Jump to content
216th_LuseKofte

Tempest and P 51

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Now there is a discussion on these planes FM on Facebook. 
They use words as nerfed and its likes. 
Now I haven't flown late war Planes on a while except yesterday on QMB and noticed a bit more nervous tendency on Tempest just before my usual blackout 

Are these guys suffering from The placebo effect Always apparent right after a patch or is flight dynamics changed a bit without menioning in DD

Now I am not a fan of bad reputation on my beloved flight sim. And there is always someone jumped the gun before thinking. 
But my knowledge of FM and such together with bad English and hot tempered personality. Make me less adequate to defend against such allegations

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my question is have things been improved since this?  Also same with spit flaps and nose behavior? 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MercCrom175 said:

my question is have things been improved since this? 

Thanks for that video. It might explain torque effect problems while taxiing too. Simply by having to use much more rpm 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Now there is a discussion on these planes FM on Facebook. 
They use words as nerfed and its likes. 
Now I haven't flown late war Planes on a while except yesterday on QMB and noticed a bit more nervous tendency on Tempest just before my usual blackout 

Are these guys suffering from The placebo effect Always apparent right after a patch or is flight dynamics changed a bit without menioning in DD

Probably placebo effect. If there are any major changes it would be in the patch notes, just like we saw with the Yak-7B and the Bf-110 FM updates. I don't think they would announce those changes and bury changes to the mustang/Tempest FM.

I had this same kind of feeling after the patch, I was flying the Jug and was getting annihilated a lot more in a few hits. I thought, have they re-nerfed the DM??? But then I took a deep breath, flew a few more sorties, and realized it had been a combination of bad luck and bad flying on my part and good gunnery for my enemies. 

Frankly there are a few fighter jocks out there who exist only to fly the uberest of uber planes and can't stand the thought of being shot down. So they must find a reason other than themselves - it must have been nerfed! When really they are just having a bad day and should have a drink or a bracing walk. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I figured. I am just fed up with the wording “they nerfed it” it bring problems and bury good critiques 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Yeah I figured. I am just fed up with the wording “they nerfed it” it bring problems and bury good critiques 

It's a power-gamer mentality. To approach things solely in terms of how powerful something is and make choices and critiques based solely on that.

It is the enemy of fun.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

It's a power-gamer mentality. To approach things solely in terms of how powerful something is and make choices and critiques based solely on that.

It is the enemy of fun.

“Upvote” 

used up my upvotes for today

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean I can blame the devs if I get shot down? 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Probably placebo effect. If there are any major changes it would be in the patch notes, just like we saw with the Yak-7B and the Bf-110 FM updates. I don't think they would announce those changes and bury changes to the mustang/Tempest FM.

I had this same kind of feeling after the patch, I was flying the Jug and was getting annihilated a lot more in a few hits. I thought, have they re-nerfed the DM??? But then I took a deep breath, flew a few more sorties, and realized it had been a combination of bad luck and bad flying on my part and good gunnery for my enemies. 

Frankly there are a few fighter jocks out there who exist only to fly the uberest of uber planes and can't stand the thought of being shot down. So they must find a reason other than themselves - it must have been nerfed! When really they are just having a bad day and should have a drink or a bracing walk. 

 

109G14 got emergancy power fixed also with 4.006 , better speed now (red befor fix, blue after):

109g14.jpg

was able to do 582 with closed rads on deck, probably climbs better now also, as it should from start.

Edited by CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G14 improvement was listed in the patch notes

 

51. Bf-109 G14 emergency engine power has been fixed (increased)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

G14 improvement was listed in the patch notes

 

51. Bf-109 G14 emergency engine power has been fixed (increased)

This is the idea of the topic. Did something happened not mentioned ? Or can I please go to facebook and tell them to sod off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

This is the idea of the topic. Did something happened not mentioned ? Or can I please go to facebook and tell them to sod off

I wouldn't waste my time. If they're saying something has been changed, and its immediately obvious, they should be able to prove it. Don't do legwork for whiners. 

Frankly if there had been a significant change to the P-51 or Tempest FM in the last patch we would have seen 6 million threads about it by now. I was flying alongside Tempests and Mustangs last night on a pretty active Discord and no one said boo about either plane. Other than some people having a little chat about how to be effective with the fifty cals.

