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

[LColony_Kong]

Nothing (that can be measured ) has changed in these planes flight models between hot fixes. At least regarding turn anyhow.

 

What I can say for certain however is that your average 109K4 pilot in multiplayer flies like he is having muscle spasms. Ive won several sea level turn fights in the P-51 because:

 

-The 109 pilot dumps all his speed and get slow, while I slowly bleed speed and sustain a higher G while coming around at an unsustainable rate.

-The 109 snap roles because he is trying too hard.

-The 109 climbs during the turn

-Use of flaps.

 

I think is what contributes the most to misinterpretations of performance. If people would fly smoother it would be alot harder on the Pony guys.

 

 

Another thing worth mentioning is that alot of people most likely do not know the difference between 1 circle and 2 circle geometry, and the Mustang has a very good chance in radius fight due to its flaps. Or in a rolling scissors.

Edited October 5, 2019 by YIPPEE

[Roland_HUNter]

Now, you really wanna answer to me with a situation where the bf-109 pilot did many mistakes? Rly?

[LColony_Kong]

2 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

Now, you really wanna answer to me with a situation where the bf-109 pilot did many mistakes? Rly?

Yes. Because the entire point is that he would have done a lot better if he had not made those mistakes. Duh.

[E69_geramos109]

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

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.

I will make more tests on different weather conditions to see 

[Roland_HUNter]

.....
Yak-1B:Sustained turn time 19 sec with 270km/h std weight:2887, Wing area:17,15m2
Bf-109F-4:Sustained turn time 20,3 sec with 270km/h std weight:2890, Wing area:16,1m2

Bf-109 should win at low-speed turning, because of the slats. It did, when the update came out, but after the second "hotfix" its the same brick as it was before the v3.201b.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

The first mistake a 109 pilot makes in a down-and-dirty, knife-fight-in-a-phonebooth, on the deck turning fight with a P-51 is to try it using any 109 model that turns worse than a F4.  

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

2 hours ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

.....
Yak-1B:Sustained turn time 19 sec with 270km/h std weight:2887, Wing area:17,15m2
Bf-109F-4:Sustained turn time 20,3 sec with 270km/h std weight:2890, Wing area:16,1m2

Bf-109 should win at low-speed turning, because of the slats. It did, when the update came out, but after the second "hotfix" its the same brick as it was before the v3.201b.

19 seconds turn time is better than 20 seconds, small but slightly better, it means it can finish a turn in less time.

[Roland_HUNter]

....Slats...still..slats...

" During World War II, German aircraft commonly fitted a more advanced version of the slat that reduced drag by being pushed back flush against the leading edge of the wing by air pressure, popping out when the angle of attack increased to a critical angle. "-->Translate it, into the game: It should lower the "brick" effect on the 109.
Nothing happening in the game.

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

15 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

....Slats...still..slats...

The slats are open during the low speed max sustained turn, so their effect is taken into account.

[Roland_HUNter]

So the opened slats aren't equal with 1m2? xDDDD I dont gona believe that.

Edited October 6, 2019 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[AndyJWest]

17 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

So the opened slats aren't equal with 1m2? xDDDD I dont gona believe that.

 

The developers use historical test data when creating flight models. They don't base them on what random people believe.

Edited October 6, 2019 by AndyJWest

[LColony_Kong]

32 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

....Slats...still..slats...

" During World War II, German aircraft commonly fitted a more advanced version of the slat that reduced drag by being pushed back flush against the leading edge of the wing by air pressure, popping out when the angle of attack increased to a critical angle. "-->Translate it, into the game: It should lower the "brick" effect on the 109.
Nothing happening in the game.

 

Slats dont do what you think they do.

 

Firstly, they are not magic devices which once fitted to a plane make it turn better than everything else. The La-5 for example, turns worse than a yak.

 

Secondly, the slats on the 109 are not full span, and their effect is correspondingly reduced.

 

Thirdly, wing efficiency is not the only metric which determines turn. There is wing loading, drag, thrust, etc. The 109 is a heavily wing loaded aircraft. It is also rather draggy.

[Roland_HUNter]

Wikipedia, flight engineers  are just ranbom ppl. Okey.

Yak1B wingload:168,33 kg

Bf-109 F-4wingload:179,50 kg

[LColony_Kong]

34 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

So the opened slats aren't equal with 1m2? xDDDD I dont gona believe that.

You have a career in engineering.

[Roland_HUNter]

Please quote my comment, where I said I'm an engineer.

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

So the opened slats aren't equal with 1m2? xDDDD I dont gona believe that.

I know.

[Panthera]

On 10/5/2019 at 12:31 PM, YIPPEE said:

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.

