Jump to content
E69_geramos109

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

 

It did not show in my simulations either (using 1.35 or 1.75) in terms of getting a better turn rate figure. What it did do was to extend the speed range in which I could get the max turn rate down to really low numbers. Have you tried going slower? Like at 250 Km/h IAS SL? What turn rate do you get at those speeds?


Tried it at roughly 235 km/h and got 19,97 deg/s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


Tried it at roughly 235 km/h and got 19,97 deg/s.

 

OK so this is in line with what I got as well in the C++ simulation with Clmax=1.75. Reducing Clmax to 1.35 gives 15.4 deg/s at 235 Km/h.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, for the Tempest:

 

1) Game and C++ testing confirms the Vmin calculation of a game CLmax (F&G up) of 1.75

2) This makes a significant practical difference to both slow turning and slow flight stall speeds

3) The reason may be the developers trying to hit the manual numbers for stall IAS and ignoring instrument error

4) The treatment is inconsistent with that of the other single engine fighters with CLmax in the 1.3-1.4 area 

5) IMHO - this is sufficient to ask Han/Gavrick to take a look or explain why this is really perfectly all right.

 

@Holtzauge have you been in contact with Han before? Or JtD if reading this thread: more likely to get a reply if it is someone they know asking questions...... 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, unreasonable said:

So, for the Tempest:

 

1) Game and C++ testing confirms the Vmin calculation of a game CLmax (F&G up) of 1.75

2) This makes a significant practical difference to both slow turning and slow flight stall speeds

3) The reason may be the developers trying to hit the manual numbers for stall IAS and ignoring instrument error

4) The treatment is inconsistent with that of the other single engine fighters with CLmax in the 1.3-1.4 area 

5) IMHO - this is sufficient to ask Han/Gavrick to take a look or explain why this is really perfectly all right.

 

@Holtzauge have you been in contact with Han before? Or JtD if reading this thread: more likely to get a reply if it is someone they know asking questions...... 

 

 

 

Good summary unreasonable and I agree it would be good to ask the devs to look into this but I'm AFK for a week now hunting Moose so I was hoping someone else could carry the torch!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Good summary unreasonable and I agree it would be good to ask the devs to look into this but I'm AFK for a week now hunting Moose so I was hoping someone else could carry the torch!

 

Happy Hunting! 

 

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Extrapolated from the manual, at 85mph, PEC of the tempest should be + 7 mph, which means a clean stall at 92mph CAS

 

At the manual's stall/weight of 11,500lbs that still gives you CLmax of 1.78: very close to the in game value. At the uncorrected speed it is 2.08!   The problem with extrapolating PEC from the manual is that I suspect that the PEC given corrects for static error but not so sure it corrects for pitot error at high AoA. The PEC correction given in the manual is a straight line, but at high AoA it should start to climb. 

 

Trouble is even if you add another 5 mph (roughly estimating cos Alpha as the additional AoA correction) you still get ~1.60, still much higher than the next highest in the game.  

 

Maybe it was just a super efficient wing design and the Tempest is actually a stellar performer in low speed turning fights: but people will never notice because they are so much enjoying the more important high speed and good high speed handling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These lift coefficients don't seem realistic at all, the Hawker airfoil on the Tempest like pretty much any other airfoil used back then could not achieve these high lift coefficients. The devs should know that. So I didn't quite trust your findings, so I stalled the Tempest in game a couple of times and indeed, I'm getting 1.75 flaps up, power off and 2.15 flaps down, power off. You guys were right. Hm.

 

WRT to the manual number of stalling speeds, there's too much unknown about them. We have an unclear position error, and we have unknown conditions. For instance, engine setting, which has a massive influence. There's a difference between gliding and idling already. The only stall speed test for the Tempest I've read gives 90 mph IAS in clean condition at 11500lb, already 5 mph more than what the manual says.

 

Edit: Just sent a PM to the devs.

Edited by JtD
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

WRT to the manual number of stalling speeds, there's too much unknown about them. We have an unclear position error, and we have unknown conditions. For instance, engine setting, which has a massive influence. There's a difference between gliding and idling already. The only stall speed test for the Tempest I've read gives 90 mph IAS in clean condition at 11500lb, already 5 mph more than what the manual says.

 

Where is the source for 90mph?

 

Here is an extract from Flying to the limit btw.

