DCS WW2 fighter comparison

@GGTharos

 

Narushima was kind enough to take the time and graph.And it gives us an idea about WW2 aircraft performance.

What are you doing ?

Do your own graph so maybe a little of your perfection rubs on us mortals.

I just assumed that they're doing the +18lb one because they already have this engine modelled with the P-51. All they have to do is tweak the supercharger a bit and change the cooling arrangement.

 

Yeah, +25 would make it more competitive, but it will still be the weakest plane of them all, simply because by 1944 spit 9 was obsolete. It was not suited for the high speed combat that has evolved ever since planes like the FW 190 and F6F demonstrated the superiority of BnZ combat.

 

Now if we had the Spit XIV then things would be different, but alas, this is what RRG decided to model.

 

Spitfire IX was an old plane in 1944, its opponents are Bf109G6(ASM), Bf109G14. Don't forget there were no BF109K4/Dora at all in first half year of 1944 and BF109G6/G14 was the majority in Bf109s of Luftwaffe even in 1945. Enrich Hartman ended his service in a Bf109G6 at VE day. :)

 

Bf109K4 around 700s, Dora, again around 700s. not so many. And you should add Spitfire XIV which came into service in 1944 Jan(much earlier than K4/Dora), during second half year of 1944, Spitfire XIV upgraded from 18lbs to 21lbs, i.e. 2.22 ATA to 2.43 ATA with corresponding engine maximum output from 2000HP to 2200HP.

 

VEAO team are developing CW/bubble version Spitfire XIV, this is a nightmare for Dora/K4/Ta152H in 1 vs 1 scenario.

 

 

For a long time (10 years), Virtual Luftwaffers in simulation, IMO, have been somewhat spoiled by Il2 sturmovic series for the absence of west line most powerful a/c such as Spitfire XIV, 11-13lbs tempy, P47M, they thought K4/Dora (also good planes in my mind) has so called "speed/enregy " advantage to compensate their dogfight inferiority when facing spitfires, the illusion will shattered because DCS is NOT "balance of art", DCS is sniffy about "game balance" while it just wanna reproduce history as accurate as possible. Their philosophy will face the test of unprecedented，a swift Spitfire XIV with K4 clime rate/ speed(especially at high altitude.)

 

So, the line-up of 1944 late "match" is below:

 

25lbs Spitfire IX vs Bf109G6ASM/G14 Fw190A6A7A8 (majority vs majority, updated old planes)

 

21lbs Spitfire XIV vs Bf109K4 (minority vs minority, brand new type)

 

11lbs Tempest MKV vs 1.8ATA(2ATA?) Fw190D9 (minority vs minority, brand new type)

 

:D So RAF do not have to worry about "SPEED" at all when 2nd tactic air force returned to NorthWest europe . The probability of a Spitfire IX was outpaced by a brand new k4/Dora is no more than the probability of a Bf109G6/14 outpaced by Spit XIV Tempy and USA planes. On the contrary, tempy out dives any German piston planes. Drag....Hit and Run....That's the Tempy's favorite.

 

Of course ME262 is much faster, but Spitfire climb rate is 3 times of Me262 at 9000 M altitude and P47M/Tempest MKV are very interested to shoot down a Jet.

 

Maximum level speed has little tactic meaning IF YOU DON'T DIVE FIRSTLY because it takes a long long time for a/c to accelerate from cruising speed to max. speed. However, German planes were badly outlived by P51/P47/ Tempest.

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

 

Although Me262 outdives any of them, P47P51Tempy could get it with initial higher altitude.

Edited June 15, 2014 by tempestglen

My estimate of Dora/K4 dive acceleration is here, any comment welcomed.

Edited June 15, 2014 by tempestglen

I think the results in your chart are for high speed propeller. Western Front 109s used propellers optimized for speed.

Eastern Front 109s received propellers optimized for climb/acceleration .

Forgot about this :) .

 

Don't forget this, LOL. Recently I am very interested in German propeller efficiency at 680-820km/h IAS. You know in that speed spectrum, CSP could NOT maintain steady efficiency any more, all propellers in WWII suffer degraded performance, 10% efficiency difference means 180-200HP.

 

The reason why German sticked to 3-blade propeller is not clear to me, perhaps cannon/gun synchronizer demands it? With regard to speed/climb optimized propellers, it seems that German couldn't have it both ways, someone said:

 

The wide chord wooden props for the Luftwaffe dropped top level speed by about 4 percent but increased turn and climb rate by about 15 percent. The Luftwaffe conducted several indepth studies. I am sure the USAAF did the same. Blade width does help efficiency to a point.

 

You see, even at 680km or so, the climb optimized propeller increase 15% climb but decrease 4% speed. 4% speed means 8% engine output lose.

