109G vs spit9, 109g vs p51

[Ardy123]

The Spitfire Mk XVI in AH is actually a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe.  

ahh didn't know that

[STEELE]

The first guy says he has never flown a spit, the 2nd guy is the one who has , and the one who says the 109 turns tighter and holds E better in a turn.
Where to draw the line btwn anecdote and fact? Test pilot reports could technically be considered anecdotes. Does the plane have to be flown by robots to give an accurate performance report?
Mil. Channel should do a flyoff between the old rivals, all with ballast to simulate ammo load to solve the questions once and for all.  :AOK

[Widewing]

The first guy says he has never flown a spit, the 2nd guy is the one who has , and the one who says the 109 turns tighter and holds E better in a turn.
Where to draw the line btwn anecdote and fact? Test pilot reports could technically be considered anecdotes. Does the plane have to be flown by robots to give an accurate performance report?
Mil. Channel should do a flyoff between the old rivals, all with ballast to simulate ammo load to solve the questions once and for all.  :AOK

A test pilot goes through a rigid and difficult training program. His aircraft is equipped with data recorders and cameras. He flies a very specific test card. More often that not, WWII test pilots were combat veterans as well. In short, no one in the flight test community then or now, will consider test reports generated by these pilots as anecdotal in any way.

Now, the typical warbird owner was never trained as a test pilot (there are a few exceptions, such as Hoover and Henriques). A considerable number were never military pilots. These days, warbird owners are well represented by guys with deep pockets rather than military and combat experience.

So, the comments provided in that video clip represent ignorance more than knowledge. Especially when WWII test pilots on both sides have stated the exact opposite. Indeed, as Krusty pointed out, these guys have never flown these aircraft at anything approaching the limits of performance. You will never experience the behavior at the limits if you don't push to them. Like the middle-aged stock broker down the block with the Porsche 911 Turbo Carrera, he can only describe the limits of his skills or fear, which will never approach the limits of his machine. He would need a great deal of training to actually begin to explore the limits of his Porsche, and even then will probably not have the natural talent required to truly extract everything the Porsche has.

As to competitive fly-offs being done these days.. Forget about that. These aircraft are extremely rare and valuable. The cost of rebuilding an engine can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. No warbird owner wants his aircraft flogged that hard. The best data already exists, just read it.

[Karnak]

But Widewing, the data doesn't say what he wants it to say.

[Tupac]

But Widewing, the data doesn't say what he wants it to say.

Thats what I was thinking

[Ardy123]

Mil. Channel should do a flyoff between the old rivals, all with ballast to simulate ammo load to solve the questions once and for all.  :AOK

The "victory channel" is anything but factually accurate. For example, the show "dogfights" It regularly makes gross inaccurate statements about various planes capabilities.

[drgondog]

A test pilot goes through a rigid and difficult training program. His aircraft is equipped with data recorders and cameras. He flies a very specific test card. More often that not, WWII test pilots were combat veterans as well. In short, no one in the flight test community then or now, will consider test reports generated by these pilots as anecdotal in any way.

Now, the typical warbird owner was never trained as a test pilot (there are a few exceptions, such as Hoover and Henriques). A considerable number were never military pilots. These days, warbird owners are well represented by guys with deep pockets rather than military and combat experience.

So, the comments provided in that video clip represent ignorance more than knowledge. Especially when WWII test pilots on both sides have stated the exact opposite. Indeed, as Krusty pointed out, these guys have never flown these aircraft at anything approaching the limits of performance. You will never experience the behavior at the limits if you don't push to them.  . The cost of rebuilding an engine can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. . The best data already exists, just read it.

Exceptional summary

[drgondog]

Note: VERY few warbirds of any genre have gentle departure characteristics.. a specific example relative to this discussion is the frequent snap roll/flat spin maneuver that no wishes to experience first hand in a high G stall.

Millionaire warbird owner with brains usually want to relive the experience of flying one.

[Ardy123]

A test pilot goes through a rigid and difficult training program. His aircraft is equipped with data recorders and cameras. He flies a very specific test card. More often that not, WWII test pilots were combat veterans as well. In short, no one in the flight test community then or now, will consider test reports generated by these pilots as anecdotal in any way.