 

Probably they think the Mustang and Tempest have been nerfed because 109G-14s are doing better against them now due to better emergency engine power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OT: Tried D*S recently, and in there it feels like they got the FM of the 109 more realistically modelled, atleast in terms of simulating the extra lift generated with the propwash + slat combination. For example it's very easy to outturn the P-51D with the K4 in that sim, irrespective of the fuel load, which is more in line with the figures I have available for both aircraft. In IL2 it's oddly the other way round, with the P-51 having the advantage, even in the low speed regime.

 

Has me wondering wether or not 777 might be applying a bit too much drag to the 109, as well the powered flight Clmax likely being too low.

 

Anyway just an observation :)

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panthera you should find the G-14 to be able to handle a mustang in a slower turn pretty easily, it’s ability to yank high AOA helps quite a bit. The K-4 will lose every time in the 2 circle fight, but thanks to the slats and benign stall, it can be quite effective in a 1 circle fight against a Mustang. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, QB.Shallot said:

@Panthera you should find the G-14 to be able to handle a mustang in a slower turn pretty easily, it’s ability to yank high AOA helps quite a bit. The K-4 will lose every time in the 2 circle fight, but thanks to the slats and benign stall, it can be quite effective in a 1 circle fight against a Mustang. 

 

I dunno, I mean the K4 should easily win a sustained turn fight with the P-51, but it just can't in IL2. In D*S its over within 2 turns, the K4 is very quickly on the P-51's tail, even if the K4 is 100% fuel and the P-51 is at 25%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

This is the idea of the topic. Did something happened not mentioned ? Or can I please go to facebook and tell them to sod off

 

Tell them to sod off. 

Share this post


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

 

I dunno, I mean the K4 should easily win a sustained turn fight with the P-51, but it just can't in IL2. In D*S its over within 2 turns, the K4 is very quickly on the P-51's tail, even if the K4 is 100% fuel and the P-51 is at 25%. 

The only sim I ever liked the P 51 was in DCS. But it was pretty much alone ww 2 when I flew it. You are right that in slow turn K 4 should outperform p 51 in turn and rollrate in general, Is this in all altitudes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The K-4, even with the bigger supercharger starts to run out of steam at higher altitudes. And the Mustangs wing generally does better at the higher mach numbers you encounter up high.

 

Haven't flown either much in GB yet but in DCS the K-4 definitely starts having a harder and harder time against the Mustang above 6, 7, 8 km or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

The only sim I ever liked the P 51 was in DCS. But it was pretty much alone ww 2 when I flew it. You are right that in slow turn K 4 should outperform p 51 in turn and rollrate in general, Is this in all altitudes? 

 

I only tried it near SL in both sims, but the difference is night and day. In DCS the K4 very easily outturns the P51(even in a 100 vs 25% fuel load match up) due to a combination of a higher powered lift coefficient + a much lower power loading. In IL2 the roles are oddly reversed and it feels as though the 109 is penalized with a lot of extra drag in turns (negating the power loading advantage) whilst also lacking the advantage of a higher powered Cl that the slats should provide.

 

I really believe the 109 FM in IL2 is in need of a revision, because something is definitely off.

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

I dunno, I mean the K4 should easily win a sustained turn fight with the P-51, but it just can't in IL2. In D*S its over within 2 turns, the K4 is very quickly on the P-51's tail, even if the K4 is 100% fuel and the P-51 is at 25%. 


The turning circle graph and the vast majority of test data on the subject is pretty clear that a 51 will win a sustained turn fight against a 109G, let alone a heavier, and consequently less maneuverable K-4

E1B1334F-8762-4512-AFDD-5531DE48333F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And the text that goes with that highly simplified diagram:

 

Quote
Turning Circles

In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.

For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.

Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.

Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.

First prize to the Spitfire XIV.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

 

By the way, that's not a turn circle graph. That's someone's idea of being artsy. They classified the aircraft and decided to arrange them in concentric circles, although it clearly states at the top that it's about turning circles, so why is there a need to actually draw it like that? (instead of creating a numbered list) The detail that gives it away is that the difference in "turn circles" is exactly the same between all a/c. Instead of "turn circle" graph it should be called artsy aircraft classification, without any extra data about test conditions (such as altitude, speed, weight, state of the aircraft, external mods,  pilot's knowledge for that a/c, etc).