 

So if 109K4 equipped with climb optimized props and max. level fly , no 2000HP output at all, only 1840 HP. If k4 dives to 750km/h IAS, worse efficiency. Can I presume K4's efficiency drops more steeply?

 

I am suspicious that German plane data sheet provided by best max speed(with speed optimized props) and best max climb rate(with climb optimized props) at same time, so Luftwaffe pilots need to replace their props in the flight in order to achieve that performance in some games? :music_whistling:

Edited June 15, 2014 by tempestglen

@GGTharos

 

Narushima was kind enough to take the time and graph.

 

Yeah, that's great. It's good that there are people who put in time to do things.

 

And it gives us an idea about WW2 aircraft performance.

All it gives you is a couple of points of comparison. It doesn't give much of an idea about performance. There are no speed v sustained g v altitude graphs, so you can't tell where one aircraft is better than another in its entire flight envelope. And that type of comparison is just scratching the surface. You don't know the climb profile that gives you the maximum sustained climb, and so on and so forth.

 

What are you doing ?

Do your own graph so maybe a little of your perfection rubs on us mortals.

I do graphs on a completely different subject, certainly not WW2 at all. None of this has anything to do with perfection, it has everything to do with information. If you're happy just seeing a couple of points of comparison with no context behind them, great for you.
Edited June 15, 2014 by GGTharos

Hartmann finished the war flying a G10. Which was a lightweight K4.

"Mustangs, we just flew away from them" E. Hartmann.

Hartmann finished the war flying a G10. Which was a lightweight K4.

"Mustangs, we just flew away from them" E. Hartmann.

 

Heh, yeah. Hartmann was a badass. Though I'd like to put that encounter into perspective. Did he have altitude advantage? If so, I can see it happening.

 

G-10 was actually slower than the K-4.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Narushima

It may also be that the mission requirements for the P-51s prevented them from giving chase, etc. etc.

 

Heh, yeah. Hartmann was a badass. Though I'd like to put that encounter into perspective. Did he have altitude advantage? If so, I can see it happening.

@Tempestglen

 

Yes the P-51, P-47 and Tempest were better in dive to the Fw 190 and Me 109 and the Luftwaffe in previous sims have always benefited by the absence of certain rare (as you have said) aircraft but if you were to model the end of WWII correctly then it would be 100 allied fighters in the air vs 20 axis. So it really is a moot point you are making, regardless of who had the best aircraft it came down to numbers at the end of the day.

 

I welcome and will greatly fear the spit XIV (more so than any other aircraft I just wish they had chosen the malcom hood not the bubble canopy).

 

To me a tight team with tactics can overcome any aircraft with a performance advantage.

Heh, yeah. Hartmann was a badass. Though I'd like to put that encounter into perspective. Did he have altitude advantage? If so, I can see it happening.

 

G-10 was actually slower than the K-4.

 

G10, as few as K4, slightly better dogfight than K4 and inferior max speed/climb, the G10 must has a altitude advantage over Mustang.

 

If same initial energy, when Mustang/Thunderbolt/Tempest dives, they can easily fly away from 109/190 behind.

Depends on the 109 or 190 really. I wouldn't say they could out-dive a Dora so easily. Especially not a mustang, that weights the same, and has comparable speeds at low altitude.

 

K-4 would also be a decent diver. It's the cleanest and heaviest 109, thought still not in the same weight class then the above mention aircraft.

 

You also have to take compressibility effects into consideration. At 800km/h IAS you're no longer chasing the opposing aircraft, you're trying not to become a pancake.

@Tempestglen

 

Yes the P-51, P-47 and Tempest were better in dive to the Fw 190 and Me 109 and the Luftwaffe in previous sims have always benefited by the absence of certain rare (as you have said) aircraft but if you were to model the end of WWII correctly then it would be 100 allied fighters in the air vs 20 axis. So it really is a moot point you are making, regardless of who had the best aircraft it came down to numbers at the end of the day.

 

I welcome and will greatly fear the spit XIV (more so than any other aircraft I just wish they had chosen the malcom hood not the bubble canopy).

 

To me a tight team with tactics can overcome any aircraft with a performance advantage.

 

You are right, but RAF 2nd tactic air force had roughly same quantity of Spitfire XIV and Tempest MKV compared with K4/Dora. Let's forget about overwhelming US fighters.

Depends on the 109 or 190 really. I wouldn't say they could out-dive a Dora so easily. Especially not a mustang, that weights the same, and has comparable speeds at low altitude.

 

K-4 would also be a decent diver. It's the cleanest and heaviest 109, thought still not in the same weight class then the above mention aircraft.

 

You also have to take compressibility effects into consideration. At 800km/h IAS you're no longer chasing the opposing aircraft, you're trying not to become a pancake.

 

500MPH IAS is low altitude dive limit for P51 and Tempest/P47. Fw190A's limit is 466MPH=750km/h IAS, around 850-900km/h TAS.

