72"

Lol Salty. Common, that video proves nothing. I expected better from you. The actual chase where you were both flying straight and level, lasted less than a minute. A minute during which the 109 started with a dive from a higher altitude than you were (better energy level) and actually dived steeper than you did. Also at a certain point you put your nose up while he remains at sea level.

If you want we can meet up when you like and try a longer chase at sea level. I'll fly the 109 and you can try and catch me. I guarantee that you will manage to do so within a few minutes.

Lol Salty. Common, that video proves nothing. I expected better from you. The actual chase where you were both flying straight and level, lasted less than a minute. A minute during which the 109 started with a dive from a higher altitude than you were (better energy level) and actually dived steeper than you did. Also at a certain point you put your nose up while he remains at sea level.

 

If you want we can meet up when you like and try a longer chase at sea level. I'll fly the 109 and you can try and catch me. I guarantee that you will manage to do so within a few minutes.

LOL. I chased him to his base. But my video recording stoped. Anyway. You just showed that you do not care about the reality of it. Just about your own agenda. Not to mention that after such tight loop the 109's energy should be realy diminished, but energy retention and drag seem to be better than any other plane in the game.

You want to prove me wrong, not to prove real life data. Sad. Whatever you will do, the 109 is currently faster than the P-51D and there is no denying it. People who know how to fly it can pull away in dives and be never caught because they are actually faster and I was caught by 109s when I was runing in the same maner. I was higher, dove, he dove behind me about 1km. And 1 min later I had him right behind me at 200m guns blazing.

We can meet. But what is my guarantee that you know how to fly the thing? I would much rather find someone with experience like David Red or Dark Riders or anyone that flies the thing coordinated. That guy in the video for that matter, would be good.

If you claim you can't outrun the P-51D, you are doing it wrong because it is clearly possible.

You just showed that you do not care about the reality of it. Just about your own agenda.

 

You want to prove me wrong, not to prove real life data. Sad. Whatever you will do, the 109 is currently faster than the P-51D and there is no denying it.

How can you write these two sentences and then claim I'm the one who is biased? I just offered to check this out with you. If the 109K is faster than the P51D in a straight line, then that is something that can also be tested for, and checked out right?

If that turns out to be how these planes are modeled in DCS, then it's something that is wrong and needs to be addressed and corrected. None of these things will be looked at, when people are posting non-empirical tests, and then claiming those tests to be factual.

You were the first one to point this out with Otto's test, and then you go ahead and post a video like this. :mad:

How can you write these two sentences and then claim I'm the one who is biased? I just offered to check this out with you. If the 109K is faster than the P51D in a straight line, then that is something that can also be tested for, and checked out right?

 

If that turns out to be how these planes are modeled in DCS, then it's something that is wrong and needs to be addressed and corrected. None of these things will be looked at, when people are posting non-empirical tests, and then claiming those tests to be factual.

 

You were the first one to point this out with Otto's test, and then you go ahead and post a video like this. :mad:

I didn't say it was a test. Your lack of understanding of the simple difference between a "test" and a "video for reference", which I have pointed out, is astonishing. :wallbash:

My first vid is a test of max sustained speed. Otto's video is nowhere near so accurate and precise.

This new vid, is and was a video for reference. Many a times during my flying in DCS, 109s are capable of outdiving everyone and flying level to their base. Even without a wing they are faster.:doh:

PS. Type to me when you want to meet to fly.

I would much rather find someone with experience like David Red or Dark Riders or anyone that flies the thing coordinated. That guy in the video for that matter, would be good.

Yeah, I imagine that a coordinated flight -- level flight and with some maneuvers side by side or in tandem, Blue Angels' style -- would single out the differences in speed, acceleration and energy / momentum. Although I never tried it, so I don't know what kind of results one would get.

Not to prolong this, but how does the Dora compare to the P-51 in top speed?

Also, if you were going to do strictly B&Z. Which plane is better at it between P-51, K4, and Dora?

Not to prolong this, but how does the Dora compare to the P-51 in top speed?

 

Also, if you were going to do strictly B&Z. Which plane is better at it between P-51, K4, and Dora?

The Dora is the fastest plane on the deck at WEP. It's slower than the P-51 up high, but down on the ground it's even faster than the 109. It also helps that because of the MW50 the Dora can keep that speed up for ages ... far longer than the P-51 can run on WEP.