 

From the link posted above:

 

Quote

What follows is intended to give the average non-technically minded reader some idea of how some of these aircraft compare with each other in the matter of performance and manoeuvrability. This is a big job and one which could fill the proverbial book, but in order to keep the subject within the limits of paper rationing and the readers interest, we shall deal with only five of these types namely, the Spitfire XIV, Mustang III, Tempest V, Thunderbolt II and Meteor III, although their performance in relation to other types, including the two best known major German fighters will be found in the accompanying diagrams.

In doing so each aircraft is compared as far as possible on the same basis, full war load but no external equipment such as bombs or r.p. Calculations for radius of action are, however, made with a compliment of external fuel tanks. These items, incidentally, are sometimes ignored by the well-meaning enthusiast who quotes maximum speeds of particular aircraft with complete disregard for the circumstances. Such quotations out of context can be very misleading to the layman, as external additions can account for 30-40 M.P.H. with the added disadvantage of a corresponding reduction in range and manoeuvrability.

 

Edited by Raven109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:


The turning circle graph and the vast majority of test data on the subject is pretty clear that a 51 will win a sustained turn fight against a 109G, let alone a heavier, and consequently less maneuverable K-4

E1B1334F-8762-4512-AFDD-5531DE48333F.jpeg

 

I've seen that, but IIRC it's partly based on RAE testing which apparently didnt go further than the initial extension of the slats and also took place at quite some altitude. Hence why the 190 was actually found similar to the Mustang in turning in tactical trials whilst the 109 was found worse than both, which is directly contrary to German testing. Also modern pilots of both types are pretty unanimous in their opinion that the 109 is in completely different class to the Mustang when it comes to turning, and that it isn't subtantially behind the Spitfire - provided you actually keep turning when the slats are out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panthera could you supply a link to German testing the found the 109 a better turn fighter than a 51? The consensus I’ve found outside of testing data is that the 51 can outturn it at high speeds, while the 109G takes the cake at low speeds, which is the case in IL2. What is not the case, is the heavier K-4 out-turning the 51 at low speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

@Panthera could you supply a link to German testing the found the 109 a better turn fighter than a 51? The consensus I’ve found outside of testing data is that the 51 can outturn it at high speeds, while the 109G takes the cake at low speeds, which is the case in IL2. What is not the case, is the heavier K-4 out-turning the 51 at low speeds.

 

I was talking of the Fw190, which the 109 was always said to outturn in German testing, yet it was curiously the other way round in RAE testing, for which the explanation is to be found with the pilot not pushing past initial slat extension, a common problem with new pilots on the type according to several experienced 109 pilots:

 

"Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out." - Erwin Leykauf

 

You see this problem mentioned directly in the AFDU tactical trials where the 109 is said to be "embarrased by the opening of its slats near the stall", indicating the RAF pilot, just like most new pilots on the type, saw this as the limit and didn't push further, and thus for this reason the 109 was found worse than both the 190, 51 and Tempest in turning during the RAF trials.

 

There is no comparison made to the 51 in German testing, there are however modern day comparisons where again the difference is said to be night and day, and the 109 even being said to be close with the Spitfire albeit not quite as good.

 

"I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time-particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor." - Mark Hanna

 

Mark Hanna flew the Spanish Buchon version btw, which weighes approx. the same as the K4, but with much less power.
 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-51 pilots were told not to get into turning battles with the 109. If a shooting resolution could not be obtained in a 1/2 circle or there abouts they were to break off and try again.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Raven109 said:

And the text that goes with that highly simplified diagram:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

 

By the way, that's not a turn circle graph. That's someone's idea of being artsy. They classified the aircraft and decided to arrange them in concentric circles, although it clearly states at the top that it's about turning circles, so why is there a need to actually draw it like that? (instead of creating a numbered list) The detail that gives it away is that the difference in "turn circles" is exactly the same between all a/c. Instead of "turn circle" graph it should be called artsy aircraft classification, without any extra data about test conditions (such as altitude, speed, weight, state of the aircraft, external mods,  pilot's knowledge for that a/c, etc).