 

Dive to 800km/h TAS is quite common for 1944-45 brand new fighters.

 

As long as you dive within these limit(not steep), you are safe.

 

 

Spitfire XIV is heavier, more streamlined/powered, than spitfire IX, but the dive acceleration only somewhat better. So will Dora/K4 compared with old versions(fw190A 109G).

 

P51 has extremely low air drag(laminar airfoil) which plays a critical role in high speed dive, P47, that's a brick (5-6 tons);tempest, another 5-ton a/c and well streamlined/polished. These three could easily outdive fw190 in despite of long or short nose.

Edited June 15, 2014 by tempestglen

Dive limit doesn't mean squat, because those weren't actual limits of the aircraft. Both 190 and 109 could go substantially above their dive limits, and could recover with the help of trim (all moving horizontal stabilizer).

 

Drag isn't the only factor in a dive. There's also thrust, from the engine. So even though the Mustang is cleaner, the Dora still has substantially more power. That's why it's faster under 6000m.

G-10 was actually slower than the K-4.

 

Same engine with less weight and it's slower, explain.

I do graphs on a completely different subject, certainly not WW2 at all. None of this has anything to do with perfection, it has everything to do with information. If you're happy just seeing a couple of points of comparison with no context behind them, great for you.

 

These show most important information, you know what you can outclimb and what you can outrun at what altitude, its not supposed to show detailed information on how to fly your aircraft only the relative difference between aircraft.

Same engine with less weight and it's slower, explain.

 

Weight has very little effect on top speed. This is because induced drag decreases with speed, and is almost insignificant at top speeds of WW2 aircraft.

 

For example, the P-51 when lightened by 900kg only had an increase in top speed of 6,5km/h.

 

G-10 was about 200kg lighter than the K-4. The K-4, on the other hand had a cleaner airframe, so naturally it was also faster.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Narushima

Given they were the same airframe I find this had to believe. The same except the G10 had no underwing gondolas to lug about. The G10 was the fastest 109 made, an air superiority fighter, nothing else. Unlike the K4.

The G-10 was the fastest G series plane.

 

The K-4 was the fastest Bf109!

The G-10 was the fastest G series plane.

 

The K-4 was the fastest Bf109!

 

Yup. The front wheel cowers alone gave the K-4 ~10km/h extra top speed.

 

Also, both aircraft came with under-wing gondolas, which could be removed.

No, I've only read about a single Jagdgeschwader receiving K-4s with gondola cannon (and they hated them). It was very rare.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=505

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=505

 

And from your link

Even so, the G-10 proved to be the fastest G model.

 

TECHNICAL NOTES:

Armament: One 30mm MK 108 cannon and two 13mm MG 131 machine guns

Engine: One Daimler-Benz DB 605D inverted V rated at 1,850 hp for take-off

Maximum speed: 426 mph at 24,280 ft.

Range: 373 miles

Ceiling: 41,400 ft.

Span: 32 ft.

Length: 29 ft. 5 in.

Height: 8 ft. 2.5 in.

Weight: 5,800 lbs.

 

426 mph = 685 km/h, significantly less than the K-4.

441 for K4 with production propellers.

Dive limit doesn't mean squat, because those weren't actual limits of the aircraft. Both 190 and 109 could go substantially above their dive limits, and could recover with the help of trim (all moving horizontal stabilizer).

 

Drag isn't the only factor in a dive. There's also thrust, from the engine. So even though the Mustang is cleaner, the Dora still has substantially more power. That's why it's faster under 6000m.

 

 

Allied planes also have elevator trim, could exceed the limit with danger just like 109/190s, so if you compare dive limits. put them in same conditions. Bebore exceeding that 466-500MPH dive limits, 109/190 has already been outdived by P51P47tempy if they begin from cruising speed with roughly same altitude.

 

 

Many factors involved in Dive acceleration. A 67"(1650HP,18lbs boost, 2.22ATA) P51 can fly as fast as a 1900HP Dora below 4000 m, around 5000m altitude, it's the weaknesss of a two stage superchager while Dora's 1-stage is optiminzed at that altitude. So P51 needs less 200-300 HP to achieve same level speed with Dora. Don't forget a 67" merlin is of 1943 Spring standard of RAF and once P51 ugraded to 1900-2000HP(RAF Mustang III/IV ), Mustang is definetly faster than Dora.

 

 

When you dive to 800km/h TAS, the propeller efficiency may drops to as low as 60%, air darg/weight are the most important factors and allied had proved Mustang can alomost dive as well as thunderbolt, believed it or not.

 

Dora'd better prepare for being outdived by P47P51tempy in DCS world, this is not il2 series where the air compression(mach number) was ignored and even accurate prop efficiency drop in 700-850km/h TAS is absence.

Edited June 16, 2014 by tempestglen