprints and you'll see the difference in legs(and feet) height between the wurger and the poney.

German aircraft still don't have the posture of the F-16 lol

 

And P-47C vs FW-190D-9 posture

 

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

[E69_geramos109]

I tested today again the P51 vs 109K4 same conditions and now the 109 can outurn the P51 even with 150fuel. Same mate that i tested the other day he and me could outturn the k4 very easy and not we can not.

 

Did the FM change with the last path??

[LColony_Kong]

38 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I tested today again the P51 vs 109K4 same conditions and now the 109 can outurn the P51 even with 150fuel. Same mate that i tested the other day he and me could outturn the k4 very easy and not we can not.

 

Did the FM change with the last path??

No it didnt. Your test methodology sucks and you are getting inconsistent results. The Flight model is the same.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2019 by YIPPEE

[E69_geramos109]

31 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

No it didnt. Your test methodology sucks and you are getting inconsistent results. The Flight model is the same.

 

 

I am quite confident about how I was doing the tests. I changed nothing on the methodology and I repeated docens of times both days with quite different results on me and my mate as well that he was performing quite similat than me so... weird thing that after the path result changed 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

 I redid the P-51 turn times and got the same results... 18s for 150 oct and 45% fuel and 20s for 100 oct and 68% fuel.

I also tested the Fw 190 A-8 and D-9 to see how they compared:

Fw 190 A-8 with 81% fuel (520 liters) 1.58 ata: 22,1 s

Fw 190 D-9 with 100% fuel (524 liters) 1.8 ata: 21,8 s

[E69_geramos109]

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

 I redid the P-51 turn times and got the same results... 18s for 150 oct and 45% fuel and 20s for 100 oct and 68% fuel.

I also tested the Fw 190 A-8 and D-9 to see how they compared:

Fw 190 A-8 with 81% fuel (520 liters) 1.58 ata: 22,1 s

Fw 190 D-9 with 100% fuel (524 liters) 1.8 ata: 21,8 s

When did you did the first test on turn times? I did it on the A verssion (pre-first hotfix) and now with the last hotfix. Only thing I  changed with every test was the map First test on berloga, second test on the new map

[LColony_Kong]

Yeah this is all completely what you would expect, its the same stuff we have seen in every game going back to the early 2000s. What would be worrying is if they got something different. As usual, The P-51 67inch is slightly worse than the 109, and slightly better than the D9 190. The 150 octane P-51 is about on a par with the K4, which is totally in line with estimates ive seen people make that were for less favorable fuel loads than we are testing here.

 

Something else to note. Like many people I have been in a lot of fights the last couple of days in a P-51 vs the K4. I only take 35% fuel from base. The P-51 is extremely low drag so i can take light fuel and sip it at cruise. Additionally, having been a 109 pilot non-stop for the last few years, I know a 109 needs to take alot of fuel, with me personally taking around 70-100% depending on map. I bet alot of people are taking full fuel due to having 10 min of wep to burn. And every 109 pilot I have gotten into a sustained nose to tail turning fight with has been trying way too hard to turn the plane and has been doing themselves no favors. For example, yesterday I got into one with TWO K4s and one of them crashed before the fight ended because he was waffling all over the place because he was pulling to hard. Alot of 109 guys dont max perform their plane very well.

[E69_geramos109]

109 is difficult plane to turn on the limit yes. There were topics about that and devs even admited that they had to change fm on the 109 at low speeds but that is other discussion. 

[CUJO_1970]

In limited testing offline, 109G-14 was deadly against P-51 on 150 using vertical turns. Use climb rate, don’t flat turn. A little flaps + MW50 and you can climb on top of the Pony.

 

The only thing that was difficult to overcome was the seeming disparities in G-tolerance.

[RavN_Sone]

5 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

only take 35% fuel from base. The P-51 is extremely low drag

 

5 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

109 needs to take alot of fuel, with me personally taking around 70-100%

 

Percentages of full fuel capacities don't really help our comparison ?

[LColony_Kong]

39 minutes ago, RavN_Sone said:

 

 

Percentages of full fuel capacities don't really help our comparison ?

The point is that near parity looks like an advantage when things like fuel load offset it.

[Roland_HUNter]

5 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

109 is difficult plane to turn on the limit yes. There were topics about that and devs even admited that they had to change fm on the 109 at low speeds but that is other discussion. 

Yes the Bf-109 was a very good turnfighter when the update came out: it was not a brick, after the first hotfix it was the same, but after the second hotfix its again a flying brick like old times.
When the update came out I could outturn the yak, because the yak started to fall for the right because of the engine torque.
Now: The Bf-109 should be better in left hand turns and then: NO. The Bf-109 starting to fall for the left because of the torque, yak still turning-->no engine torque to the right...for the yak.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

8 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

When did you did the first test on turn times? I did it on the A verssion (pre-first hotfix) and now with the last hotfix. Only thing I  changed with every test was the map First test on berloga, second test on the new map

Same, first at the first version of the patch, second time with the second hotfix, at sea level in Kuban Autumn. You tested in two different maps I think Berloga one is Autumn and Rheinland is Summer so there is a difference in temperature and there may be some altitude difference as well.