 

From the link posted above:

 

 

 

That explains the odd ranking, as I'm quite sure the Spitfire 21 would have no issues outturning the Mustang for example, and I'm also confident the Tempest was slightly better at low altitude thanks to the lower wing loading and better power down low.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Raven109 Yes, not a representation of hard data, but an easy explanation.

 

@Panthera Fair point on the 109's testing, I was not aware of that, however the Tempest was universally agreed to not out turn a Mustang. Testing data clearly states it as such. It could turn with the 190 and 109 but its pretty clear the 51 was considered its superior in a turning fight. 

I will also note that the linked test (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/matcom109g.html) makes it clear that the aircraft was pushed to a stall, meaning that the test pilot(s) pushed past the leading edge slats deployment. This is the data that is available. If you can find further data on the subject, I would love to expand my knowledge.

 

As for anecdotal claims from current warbird pilots, I do think the original testing data ought to be considered first, seeing as modern birdies are flown quite cautiously in regards to power settings used. 

 

I'm not saying the 109 is not an agile plane. The sim models the earlier variants with that approach. The E-7, F-4, and to a similar extent, the G-14 are all wonderful dancers.  The first 2 can out-turn a 51 with ease, and the final one quite handily at low speeds. The K-4 is the heaviest, and the most overpowered of the bunch. It strikes me as unsurprising that it would be the worst turner of the bunch.

 

IIRC there was a test performed between a P-51D and 109G which found pretty much the consensus on the subject. At high speeds the 51 holds the advantage, and at low speeds the 109. For the life of me I can't find it, but I'll link it if I do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't think the RAE's 109 was pushed to a stall in a turn (accelerated stall), at least evidently not beyond what the pilot thought was a stall, which was when the slats initially came out, same as what inexperienced pilots on the type typically thought. (also mentions no stall checks were made)

 

As for the Tempest, I don't think the concensus is that the Mustang outturned it at anything but high altitude, which is where the AFDU trials took place. Down low I'd very much expect the Tempest to have the advantage.

 

Finally regarding the modern pilots, I actually think their evaluation weighes more due to their far more extensive flight training, education and general understanding of the aircraft's components and aerodynamics. And whilst it's certainly is true that the engines aren't pushed as hard, this doesn't matter as much outside of sustained performance, and remember the Buchon & P-51 are both flown at same power levels, ~40" Hg. So atleast we know how they compare with similar engine power.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panthera

Now as a note. 

HA-1112 Empty weight: 2,475kg

G-14 Empty weight: 2,680kg

K-4 Empty weight: 2,754 kg

The Buchons empty weight is somewhere in between the F-4 and G-2. Both those A/C will out turn the Mustang in IL2. So it seems Mr. Hannah's observations line up with the sim.

What doesn't stack up is this the claim that the Buchon weighs similarly to the K-4. Like I said, the claim that the Buchon out turns the 51 is held true in the sim, as 109 variants that weight similarly will in fact do so, quite handily I will add. The later variants maneuverability is pure speculation, and the only data that can be pulled is from the tests we have. 

 

I cannot speak to the Tempest Vs 51 performance outside of the tests that are available, however its fair to say that the games representation of it is completely broken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@QB.Shallot Skip & Hanna flew the Buchon M1L AFAIK which empty weight is ~2,700 kg. It is more draggy than the other 109's too.

 

That said in D*S (where the 109 & 51's models were made with modern pilot input) the difference is significant irrespective of fuel load, such that a 300 kg (~700 lbs) difference doesn't remotely change who outturns who, the 109 is comfortably ahead, as I think it should be based on the aerodynamic data available. We're afterall talking a noticably smaller aircraft with a much better power to weight ratio and a similar wing loading but noticably higher lift coefficient in powered flight. 

 

I really think they nailed the FM in D*S, so I'm hoping 777 can take some inspiration from there.

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panthera

I'll admit I have little experience in that sim. Is the P-51 modeled in a significantly different light, or is the K-4 simply modeled with more agility at its disposal? 

In addition, is there any way to access any translated German testing on the late model 109's (or 190's, I think both would be an interesting read), either on an individual or comparative basis? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

@Panthera

I'll admit I have little experience in that sim. Is the P-51 modeled in a significantly different light, or is the K-4 simply modeled with more agility at its disposal? 