 

I cannot get the P-51 to match the K-4 at all in sustained turn performance using any form of estimation model, they are quite far apart in every single one.

 

I'm sure @Holtzauge's C++ simulation will show the same, irrespective of wether the P-51 is running at 67" or 75" hg boost.

 

 

8 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

Secondly, the slats on the 109 are not full span, and their effect is correspondingly reduced.

 

The slats on low wing centerline propeller driven  aircraft are rarely full span as propwash would prevent their proper operation.

 

On this type aircraft the slats are instead mounted on the outboard section of the wing which isn't energized by propwash during powered flight. The effect of this is that during powered flight you raise the overall lift of the wing as a whole, as the inboard section is being energized by the propwash whilst the outboard is kept from stalling by the slats. In addition to this you make the aircraft almost impossible to stall during unpowered flight, instead it will generally just sink (something you hear 109 pilots talk about a lot when they are coming in for landing with power at idle) 

 

All in all the 109 probably gained a 25% lift increase during powered flight with the slats vs without them. That's significant.

 

On top of this the more conventional airfoil shape of the 109 provided more lift at the normal dogfighting speeds (350-450 km/h) than did the laminar flow airfoil of the Mustang which was optimized for low level flight drag. So on top of the big advantage in power to weight, the K-4 should also have the advantage in terms of lift to weight as far as I can see, and should as pr. any estimation model I've used be quite noticably apart in turn performance.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Panthera

[E69_geramos109]

Notice that he is talking about a G4. Now put like 500hp more on the 109 to see how K4 will do...

On the other hand there is a video about a P51 Ace talking about theyr mustangs out turning 109s. That is because they were fighting at high alt against G6s where the 109s without AS engine had not power compete against the P51s or other american planes. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by E69_geramos109

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

I cannot get the P-51 to match the K-4 at all in sustained turn performance using any form of estimation model, they are quite far apart in every single one.

 

I'm sure @Holtzauge's C++ simulation will show the same, irrespective of wether the P-51 is running at 67" or 75" hg boost.

It doesnt, he put one out ages ago. They are fairly close and his model was for different fuel loads than i am referring to.

 

And as I recall you use the erroneous 1.2 CL or something. But I could have mis-recalled that.

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

The slats on low wing centerline propeller driven  aircraft are rarely full span as propwash would prevent their proper operation

I didnt say othewise.

 

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

The effect of this is that during powered flight you raise the overall lift of the wing as a whole, as the inboard section is being energized by the propwash whilst the outboard is kept from stalling by the slats

I never said it didnt create a net benefit. What it does not do is yield some absurd CL of 1.7 like some people try to claim.

 

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

 

On top of this the more conventional airfoil shape of the 109 provided more lift at the normal dogfighting speeds (350-450 km/h) than did the laminar flow airfoil of the Mustang

No, both wings have CLmax of about 1.4. Which is the same position Holtzauge and YoYo have.

 

Every developer since the early 2000's keeps getting the same numbers and the same relative performance. Over and Over and Over.

3 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Notice that he is talking about a G4. Now put like 500hp more on the 109 to see how K4 will do...

On the other hand there is a video about a P51 Ace talking about theyr mustangs out turning 109s. That is because they were fighting at high alt against G6s where the 109s without AS engine had not power compete against the P51s or other american planes. 

These planes are not flown at max power anymore. This is also an anecdote.

[Panthera]

2 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

 

 

Yes, I talked to Skip Holm once, he's really an incredibly experienced pilot, and importantly a very nice person. So his words shouldn't be taken lightly. But the other modern 109 jocks say the same, the 109 is very good at turning, much better than what much post war scripture gives it credit for. 

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, Panthera said:

Skip Holm

You realize that is not skip holm right?

[Panthera]

2 minutes ago, YIPPEE said:

No, both wings have CLmax of about 1.4. Which is the same position Holtzauge and YoYo have.

 

I sincerely doubt that, but let's let the man himself pitch in.

Just now, YIPPEE said:

You realize that is not skip holm right?

 

Watch the entire video, Skip is at the end

[LColony_Kong]

Just now, Panthera said:

 

I sincerely doubt that, but let's let the man himself pitch in.

Sure. I know what he is going to say, he talked at great length about this on the DCS forums

 

[E69_geramos109]

1 minute ago, YIPPEE said:

 

These planes are not flown at max power anymore. This is also an anecdote.

Did you hear the part when they said that 109 was not even trying and even like that outclimbng the mustang. I  think this pilots can tell a lot better than you how the planes are compared even if they are not pushing them to the limit. You can see a lot of airshows when they pull tight turns  and you can see the slats opening on 109s, so i guess if they can not tight the turn as with the other plane they know it very well. 