IMO the Dora is easily the best strict B&Z plane. High top speed, amazing high-speed handling, great roll and hard hitting weapons with plenty of ammo: this combination is perfect for B&Z. The Dora is also terrible at much else, it is easily out-turned by every other plane and the only thing it can out-climb is the P-51.

The P-51 would also be a good B&Z plane ... if the weapons hit a bit harder. I more-or-less specialize in B&Z, and do pretty well at it, and whilst I can do that in the P-51 I've not found it at all easy due to the (currently) weak weaponry.

Pretty much what I think too. I just wanted to see if others agreed.

Thanks.

Turn seems right, power seems to not be what it should be in comparison to P51, accel is fairly slow. Instantaneous roll should be faster.

I was doing a quick search trying to see if there was anything as to why the 109 K-4 was chosen to model over the Bf 109 G-6 / G-10 etc.

Was there a lot more detailed information for the K-4 available when researching?

TBH the G-10 and K-4 were largely identical. One came with a fixed tailwheel and (usually the 20mm MG151/20 in the nose), the other with completely retractable undercarriage, complete wheel well covers and the MK108 (and explicitly retaining the wiring for installation of the MG151/20 as a factory standard).

TBH the G-10 and K-4 were largely identical.

unfortunately not.

they have only the same engine

G-10 was nearly identical with G-6/14 (actually G-10s were G-6/14 with D model engine)

btw. G-10/U4 with identical weapon like K-4, produced in WNF, was with (small rudder)* like G-6 had...

EDIT : * correctly is short tail wheel strut sorry :)

unfortunately not.

they have only the same engine

 

G-10 was nearly identical with G-6/14 (actually G-10s were G-6/14 with D model engine)

btw. G-10/U4 with identical weapon like K-4, produced in WNF, was with (small rudder)* like G-6 had...

 

EDIT : * correctly is short tail wheel strut sorry :)

That was kind of my point. It was the same basic airframe and the same engine. The G-10 was mostly built with the large rudder just as the K-4l, and the other differences (armament and undercarriage) I did mention. :P

I was doing a quick search trying to see if there was anything as to why the 109 K-4 was chosen to model over the Bf 109 G-6 / G-10 etc.

Was there a lot more detailed information for the K-4 available when researching?

You can get practically complete K-4 maintaince and operating parts etc. manuals from Hafner with no fuss at all. It was a new 'major' version of the airframe so they re-made them all... whereas the G-14 or G-10... well. Those were basically refits, mods to the G series, some did not even had a proper designation for some time and existed as addenda or an extra sheet attached to a G-6 manual. Bit of an exaggravation but not by much.

Bottomline. You can basically order all papers for the K-4 online for a couple of hundred euros, or try to researching a variant that was less standard and less well covered.

Not only the K4, but why the Dora too?

Hmm... I was able to get the 51 to do 610-614kph sustained at the barometric conditions mentioned above over water and at the takeoff weight mentioned above also. I was generally about 10-30 meters elevation. 619 a few times after losing a few too many meters of elevation.

I didn't do it all quite as scientific as you guys did apparently but I can assure you I didn't sustain that only for a short time after a dive. I ran between 610-614 for about 20-30 seconds withing +/-2M.

I learned specific techniques to make this possible while running Shahdoh's Mustang Racing series. We learned how to make them go fast. we would last full races with maybe 20% engine failure rate for races lasting up to say 30-40 minutes so...

You just need to learn how to make them go fast :).

Also... someone mentioned whether or not the effect of flying too close to the water slowing you down was modeled... It is. A couple hundred feet higher and I could gain a few K's...

Of course you are going slower lower. This is a Sea Level (SL) sustained speed test.

Again, your first fault is to dive, that way your engine is cool and gets cooled with more efficiency. If you want a proper test you need to accelerate to that speed in level flight. That way the radiator opens more.

There is no magic to "make them go fast". Keep engine cool, dive with coordinated flight and it will make any plane go faster than its max sustained speed ON SL.

The chart is not lying at SL it should be 375mph with WEP and 364mph in military power. That's the data that was used to create DCS Mustang and it is what we should be focused on.

Hmm... I was able to get the 51 to do 610-614kph sustained at the barometric conditions mentioned above over water and at the takeoff weight mentioned above also. I was generally about 10-30 meters elevation. 619 a few times after losing a few too many meters of elevation.

 

I didn't do it all quite as scientific as you guys did apparently but I can assure you I didn't sustain that only for a short time after a dive. I ran between 610-614 for about 20-30 seconds withing +/-2M.

