72"

[Solty]

I made 3 flights, each time got to 590kph sustained (366MPH). Plane should be flying at 375mph and remember that real-life test was with wing racks on, so around 3 mph shaved off.

 

The P51 is trimmed out perfectly. The 109 is kind of wobbly, which means its inducing some drag. How much is a matter of debate. Is it 20km/h worth of drag? I don't think so, but I agree better trim is needed for another test.

 

You can see in the video that I am gaining and loosing altitude, like 2 or 4 meters and it impacts the speed quite significantly, so his quite noticible sideslip and uneven flying contributes a lot to the max sustained speed of the plane. But from my little "test" you can see that 590kph or 366mph is the maximum the current P-51D with 67'hg can reach. But you can also observe the slip indicator and horison to be sure the airplane doesnt drift. Max I have reached was 591kph and lowest was 589kph.

 

Conditions:

Temp:15C;

Pressure:760mmHg

Power: 67'hg

RPM:3000rpm

Weight:4427kg/9760 pounds

 

Max Sustained Speed reached: 590kph 366mph

Edited May 1, 2017 by Solty

[BuzzU]

Which means that in a fight against a 109, you want to engage with an energy advantage and try to keep it throughout the fight. This is of course much easier said than done for a variety of reasons most of which have to do with pilot skill. It takes a lot of discipline and smart flying, not to mention that you need eyes like a hawk. :pilotfly:

 

Not what I was asking. What does Only11 mean?

 

I always wonder why some handles are picked. Some make sense right away and others make no sense to anybody but the owner of the handle. Which I never understood why someone would pick it.

Edited May 1, 2017 by BuzzU

[BuzzU]

I made 3 flights, each time got to 590kph sustained (366MPH). Plane should be flying at 375mph and remember that real-life test was with wing racks on, so around 3 mph shaved off.

 

 

 

You can see in the video that I am gaining and loosing altitude, like 2 or 4 meters. And it impacts the speed quite significantly. But from the little "test" you can see that 590kph or 366mph is the maximum the current P-51D with 67'hg can reach. But you can also observe the slip indicator and horison. Max I have reached was 591kph and lowest was 589kph.

 

Conditions:

Temp:15C;

Pressure:760mmHg

Power: 67'hg

RPM:3000rpm

Weight:4427kg/9760 pounds

 

Max Sustained Speed reached: 590kph 366mph

 

 

Why fly so close to the water? That might slow you down some if it's modeled.

[Zilch]

Literally "sea level." ;)

[BuzzU]

I knew someone would say that. What if the waves were higher? It would then be above sea level when the waves calmed down. :)

[SeaW0lf]

I made 3 flights, each time got to 590kph sustained (366MPH). Plane should be flying at 375mph and remember that real-life test was with wing racks on, so around 3 mph shaved off.

 

You can see in the video that I am gaining and loosing altitude, like 2 or 4 meters and it impacts the speed quite significantly, so his quite noticible sideslip and uneven flying contributes a lot to the max sustained speed of the plane. But from my little "test" you can see that 590kph or 366mph is the maximum the current P-51D with 67'hg can reach. But you can also observe the slip indicator and horison to be sure the airplane doesnt drift. Max I have reached was 591kph and lowest was 589kph.

 

Conditions:

Temp:15C;

Pressure:760mmHg

Power: 67'hg

RPM:3000rpm

Weight:4427kg/9760 pounds

 

Max Sustained Speed reached: 590kph 366mph

 

Sounds like a pretty stable test. Are you going to do the same with the Bf 109? That would be interesting -- a comparison between the two aircrafts carried out by the same person, same methodology.

[BuzzU]

Isn't that what Otto and others did?

[SeaW0lf]

Isn't that what Otto and others did?

 

Solty's video looks pretty stable, almost like he's flying with level flight enabled (which is not available in DCS). And he did three runs and has a methodology, which is crucial to use any data as reference. Otto's video has a lot of tail dragging. It gives an idea, but it leaves it open to discussion.

 

Although Otto's video was a surprise to me. I imagined the Bf 109 was significantly faster from what people say. But IMHO further tests should be done to say it so. Since Solty already did with the P-51, he might want to do the same with the Bf 109, who knows? I would want to know the results.

 

I am still learning to fly the P-51D, and then I am in the dark regarding relative performance.

[BuzzU]

I think the better acceleration of the 109 is fooling guys into thinking it has a better top speed.

 

Personally, i'd prefer the acceleration.

[SeaW0lf]

I think the better acceleration of the 109 is fooling guys into thinking it has a better top speed.

 

Personally, i'd prefer the acceleration.

 

Hard to say anything... At the moment I'm just an observer.

[coopes]

A Mustang pilot came top in Burning Skies for the month April!

How is this possible! He only can run on a maximum of 67"!

I demand balance, bring forth the 262!

[OnlyforDCS]

Sounds like a pretty stable test. Are you going to do the same with the Bf 109? That would be interesting -- a comparison between the two aircrafts carried out by the same person, same methodology.