1 minute ago, Panthera said:

 

 

Watch the entire video, Skip is at the end

He answered just one min after posting so he  did not even watch the video and is comenting already

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Did you hear the part when they said that 109 was not even trying and even like that outclimbng the mustang. I  think this pilots can tell a lot better than you how the planes are compared even if they are not pushing them to the limit. You can see a lot of airshows when they pull tight turns  and you can see the slats opening on 109s, so i guess if they can not tight the turn as with the other plane they know it very well. 

What I heard was alot of imprecise language without any serious testing. And it is not indispute that the 109 out turns the 51. There are other pilots out there and I know at least 1 I have spoken to directly who will tell you the difference is not that great.

[HR_Zunzun]

11 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

He answered just one min after posting so he  did not even watch the video and is comenting already

This vid is very old and has been posted dozens of times by others before you. I didn´t have to watch it again to know what you were trying to convey.

[LColony_Kong]

27 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I sincerely doubt that, but let's let the man himself pitch in.

He already answered you

 

 

 

And you replied

 

[Roland_HUNter]

11 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

Slats dont do what you think they do.

 

Firstly, they are not magic devices which once fitted to a plane make it turn better than everything else. The La-5 for example, turns worse than a yak.

 

Secondly, the slats on the 109 are not full span, and their effect is correspondingly reduced.

 

Thirdly, wing efficiency is not the only metric which determines turn. There is wing loading, drag, thrust, etc. The 109 is a heavily wing loaded aircraft. It is also rather draggy.

You are hopeless. YOu just don't want to believe maybe the 109 could do better than a  brick as it did when the update came out.
Second: Please, my engineer friend do not compare the La-5 to the 109 because it heavier 3353 kg. 463kg heavier than the F-4. And the La-5 wings just 0.36m2 wider than a  yak1, so it should not turn better than f4 or yak.

Edited October 6, 2019 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[Panthera]

4 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

He already answered you

 

 

 

And you replied

 

 

That was a discussion regarding the Fw190D and P-51D though, and indeed those two are quite evenly matched. But the Bf-109K-4 is in another ballpark.

 

As for the Clmax of the P-51, I got the real life full size tested ones, and they are much lower than 1.4 at the most common dogfighting speeds.

 

The advantage of the laminar flow airfoil is low drag in level flight and good high speed lift, whilst the conventional airfoils provide better lift below around mach 0.5. This is the case in regards to the Bf-109, Fw-190 & P-51 airfoils too, as you can see here:

 

 

As you can see below ~0.55 mach the conventional 23xxx series airfoil (as for example used on the 190 & F4U) is providing more lift than the laminar flow NACA 66-2-2xx type of the P-51.

 

The Bf-109's 2R1 airfoil was tested to be 1.48 at 0.3 Mach at Charles Meudon, without slats.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Panthera

[E69_geramos109]

4 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

This vid is very old and has been posted dozens of times by others before you. I didn´t have to watch it again to know what you were trying to convey.

I know the video is old. But the guy i mentioned was saying that Skip holm was not on the video so that made me think that the guy did not saw the video not even before

4 hours ago, YIPPEE said:

What I heard was alot of imprecise language without any serious testing. And it is not indispute that the 109 out turns the 51. There are other pilots out there and I know at least 1 I have spoken to directly who will tell you the difference is not that great.

Well i guess that Not close, bleeds much more etc is too imprecise for you and you know better how the planes perform than two guys who pilot both planes and know what they are talking about. Of course you can not take the words as pure science like when the first guy that was talking about the spit but when the picture is so clear that thay can say that is faaaar behind is for something

Edited October 6, 2019 by E69_geramos109

[LukeFF]

What is the point of this topic again? All I see are a bunch of armchair engineers posting feelings, charts, and their favorite video of Skip Holm in some random effort to make a point. Whatever that point is, though, isn't exactly clear. 

[E69_geramos109]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

What is the point of this topic again? All I see are a bunch of armchair engineers posting feelings, charts, and their favorite video of Skip Holm in some random effort to make a point. Whatever that point is, though, isn't exactly clear. 

The point is to discuss if the P51 is too good on turning and if it bleeds too few energy as it should. If you have more facts rather than pilot testimonies or feelings post it here. 

[=RvE=Windmills]

Just now, E69_geramos109 said:

The point is to discuss if the P51 is too good on turning and if it bleeds too few energy as it should. If you have more facts rather than pilot testimonies or feelings post it here. 

 

Seems like you should already have those if you're making this statement, what else are you basing your view on?

 

Its kinda funny to make a vague statement with no real evidence, then get angry and suddenly demand facts when you're the one being doubted.