Quote


Stall speeds with the undercarriage up and down were 85 mph IAS and 74 mph IAS respectively. Due to the aircraft’s longitudinal instability, any uncorrected backward movement of the control column produced a speed divergence towards the stall. In the landing configuration, the first warning of an approaching stall was aileron snatching, which became apparent at 95 mph IAS. This was accompanied by the port wing going down, about half aileron being required to counteract this particular tendency. At the same time, the aircraft was prone to yaw to the left, with progressive use of rudder being needed to keep straight, until about three-quarters right rudder was in use at the point of stall requiring a heavy foot load. Although the elevator control was light down to 95 mph IAS, it became progressively heavier right up to the stall, which occurred with the stick about three-quarters back from the central position. Some lateral instability was noted as the stall was approached.

 

With the flaps and undercarriage down, aileron snatching commenced at 80 mph IAS and was continuous below that speed. As speed was reduced, full right rudder trim and almost full right rudder was needed to hold the aircraft straight. The elevator control was light, but the response was sluggish. The stall occurred with the control column about halfway back and was characterised by a sharp yaw to the left, followed by a slight drop of the nose. The stick could be pulled back with no further effect, as the control was completely ineffective. There was no tendency to spin and the aircraft recovered immediately when back pressure on the control column was relaxed.

 

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

 

 

Here is an extract from Flying to the limit btw.

 


Your quote says "in the landing configuration....aileron snatching...95mph" but then below says "flaps and undercarriage down...80mph" so I wonder what the first speed is referring to. Trim for landing but flaps and gear up? Or just a misquotation? 

 

I wonder if what we are seeing is not just the a result of the difficulty of accurate speed recording but also of determining or defining the exact point of the stall when flying: which technically is not when a wing drops but simply when lift starts to decline.  Are we already on the right hand side of the lift polar when aileron snatching occurs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2019 at 9:21 AM, JtD said:

The only stall speed test for the Tempest I've read gives 90 mph IAS in clean condition at 11500lb, already 5 mph more than what the manual says.

Where did you get that 90? IIRC the only one stating so is the American test on JN729, which is an early Series I Tempest V, with the long-barrelled Hispano II protruding from the leading edge. Any other figuree I've ever read is either 87 or 85 mph.

(btw, that american test explicitly confirms that what is considered "the stall" is indeed the aileron snatch)

23 hours ago, unreasonable said:

determining or defining the exact point of the stall when flying: which technically is not when a wing drops but simply when lift starts to decline.  Are we already on the right hand side of the lift polar when aileron snatching occurs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all let me say that Holtzauge's program is great, and I can't find any fault with it what'so'ever, matches my own calculations perfectly when we use similar numbers. Really is a great program he has put together there, can't stress that enough. He's got a fan in me :)

 

That said IMO the Bf-109 ought to have a Clmax noticably higher than the P-51 during powered flight, which is also where I've heard modern pilots express the big difference between the two. Skip Holm does say that the difference is big between the two, and he is/was flying the Buchon which weighes the same as the K4 IIRC, and runs a merlin like the P-51. The RAE also measured quite a high CLmax during powered flight for the 109 IIRC, their problem was seeing the slats as a stop sign during turning, which was even a problem for some German pilots.

 

Anyway a difference in Clmax figures used is probably the reason why Holtzauge and I are getting some different figures for the 109 vs P-51 match up. Just my two cents.

 

Bigger problems for me right now though are how the Tempest seems to have a Clmax of 1.7+, and that the 262 is still suffering control stiffening already at 450 kph.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAE measured the F&G up CLmax of the 109E at 1.38 using a speed from a trailing pitot, which was also the experiment that demonstrated the issue of the cockpit IAS error at high AoA. The slats opened at CL of 0.865: so the pilot obviously did not see the  slats opening as a stop sign in this trial. 

 

From the minimum weight and lowest stall speed numbers in game tech specs, the 109s are mostly at 1.38-1.39 with a couple of anomalies, which go away at average weights. The P-51D is at 1.34 - same as the Spitfires. 

 

It is really only the Tempest which looks very odd: although the P47D at 1.21 is also well out of the typical range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2019 at 4:26 AM, unreasonable said:

The RAE measured the F&G up CLmax of the 109E at 1.38 using a speed from a trailing pitot, which was also the experiment that demonstrated the issue of the cockpit IAS error at high AoA. The slats opened at CL of 0.865: so the pilot obviously did not see the  slats opening as a stop sign in this trial. 

 

From the minimum weight and lowest stall speed numbers in game tech specs, the 109s are mostly at 1.38-1.39 with a couple of anomalies, which go away at average weights. The P-51D is at 1.34 - same as the Spitfires. 

 

It is really only the Tempest which looks very odd: although the P47D at 1.21 is also well out of the typical range.

 

I was thinking more of the power on Clmax, not the idle stall speed Clmax. It's with power on where the slats should really make a difference, and the more power the bigger the difference.

