Turn times P51D vs BF109

[MAKO]

Unrealistic turn times. P51 could outturn 109s. it had more manuverability and that is a fact. dont know why the 109s have almost 3 seconds less than the P51's when in reality the mustang could turn better.

[JDawg147]

Use your flaps mayne

[Illusionyary]

All the P-51s turn in 20 seconds according to the stat cards when spaded. The G2 turns in 19, but the P-51 will out maneuver it if flown correctly. The stat-cards don't tell the whole story, you should use them are reference only and rely on your own experiences instead.

Also keep in mind that a stock vehicle handles considerably worse than a spaded one, and you may not start enjoying it until spaded.

[Eftwyrd]

the p51 turns better at high speed and badly at low speed due to its laminar flow wing, the bf109 being an old airframe turned well at low speed while not being as good at high speed, funily enough exactly how it is ingame. you do understand what the laminar flow wing does right? because your 'fact' only holds in some situations

[MAKO]

Thanks for the advice

[Darth Shader]

I know this is late but, to be precise:

The Bf-109 gains a massive turn rate boost exceeding 350kph whilst at 550kph rudder stiffening occurs. The P51 is made to still turn well at high speeds, since it's a high speed fighter plane. I could almost keep up with a P-51 at 400kph while being stock, which is true to real life. The Bf-109 as far as I know is a high energy fighter, meaning it needs some speed to perform well. Just fyi the Spitfire stands at the opposite range of this scale, performing well at low speeds.

[Eftwyrd]

Originally posted by Cross Zero:

The Bf-109 as far as I know is a high energy fighter, meaning it needs some speed to perform well. Just fyi the Spitfire stands at the opposite range of this scale, performing well at low speeds.

that situation reverses once you get to tier 4 and griffon spits which sacrifice their old low speed performance for better high speed and energy retention. the old bf109 airframe from the 30s however stays much the same and is generally worse than most later fighters at high speed but retains some lower speed performance late fighters like the spitfire and p51 simply wernt designed for

[Darth Shader]

Yeah I heard about that. I once read the Bf-109s ingame are massively nerfed compared to their real life counterparts for balancing reasons, dunno how much about that is true, I only know that Bf-109s and Spitfires were evenly matched in real life in pretty much every aspect except effective speed range. It's said Adolf Galland wanted some Spitfires because they performed better when escorting bombers, which fly pretty slow.

[captain gimmick]

Originally posted by Cross Zero:

Yeah I heard about that. I once read the Bf-109s ingame are massively nerfed compared to their real life counterparts for balancing reasons, dunno how much about that is true, I only know that Bf-109s and Spitfires were evenly matched in real life in pretty much every aspect except effective speed range.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html
Found this. Spitfires seem to be slighty better.

[Darth Shader]

Hrrrrm, that doesn't seem to represent the in-game situation. Then again it's the Mk. 1 against the Emil. Anything on the Gustav?

[Spaddobird]

Originally posted by Cross Zero:

It's said Adolf Galland wanted some Spitfires because they performed better when escorting bombers, which fly pretty slow.

Galland wrote in his book "the Me 109 was superior in attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire which, although a little slower, was much more maneuverable"

At that point the 109 was being used for bomber defence and not performing as Goering had hoped. Galland jokingly requested a squadron of spitfires because he was frustrated with Goering's expectations.

But we already knew the Spitfire could out turn the 109 anyway.

[Darth Shader]

Ok, this is heavily digressing from the topic, maybe this is stuff for another discussion.
Anyway, the Bf-109 needed speed which it hadn't because it needed to fly at the bombers speed. Also, as I said, it's a matter of speed, and in a sustained dogfight it is most likely the 109s will loose their speed advantage, flying below their agility sweetspot, if they aren't careful. However, anything before the Griffon has an aweful energy retention, which means while the Spitfire certainly would win in a horizontal turnfight sooner or later, the Bf-109 wins if they keep things vertical where pre-Griffon Spitfires bleed energy like crazy. In a 1v1 anyway, in squad vs sqaud the performance of the squad altogether makes a huge difference.

[Shypigeon]

They are based off real flight models, the BF-109 should turn better at low speeds.

[Kotvogel]

Besides of the flightmodels we need a correct simulation of the physical condition of the pilots cause it was pretty causual for german pilots to be high as ♥♥♥♥ by using methamphetamine called panzerschokolade or Stuka Tablets by the germans.

[Darth Shader]

@Corneye: As I said, balancing reasons. I'm ok with that as long as they don't "base off reality" the same way Wargaming does i.e. not at all in the moment.

@Kotvogel: I only know of Fliegerschokolade, but nice to know. Also, as far as I read, they weren't high, the dosage was just high enough to reduce feelings of fear and boost concentration a bit.