 

Yeah, that would be interesting. Pretty please with sugar on top. I don't think that Solty flies or owns the 109 though.

 

As for his test compared to Otto's, in Otto's test you can check the g-forces and AoA acting on the planes at all times. It's no less accurate for not portraying the view from the cockpit.

I own both the Mustang and the 109k. I'll try and do a comparison when I find the time. No promises on a video though, if I do it, Ill post results and tracks.

Edited May 2, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[SeaW0lf]

Yeah, that would be interesting. Pretty please with sugar on top. I don't think that Solty flies or owns the 109 though.

 

Yeah, the thought crossed my mind.

 

As for his test compared to Otto's, in Otto's test you can check the g-forces and AoA acting on the planes at all times. It's no less accurate for not portraying the view from the cockpit.

I own both the Mustang and the 109k. I'll try and do a comparison when I find the time. No promises on a video though, if I do it, Ill post results and tracks.

 

That would be nice. I might do it myself as well, but I still have to learn the 109 basics (it's stored in the shed for now :D).

 

 

For the thread in general, my comment on the Mustang being a tad faster than the 109 -- and if that proves to be right -- does not mean that I don't advocate for the 72" update. If it was that way, let's bring it that way regardless, especially with the new Normandy map. I know from bitter experience what uneducated comments and wish lists can do to a developer agenda.

[DieHard]

This is starting to become the A2A-missiles-for-the-BS topic of the WWII community. :P

 

Cooper says can't use that excuse anymore...

 

 

and guns :

 

 

 

{;^)

Edited May 5, 2017 by DieHard

[DieHard]

A Mustang pilot came top in Burning Skies for the month April!

How is this possible! He only can run on a maximum of 67"!

I demand balance, bring forth the 262!

 

Watch TacView, a lot of those Mustang guys cruise at 4,000 meters and must have very high resolution screens to pick me out flying at tree-top level. They usually have a lot of inertia coming at me.

 

109 can out-climb a Mustang, but not if Mustang has a lot of stored up inertia from a dive. Mustang's guns have much longer guns range and lots of ammo >>> "spray and pray" !

 

AND most the guys flying on "Burning Skies" are not that good dog-fighting. I am one of them...

[BuzzU]

Just because you have a lot of ammo doesn't mean you spray and pray.

 

Shoot and kill works better.

 

 

Mustang won the war. :D

[DieHard]

TacView shows it all

[OnlyforDCS]

You mean they miss a lot? Or are they hitting but using up a lot of ammo? Because, landing hits with wing mounted machine guns, is hard. Also, the damage modeling is currently skewed against .50 caliber rounds, which means that they need to do significant damage before you even start to smoke.

[msalama]

Mustang won the war. :D

The Red Army won the war in Europe, whereas two B-29s named Enola Gay and Bockscar won it in the Far East. But I digress...

[BuzzU]

The Red Army won the war in Europe, whereas two B-29s named Enola Gay and Bockscar won it in the Far East. But I digress...

 

You don't feel the hook in your mouth?

 

 

 

The P-47 won the war.

[msalama]

Ummm... nope. The T-34 won the war, actually. :D

[BuzzU]

There you go. Pick any plane. They all work to win the war.

 

 

However, the P-47 really won the war.

[Zilch]

Ummm... nope. The T-34 won the war, actually. :D

 

A remarkable weapons platform:

 

 

:smilewink:

[msalama]

Ehm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

 

I _said_ I digress, did I not? ;)

 

OK, out before I'm thrown... :D

[Solty]

I left for few days and the thread has already been derailed.

 

Solty's video looks pretty stable, almost like he's flying with level flight enabled (which is not available in DCS). And he did three runs and has a methodology, which is crucial to use any data as reference. Otto's video has a lot of tail dragging. It gives an idea, but it leaves it open to discussion.

 

Although Otto's video was a surprise to me. I imagined the Bf 109 was significantly faster from what people say. But IMHO further tests should be done to say it so. Since Solty already did with the P-51, he might want to do the same with the Bf 109, who knows? I would want to know the results.

 

I am still learning to fly the P-51D, and then I am in the dark regarding relative performance.

Thank you. But I cannot make a 109 video. I do not own the plane and I am not planing to buy it, I need the money to buy Normandy.

 

It would be a bit harder to make it fly very stable as it has no trim outside horizontal stabilizer, but it is doable.

 

As a reference I can show you my chase of a 109. He pulled away due to his better acceleration and we both flew at full power over sea level. You can clearly see he is outruning me even though I am flying coordinated and full power.

 

 

------------------------

I own both the Mustang and the 109k. I'll try and do a comparison when I find the time. No promises on a video though, if I do it, Ill post resultsand tracks.

LOL, there is a word for it hypocrisy. Let me respond with the same you told me. In fact I will quote you.

 

He actually took the time to do and record this test. Have you done that? Or are we supposed to take your word for it.

BTW Tracks are unreliable.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Solty