 

btw what clmax did you measure for the Bf-109K4 ingame? (don't have access to the game atm myself)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.39 - same using lowest stall speed and minimum operating weight or highest stall speed and max t/o weight. Not my measurements: just the game's tech specs numbers input to the lift equation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a quick resonse from the devs. I was away this week, so delay is due to me. It was that they went with the stall speed as given in the manual, taking into account the position error also given there. They are open to any sources giving more accurate or detailed data, in case anyone has them.

 

Like I said, 1.75 go against my common sense, based on airfoil performance and other aircraft data, but I have no data concerning the Tempest directly, and I don't feel like debating this without. Best guy to contact would be Phenazepam, in case anyone wants to pick it up.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is consistent with them assuming that the PEC line should have been extrapolated as a straight line, rather than increasing sharply at lower speeds. 

 

There is also the possibility that what we are seeing is a difference between the "engineer's idea" of the stall point: namely at the CLmax, vs the "pilots view" namely when a wing actually drops. Note from manual "There is no warning of the stall at which the left wing drops sharply". So perhaps some lift is actually being lost well before the 85 mph IAS given in the manual.

 

Oh well.... perhaps no one will notice. Quite nice to have an RAF ride as the uberplane. ;)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we've all already seen that. We don't need to watch it again twice...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MK_RED13 said:

Some people need to see it more than twice to get it… 😉 

 

15 hours ago, [LAS]URU-Panzer said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing worse than opinions of Pilots.

oh no wait, there is one Thing, People who consider it as true that one airplane that is not abused and flown to it's Limits due airframe saving to be better than another. Who knows where his opinion Comes from? Personal plane preferences because of the Looks? Bias? Flying P51D with a 100% filled fuel tank, flying a Bf109 Buchon with not even half a fuel tank? The not science-Researches in what Speed what is behaving better?

 

Sorry Luftwaffles but jerking off is cancelled for today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, [3./J88]PikAss said:

 

 

 

Nothing worse than opinions of Pilots.

oh no wait, there is one Thing, People who consider it as true that one airplane that is not abused and flown to it's Limits due airframe saving to be better than another. Who knows where his opinion Comes from? Personal plane preferences because of the Looks? Bias? Flying P51D with a 100% filled fuel tank, flying a Bf109 Buchon with not even half a fuel tank? The not science-Researches in what Speed what is behaving better?

 

Sorry Luftwaffles but jerking off is cancelled for today.

Yes. I think he is going to fly the P51 at full fuel on an airshow that makes a lot of sense. I think he also goes without going to the toilet and he is an american that eats a lot of burguers so you can imagin that should be a big shit so add 100 pounds more to the mustang. He just drinked some beer as well before flying the mustang so add 50 pounds more. With all that extra weight now I can understand how he can not outturn the 109. I guess he goes to the limit with the 109 and not with the mustang and that is why there is that difference as well.

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I think it were the warthunder forums were someone posted wind tunnel tests of a 1:5.5 scale model of the Hawker Sea Fury without tail. They determined clmax for this model at a Reynolds number of 10^6 and came up with about 1.0, stating that it was basically the same as determined for a Tempest II.

 

That's hard to interpret without knowing more about the wind tunnel and the test, but indicates that maximum lift coefficient is within normal range on a Tempest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"When i had acquired some practice with the Mustang, i found it fun to  take off with only little fuel, i.e. at low weight, retract the undercarriage and landing flaps at once  then immediately fly a full circle close to the ground. Apart from everything else, this manoeuvre really showed the agility of this fighter [...] But there were points to watch; with the fuel tanks filled to a certain level and the CG shifted to the rear accordingly, the Mustang had its limits as to longitudinal stablility. And at full throttle one could stall it even in a steep turn."

 

Hans Werner LERCHE,  in Luftwaffe test pilot, Flying captured Allied Aircraft of World War 2, Jane's London, p.119

 

NB: the Mustang tested by Lerche is a P-51B

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just playing about with PECs I get the following interesting (at least to me) graphs: the left hand red point is at the manuals' stated IAS stall speed (F&G up)

 

2134259715_PECSpitII.thumb.JPG.cc17aeff6d70c78d982e13966ff56149.JPG910971770_PECSpitIX.thumb.JPG.3a45d0cce334196d8739c938ff212314.JPG1916262973_PECTempest.thumb.JPG.c70914e20231400e396235aae8502760.JPG

 

Did the engineers get much better at calibrating pitot-static systems?  Or is there something else going on here?

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say yes to both.