Now, the typical warbird owner was never trained as a test pilot (there are a few exceptions, such as Hoover and Henriques). A considerable number were never military pilots. These days, warbird owners are well represented by guys with deep pockets rather than military and combat experience.

So, the comments provided in that video clip represent ignorance more than knowledge. Especially when WWII test pilots on both sides have stated the exact opposite. Indeed, as Krusty pointed out, these guys have never flown these aircraft at anything approaching the limits of performance. You will never experience the behavior at the limits if you don't push to them. Like the middle-aged stock broker down the block with the Porsche 911 Turbo Carrera, he can only describe the limits of his skills or fear, which will never approach the limits of his machine. He would need a great deal of training to actually begin to explore the limits of his Porsche, and even then will probably not have the natural talent required to truly extract everything the Porsche has.

As to competitive fly-offs being done these days.. Forget about that. These aircraft are extremely rare and valuable. The cost of rebuilding an engine can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. No warbird owner wants his aircraft flogged that hard. The best data already exists, just read it.

The thing is, is that Skip Holms is correct.

In the video, the 109 looks like a g2

A G2 will turn with a spit (within 20 feet). All the 109s will out turn a p51 any day.

---spec---	---P51 D---	---P51 B---	---Spit 16---	---Spit 9---	---109 G2---	---109 k4---
turn (no flaps)	777	766	567	632	636	703
turn (full flaps)	633	598	450	433	467	533

[drgondog]

What is the source for your posted turn data - and what additional parameters are included? like Gross weight, rated Hp, altitude, sustained turn? if so, what G levels recorded.. all tests reduced to STP, instruments calibrated, etc, etc

[Ardy123]

What is the source for your posted turn data - and what additional parameters are included? like Gross weight, rated Hp, altitude, sustained turn? if so, what G levels recorded.. all tests reduced to STP, instruments calibrated, etc, etc

The figures relate to the planes in AH.

http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php

Also you can do your own in testing with "Badboys calculator". Search the BBS for it, it will extract the values from the game.

Although anecdotal, in AH, my findings correlate with the table, I never have trouble out turning p51s, and in a G2, I can turn with spits all day (except for spit 5 and earlier).

[Stoney]

...I never have trouble out turning p51s, and in a G2, I can turn with spits all day (except for spit 5 and earlier).

What do you mean when you say "out turn"?  Better sustained turn radius?  Better turn rate?  Or just the ability to gain angles during a fight in-game?  Those are three completely different things.  During these comparative performance comparisons, it is absolutely essential that precise language is used to compare performance.  That means having a thorough understanding of what each term means.  I've been able to kill Spits in a Jug in a turn fight before.  That doesn't mean it has a better turn radius or turn rate--merely that I've been able to gain angles sufficient for a shot during the fight.

When Tango says "aeroDYNAMICS", its very important to understand the importance of the capitalized part...

[Ardy123]

What do you mean when you say "out turn"?  Better sustained turn radius?  Better turn rate?  Or just the ability to gain angles during a fight in-game?  
blah.. blah...

"Out turn" = sustained turn radius. The figures I posted were for best sustained turn radius.

but as a side note...

"Or just the ability to gain angles during a fight in-game? " = yes to that too for different reasons.

I people have posted the turn curves before on both the p51 and the 109s in the BBS, which show both the corner speed and sustained turn rate.
If you are willing, I'll will go to the TA with you, and we can test and post the video.

Here is Badboys calculator thread
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,284578.0.html

Badboy could you please update the link

[moot]

Second link in the above works
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,284578.msg3688792.html#msg3688792

[drgondog]

In general I respect and like what Badboy achieved in his broad models. 

Having said this I disagree with the flight mechanics of the model wrt low ratios of Vturn/Vmax at or near CLmax. 

Simply, absent CFD and/or flight test data for variations in Parasite drag due to increases in AoA - which is required to achieve the low speed T=D equations -

you just can't 'get there from here' with level flight, low AoA models based on level flight CLmax at Power on stalls or CDo for sub mach critical speeds calculated from max level flight dash speeds with known HP and known altitudes and Gross Weights.

As to 'fixing it', I have no suggestions which embrace everything from a 'draggy Me 109G' to a 'clean P-51D' in high bank angle, asymmetric, high AoA, large viscous drag flight conditions in which even Prop efficiencies at max power/low airspeed are suspect.

Which, Ardy, caused me to ask about your sources for the results..