In addition, is there any way to access any translated German testing on the late model 109's (or 190's, I think both would be an interesting read), either on an individual or comparative basis? 

 

They are both modelled down to the last detail in D*S, perfectly exhibiting their described flight behavior as far as I can tell, and every button, lever or knob can be operated.

 

So far I've bought the Spitfire Mk.IX, BF109K4, FW190D9 and P-51D, and in terms of agility in the horizontal (turning) the Spitfire IX reigns supreme (as it should), followed some ways behind by the K4 (it's not close, so don't ever attempt to turn with a Spit), and then a good ways further down by the P-51 and 190D9 and so on. Next module coming up is the P-47D and then the Mosquito which I'm quite excited to try.

 

D*S does lack the excellent online maps and diversity of WW2 aircraft that IL2 offers however, so each sim has something on the other. Which is why I'd love to see 777 spend a little more time on the FM's.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Panthera said:

@QB.Shallot Skip & Hanna flew the Buchon M1L AFAIK which empty weight is ~2,700 kg. It is more draggy than the other 109's too.

 

 

 

 

EAA Museum says 2445 kg empty. 2858 gross.

 

https://www.eaa.org/eaa-museum/museum-collection/aircraft-collection-folder/1947-messerschmitt-hispano-buchon-ha1112-m1l---n109bf

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

It's 5,855 lbs (2,655 kg) empty according to the data on Skip Holm's website:

http://www.skipholm.com/willy-messerschmitt.htm

 

Wiki claims 2,475 kg empty for the Hispano Suiza powered K1L and 2,666 kg empty for the Merlin powered M1L:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano_Aviación_HA-1112

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where in the world can the P-51 outturn a 109 at low speed? High speeds are another thing...

 

When I end up at low speed fight in my P-51 I try to get some speed and some distance from the K4 and specially the G14s.  Those things accelerate like hell and can outturn the Mustang at low speed without issue. 

 

The other day I was in a dive, in a G14 and a Mustang managed to get shots on my wing and I went down, even when I pulled max stick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@PantheraNo doubt - but the EAA do actually own one. 

 

Anyway - not trying to derail discussion here, mostly following because I still find our Tempest a bit of a puzzle.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Where in the world can the P-51 outturn a 109 at low speed? High speeds are another thing...

 

When I end up at low speed fight in my P-51 I try to get some speed and some distance from the K4 and specially the G14s.  Those things accelerate like hell and can outturn the Mustang at low speed without issue. 

 

The other day I was in a dive, in a G14 and a Mustang managed to get shots on my wing and I went down, even when I pulled max stick. 

 

Tested it with a friend a couple days ago to make sure we both had similar energy states and the P-51 will outturn both in IL2, even in a low speed sustained turn fight which is where it usually ended up anyway. At high speed it's no contest as the 109 pilot very quickly blacks out whilst the P-51 pilot has no issues (I think German pilots in IL2 suffer from low blood pressure 😁)

 

Did the same rounds of tests in D*S and the results were completely different, there really being no contest once we ended up in sustained turns.

Edited by Panthera
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panthera DCS is not a banned word in the forums 😅 

Btw you said something about the lift coefficients specially with max power on, how can it be tested more or less accurately in game? with idle engine I get around 1.60-1.65 Clmax for the K-4 in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.60 at idle almost certainly means that you are actually not quite in level flight at the stall.  If you take the game Tech Spec figures, which were generated with Russian Bot, you get 1.39 for the K-4,  the same as for the other 109 marks with a very few exceptions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

1.60 at idle almost certainly means that you are actually not quite in level flight at the stall.  If you take the game Tech Spec figures, which were generated with Russian Bot, you get 1.39 for the K-4,  the same as for the other 109 marks with a very few exceptions.

 

 

 

Sometimes the specifications aren't quite accurate, I don't know why that happens but it's noticeable with speed and climb rate numbers. If the Clmax was 1.39 that would mean a 176 kmh stall speed for the K-4 but you can well ride it into the 160s kmh without stalling pulling AoA with the slats opened. Just as it's about to stall you can get some grey zone but this happens at around 165 kmh.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

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...