 

FWIW, I've seen an early manual and a later one of a Typhoon and position error correction is different. The late one is pretty much like the Tempest, the early one looks more like the Spitfires in your charts. One could now check details about the pitot installation and find out if there was a difference between the early and the later versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 3:37 AM, E69_geramos109 said:

Yes. I think he is going to fly the P51 at full fuel on an airshow that makes a lot of sense. I think he also goes without going to the toilet and he is an american that eats a lot of burguers so you can imagin that should be a big shit so add 100 pounds more to the mustang. He just drinked some beer as well before flying the mustang so add 50 pounds more. With all that extra weight now I can understand how he can not outturn the 109. I guess he goes to the limit with the 109 and not with the mustang and that is why there is that difference as well.

 

In Airshows you don't pull like mad, you simply don't do that due many reasons, it might look a lot for the Viewers on the ground the Gs they pull, but they don't.

 

But I am sorry that your 109 can not outturn P51s in IL2 and i understand your desperate trying to sell the Video as objective turn Performance from a guy who considers Spitfire and Bf 109 turnperformance as close…       yeah right.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the drawings of the Typhoon and Tempest I can find so far both have an L shaped installation under the port outer wing. That includes the Typhoon IBs and what looks like a prototype.

So if there is a significant difference it would have to be some internal detail.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Some) very late Tempest V, late Tempest II and Tempest VI had a different pitot: it was coming out straight from the leading edge, at the very tip of the port wing. I don't know that Tiffies had that, though.

In any case, any manual value you see regarding the Tempest V was obtained with the early, L-shaped pitot.

Edited by Quinte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, [3./J88]PikAss said:

 

In Airshows you don't pull like mad, you simply don't do that due many reasons, it might look a lot for the Viewers on the ground the Gs they pull, but they don't.

 

But I am sorry that your 109 can not outturn P51s in IL2 and i understand your desperate trying to sell the Video as objective turn Performance from a guy who considers Spitfire and Bf 109 turnperformance as close…       yeah right.

Well. I dont consider the spit vs 109 turn performance because as he said he did not fly the spit so for me that is not a really valuable opinion. I really beliebe that the Spit IX was just a little bit better turner than the 109G and thats all. And of course they are not pulling planes to the limit of Gs but they are making the same for any aircraft not just fot P51s so when a Pilot that owns a 109 and a P51 tells you that is not even close I think he knows what he is talking about. They are not retarded and they know that they are not pushing the engines to the limit but sure they can know what the plane is capable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And of course they are not pulling planes to the limit of Gs but they are making the same for any aircraft not just fot P51s so when a Pilot that owns a 109 and a P51 tells you that is not even close I think he knows what he is talking about. They are not retarded and they know that they are not pushing the engines to the limit but sure they can know what the plane is capable. 

 

 

2:55 "And Skip says he can take on five or six Mustangs easy with it if you want to hang around for a fight"

 

Clearly an objective statement... Appreciated, especially when so many people do sound like fanboys you know...lol

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if the wing profile shown in airfoiltools.com for the Tempest is correct  but if it is then 1.75 seems like a huge stretch: Granted airfoiltools only shows Clmax up to Re=1E6 but for a Hawker Tempest profile it gives only 1.25 as Clmax. Looking at the profile this seems reasonable: It is basically a symmetrical airfoil with a small camber and in addition, the leading edge radius is small neither of which is going to help the high aoa characteristics. In addition, the Clmax=1.25 is for a 2D profile and if you consider that the 3D wing has a spanwize lift distribution and also counting the relatively ineffective wing area in the fuselage you usually end up with a significantly lower number. As an example, a 3D Clmax of 1.35 for a wing profile listed at 1.5 or higher for 2D , e.g. the popular NACA230-series, would be reasonable. Applying that factor on the Tempests 2D Clmax of 1.25 yields a 3D Clmax of 1.13. So as things stand now my assumption of a Clmax=1.35 for the Tempest in the charts I posted above seems optimistic.....

 

Link to Tempest profile data at airfoiltools.com

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this has been posted here yet.

 

I found it a highly interesting read/listen. 

Keep in mind though it is P-51A vs Bf109F-4

Edited by Sturmalex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Caudron431Rafale said:

2:55 "And Skip says he can take on five or six Mustangs easy with it if you want to hang around for a fight"

It has a Merlin engine, what do you expect. 😄

 

1 hour ago, Sturmalex said:

I found it a highly interesting read/listen. 

Keep in mind though it is P-51A vs Bf109F-4

Now pair the 109 with the Spitfire and do the same thing and you'll see the 109 getting seal clubbed in numbers. Basically if you are building as small, light aircraft, you'll alwas be better on the left side of the charts. But there you lose your war. (Although it  is where most fun is in computer games.)