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

That was a discussion regarding the Fw190D and P-51D though, and indeed those two are quite evenly matched. But the Bf-109K-4 is in another ballpark.

 

That was not the point. The point was about the 51s CL. Which is around 1.4 at low mach numbers.

 

And the British tested it to 1.4. And the test you referred to lists several CL numbers. All of them around 1.4.

 

But ill just let Holtzauge tell you:

 

 

1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Well i guess that Not close, bleeds much more etc is too imprecise for you and you know better how the planes perform than two guys who pilot both planes and know what they are talking about. Of course you can not take the words as pure science like when the first guy that was talking about the spit but when the picture is so clear that thay can say that is faaaar behind is for something

It does not bleed too slowly. The K4 in Il2 also bleeds speed very slowly. And the DCS P-51 behaves extremely similarly in all regards to the il2 P-51 FM considering turn. You have no basis for your opinion other than "muh 109 is lighter and uh slats"

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by YIPPEE

[Panthera]

Can't say why the British got 1.4, also at what speed? What I can say is that NACA consistently demonstrated that the laminar flow airfoil produces less lift than the conventional types up until somewhere past 0.5 Mach. 

 

It was the same result in side by side tests with the Mustang and F6F and others for example:

 

To me all these NACA tests backing each other up is evidence enough to be pretty definite.

 

Regarding the Charles Meudon figure, 1.45 might be more appropiate, I think Holtzauge is right here. But again this was for a shorter wing without slats. The 109's real advantage is going to be lift produced with power on and slats out.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Panthera

[LColony_Kong]

18 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Can't say why the British got 1.4, also at what speed?

Its virtually the same number as the charles meudon. they got it because it had a cl of around 1.4.

 

18 minutes ago, Panthera said:

What I can say is that NACA consistently demonstrated that the laminar flow airfoil produces less lift than the conventional types up until somewhere past 0.5 Mach.

You keep saying this, but those same reports show 1.4 for the mustang as well as 829 or whatever the other reports number is. Holtzauge said literally the same thing to you and you AGREED with him that a cl of 1.4 for the mustang was reasonable. Furthermore, you are missing the detail that the altitudes are not exactly the same for the tests:

 

 

Also in the same report:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently everyone who has done the calculations on these planes is seeing the same thing because ALL of the flight sims from the year 2000 to now have shown the same turning relationship between these two planes, approximately 1 second for the K4 vs 67inch Mustang.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by YIPPEE

[Panthera]

If you check the results for similar altitudes the difference is the same (and the windtunnel data was compared to verify as well), the conventional types are achieving a higher Clmax up until somewhere past 0.5 Mach, it's the same story over and over again. The laminar 66-2-2xx series can possibly reach 1.4 clmax at lower altitudes at certain speeds, but the conventional types will once again be even higher below 0.5 Mach. 

[LColony_Kong]

2 hours ago, Panthera said:

If you check the results for similar altitudes the difference is the same (and the windtunnel data was compared to verify as well), the conventional types are achieving a higher Clmax up until somewhere past 0.5 Mach, it's the same story over and over again.

Except they are not compared at similar altitudes. The altitudes are all over the place. And there isnt a single chart in that report comparing them at low altitudes. Additionally, the F6F is the main one with an advantage. The P-38 wing, which is also a conventional airfoil, shows no advantage at all. And the bottom line is that at lower altitudes and lower mach numbers the CL is 1.4. And at low alts and low mach numbers the 109s was 1.4. Pointing out the relationship to certain other airfoils does nothing to change that.

 

 

 

[Roland_HUNter]

I would say: RIP 2019.
BF-109 had CL Max 2.0 Sadly we can't see this in the game.(Not suprised me)
https://www.scientistsandfriends.com/aircraft.html

(here the interview what is missing from the website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5vM4qtQqlM)

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter

[unreasonable]

Assuming the data given in the technical specs for each aircraft is up to date and correct, you can work out the CLmax as it is in the game:

Depending on which speed and weight you match up it is:

 

109K 1.39 stall AoA = 19.8 degrees  (The other 109s are very similar).

P-51 D  1.34 - 1.37  stall AoA = 19.1 degrees

 

The one I have a problem with as of now is the Tempest:  1.75!   I suspect it might be the case that we are seeing here the problem of manual IAS figures understating TAS due to pitot error at higher AoA. This was sorted out fairly well in most earlier planes, but I wonder... you have to add 15 kph or so to the stall speed get a CLmax in the same ballpark as the other fighters, which was in the ballpark of the measured difference between IAS and TAS from testing.   Alternately I might just have made an error, but I cannot see what it is: or the Tempest's wing is awesome.