 

I learned specific techniques to make this possible while running Shahdoh's Mustang Racing series. We learned how to make them go fast. we would last full races with maybe 20% engine failure rate for races lasting up to say 30-40 minutes so...

 

You just need to learn how to make them go fast :).

 

 

Also... someone mentioned whether or not the effect of flying too close to the water slowing you down was modeled... It is. A couple hundred feet higher and I could gain a few K's...

So, you flew the real Mustang in races? I envy you. What's your opinion of the version in DCS? Is the flight model close?

So, you flew the real Mustang in races? I envy you. What's your opinion of the version in DCS? Is the flight model close?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136905

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136905

Oh, that's disappointing. I thought we had a real Mustang pilot here.

A real Mustang pilot DID give his input in making the P51D. As did real pilots for every warbird in DCS, including the 109K.

I sincerely doubt that the K is faster than the P51D, purely due to the laminar wing flow, which improves drag. Though there are certain quirks in how DCS models atmospheric parasitic drag at lower altitudes (Im thinking especially with open radiators) which might make this a possibility in DCS.

(see: Missile AFM discussion)

Input from Yo-Yo on this issue (or any of the other developers) would be much appreciated.

There are way to make the Mustang go faster down low. For example accelerating to a high speed, then lowering the RPM by about 10-20% while still maintaining maximum manifold pressure. An analogy would be, shifting into a higher gear in a car. The engine should run cooler, and the radiators should close, which should lead to a higher top speed. (Assuming max manifold can be maintained)

I sincerely doubt that the K is faster than the P51D, purely due to the laminar wing flow, which improves drag.

Top speed is mostly based on the balance between engine power versus drag. The P-51 does have a very aerodynamically efficient design which helped to make it fast (and fuel efficient). However, there was a big difference in engine power. The P-51D had about 1600 bhp of power available, but the Bf 109 K-4 could produce 2000 bhp with MW50. From memory I believe the big difference here is the MW50, it increases the power available by a lot .. making the 109 K-4 faster on WEP. However IIRC, the P-51 was faster on military where the power difference was not as substantial.

Sorry Tomsk, but even with the increased horsepower, the 109K should not be able to outrun the P51D. Higher acceleration, definitely. Top speed. No. (Im talking real life here, not DCS, where according to some it can outrun the P51D at sea level)

At 30,000 ft the K should have a max speed of about 696 km/h. The P51D could fly at 708 km/h at 25,000 ft.

Of course you are going slower lower. This is a Sea Level (SL) sustained speed test.

 

Again, your first fault is to dive, that way your engine is cool and gets cooled with more efficiency. If you want a proper test you need to accelerate to that speed in level flight. That way the radiator opens more.

 

There is no magic to "make them go fast". Keep engine cool, dive with coordinated flight and it will make any plane go faster than its max sustained speed ON SL.

 

The chart is not lying at SL it should be 375mph with WEP and 364mph in military power. That's the data that was used to create DCS Mustang and it is what we should be focused on.

I said I didn't dive. I took off and held flaps at about 15% or so until I was over the water at the correct elevation (I think it was Batumi I took off from...). I then raised the flaps and set the plane up for top speed (or close...) and tried my best to maintain level flight. As I said I did gain and lose a small amount of elevation but not much. Certainly not enough to explain the difference between my top speed and yours. So... Call it magic if you will.

I suggest you try racing :). Unfortunately we only did one season and nobody knows when we may do another but I assure you... we learned a lot about how to make the Mustang go fast and maintain energy. After all... That's what racing is. If you jump into the VA server you'll see a few Mustangs that spawn at various tracks. My suggestion is the Batumi track as I recall. It's the left hand dogleg oval track. It will help you learn what's required to go fast.

Now... Please don't take all this the wrong way. I'm not trying to argue that the plane is perfect by any means or that it should or shouldn't stack up against other planes differently. I'm not even arguing whether or not it should have 72" of pressure (I feel it should BTW). I simply noticed your assertions as to the maximum sustained SL speed of the plane and took issue with that as the plane is certainly faster than your suggestion. THE 109 IS ALSO FASTER in those conditions than what has been stated in this thread.

I know that it would be appreciated if I disclosed my secrets but I put a LOT of time and effort into obtaining them and will not do that. All I can tell you is that I'm not using any mods or anything crappy like that. It's all legit.

Oh, that's disappointing. I thought we had a real Mustang pilot here.

Sorry for the confusion :)

It was a great race series though and as I recall we did indeed have an actual P51 racer in the group :). I should find some videos for you folks :)