 

What the guy in the video forgets(?) to point out is that it is not the point to make an aircraft that generally looks good on the left half of the chart (that  is conceptually very easy, especially if the size of the luggage bay is deemed irrelevant), but you want to make an aircraft that can carry more (for more dakkadakka father away) while being faster. Both Spit and 109 are "old" aircraft in this sense. Getting the numbers right on the right side while bringing on more, that is what makes the Mustang shine.

 

The fact that the Mustang can carry more at the same speed as the 109 or carry the same while being faster, that is what renders the 109 (and the Spit) obsolete as design choices.

 

When he says the 109 has less drag than the Mustang at lower speeds, I can make a further point by saying that in general, all aircraft have the same drag. Namely zero. This while parked in the hangar.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

yadda yadda

 

 

I fail to see your point in regards to that video.

Neither have you presented any different but likewise sound calculations nor did you bring up any new insight whether or not the Mustang is more maneuverable at low speed than the Bf109. Which, let me remind you, is the title of this thread. Whether or not the Pee-FiddyOne can or has a higher possible load or not is quite irrelevant for this discussion.

I'll take your response as void then.

 

Best Regards

 

Share this post


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

Neither have you presented any different but likewise sound calculations nor did you bring up any new insight whether or not the Mustang is more maneuverable at low speed than the Bf109. Which, let me remind you, is the title of this thread.

The video clearly says the 109 is conceptually the slower aircraft and that it is clearly the better aircraft for flying slow. Now you want to make me bring even more data? My point is that this is much less cool than you might think, especially for the design limitations Willy accepted to achieve said performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping we get something like this ... because germans flights were better somewhere. But i'm little disappoint and i still hope for correct.

 

Interesting
"Note: according to the British test pilot Captain Eric Brown the P-51 B Mustang “had no difficulty in out-turning the Messerschmitt” Bf 109 G-6. Walter Eichhorn states quite the contrary. In his evaluation the Bf 109 G-6 was “clearly superior in turning” compared to a P-51 D, which is very similar to the P-51 B. Both generally accepted experts flew the above-mentioned aircraft personally and extensively. Thus both had very qualified first-hand experience. Technical data (see above and also aviatia.net) suggest that Eichhorn is right and the “109” [G– to K-series] was perfectly capable of out-turning a Mustang, but that manoeuvre may have required a flying expertise which most German novice pilots at war’s end never had a chance to gain.  The turning radius of a Hawker Tempest Mk. V is comparable to the Mustang’s rate, while the Supermarine Spitfire (Mk. IX, Mk. XIV) or La-7, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9 and especially Ta-152 H-1 excel in this respect."

 https://www.luftkrieg-ueber-europa.de/en/how-good-was-the-messerschmitt-bf-109/

Bf109_GB.png

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha. What kind of document is that. Guys, please, read your stuff before posting it. The 152 and the k-4 were the fastest and best turning aircrafts on the planet mid-44?

 

Come. On.

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Quinte said:

Hahaha. What kind of document is that. Guys, please, read your stuff before posting it. The 152 and the k-4 were the fastest and best turning aircrafts on the planet mid-44?

 

Come. On.

 


This is not 1940.
The aircrafts were different in the year 1944 and it is 6km altitude. Yes Ta 152 was better then another planes becaouse long wing.

Edited by Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Art said:

I was hoping we get something like this ... because germans flights were better somewhere. But i'm little disappoint and i still hope for correct.

 

Interesting
"Note: according to the British test pilot Captain Eric Brown the P-51 B Mustang “had no difficulty in out-turning the Messerschmitt” Bf 109 G-6. Walter Eichhorn states quite the contrary. In his evaluation the Bf 109 G-6 was “clearly superior in turning” compared to a P-51 D, which is very similar to the P-51 B. Both generally accepted experts flew the above-mentioned aircraft personally and extensively. Thus both had very qualified first-hand experience. Technical data (see above and also aviatia.net) suggest that Eichhorn is right and the “109” [G– to K-series] was perfectly capable of out-turning a Mustang, but that manoeuvre may have required a flying expertise which most German novice pilots at war’s end never had a chance to gain.  The turning radius of a Hawker Tempest Mk. V is comparable to the Mustang’s rate, while the Supermarine Spitfire (Mk. IX, Mk. XIV) or La-7, Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9 and especially Ta-152 H-1 excel in this respect."

 https://www.luftkrieg-ueber-europa.de/en/how-good-was-the-messerschmitt-bf-109/

Bf109_GB.png

Interesting to see that spits are not close to the K4 on climp performance and on turn performance as well

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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...