Bf109 Corner Velocity

[shift8]

Yes, they do use the combat weights of the plane so far as the ones ive checked. I used equal fuel in terms of time because I see it as the most fair. IE: a mustang shouldnt be penalized vs a 109 simply because its 25% fuel is alot more gas than a 109s 25%. IIRC, a mustang has as must time as a 109 at 25% fuel as a 109 with 50%. Its one of the reasons I think ww2 turn testing, although rare in the first place, is all over the place in terms of results. I doubt anyone was comparing like that.

[shift8]

Also speaking of the Aces High charts, I would like to mention that despite its age AH probabaly has the best flight models of ANY ww2 sim when it comes to historical accuracy and relative ship performance. The newer sims have FM's are a smidge better in terms of being less quirky, but they suck when it comes to getting the number right.

[FLS]

Yes, they do use the combat weights of the plane so far as the ones ive checked. I used equal fuel in terms of time because I see it as the most fair. IE: a mustang shouldnt be penalized vs a 109 simply because its 25% fuel is alot more gas than a 109s 25%. IIRC, a mustang has as must time as a 109 at 25% fuel as a 109 with 50%. Its one of the reasons I think ww2 turn testing, although rare in the first place, is all over the place in terms of results. I doubt anyone was comparing like that.

I don't see it as a penalty.  We use 25% at sea level as a standard for consistent results but it could just as easily be full fuel at 10,000 ft altitude. When you fight you don't know how much fuel the bandit has unless it's specified for dueling. A P-51 on fumes vs a 109 with full fuel still has to assess relative performance and guess if a slow turn is a new pilot or a tricky one dangling bait.

[shift8]

I don't see it as a penalty.  We use 25% at sea level as a standard for consistent results but it could just as easily be full fuel at 10,000 ft altitude. When you fight you don't know how much fuel the bandit has unless it's specified for dueling. A P-51 on fumes vs a 109 with full fuel still has to assess relative performance and guess if a slow turn is a new pilot or a tricky one dangling bait.

True, in actual combat I cannot know what my or the enemies fuel state will be. But I think a comparison must by definition be done at the most equivalent loads. Testing a fully fueled pony vs a fully fueled 109 for example would just be penalizing the mustang for having a capability margin the 109 doesnt even have. Fueling all the planes equal in percent doesn't always give a valid comparison since many planes have different max fuels, making the percent value quite relative.  Speaking duels though, when its private I usually do insist on equal loads in terms of time as close as the game will allow for. I do agree with your general point on the fumes pony vs a heavy 109. It is true enough that in a real engagement you will have to assess agility on the fly. I think however its good to have a good baseline measurement from a "all things the same" standpoint that can be extrapolated from. For example, if you test both a 109 and 51 at 25%, it tends to lead to the impression that the two planes are significantly different in turn rate, when in fact the difference is small enough that pilot usually is the determining factor.

[FLS]

The way I see it the heavier P-51 is paying a weight penalty because of it's range advantage and the 109 is paying a range penalty for it's weight advantage.  Even if you are simply comparing best WW2 turn performance the weight of the aircraft includes the fuel load or it's just a glider. I'm not saying you're wrong to adjust fuel it just seems overly complicated without a practical benefit. You can't have all things the same with different aircraft.  Adjusting one difference to change one measurement while making another measurement worse is not equivalence in my opinion.

Your method is an interesting different way of comparison but I think it's an artificial equivalence. 

[shift8]

The way I see it the heavier P-51 is paying a weight penalty because of it's range advantage and the 109 is paying a range penalty for it's weight advantage.  Even if you are simply comparing best WW2 turn performance the weight of the aircraft includes the fuel load or it's just a glider. I'm not saying you're wrong to adjust fuel it just seems overly complicated without a practical benefit. You can't have all things the same with different aircraft.  Adjusting one difference to change one measurement while making another measurement worse is not equivalence in my opinion.

Your method is an interesting different way of comparison but I think it's an artificial equivalence. 

The benefit imo is that is provides a baseline with the planes in a state of equal time in the air. The P-51's base airframe weight is not due to it being long ranged. Its overall weight due to fuel is. Comparing without fuel doesnt seem to have a point either since neither plane can fly in that state. It is not fair imo to compare two planes at equal fuel percent when for one plane that might be 500lbs more fuel (exaggerated etc) IIRC, a P-51D and 109G-14 each have about 25min of fuel with the 109 at 50% and the Mustang at 25%. The percent is arbitrary however, because it does not have anything at all to do with doing a equal comparison of aircraft capability. Essentially what  time comparison is doing is: "lets compare the planes with whatever amount of fuel gives each plane a equal time in the air." But I digress.

[FLS]

They all fly without fuel. They just can't take off.   

I understand your point, however since you can only load fuel in 25% increments it makes sense to me to test them that way.

Capability is a general term for aircraft performance which includes range. You might want to be more specific since you are only comparing some aspects of performance.