OutOnTheOP

Way to miss the point. I didn't say anything about relative drag at equal angle of attack, or anything of the like. All things being equal, the harder you pull around the turn, the higher the drag. The Messerschmitt just allows you to go even further into that energy sinkhole than the Mustang does, because it permits higher-alpha maneuvers. Just because the Messerschmitt makes it POSSIBLE to turn all your airspeed into angles, does not make it a wise move. Nonetheless, many (most!) of the online players I've seen in the Bf109K4 are doing just that: turning as hard as they can, without regard for conserving energy. The Bf109K4 has some low-speed turning options that the Mustang doesn't, but those options are generally poor choices in almost all circumstances except getting the last couple degrees to get a shot in (IE, same circumstance that dropping flaps in Mustang would be appropriate). Also, it is gratifying to see that the DCS Bf109K4 are now having appropriate difficulty maintaining high-speed turns with the Mustang.

From that POV, they still screwed up: they modelled a late '44/ early '45 P-51D production block intended for the Pacific theater (you can tell by the twin antenna masts), which historically always operated with (IIRC) 130-grade fuel, and gave it 100 grade. Still an anachronism, whichever way you look at it

...I feel like we are making the same argument

Dingdingding, give the man a prize. This is exactly what I've pointed out all along. Even a cursory 3-minute flight of the Mustang and Kurfurst in DCS will show that the Kurfurst has a DOMINATING, immediately noticeable advantage in turn rate (degrees/second), particularly at low speed. The problem isn't that the Kurfurst can't turn faster, it's that when you choose to employ that tight turn, you dump all your airspeed. A smart Mustang pilot will exploit that and kill you. You can't treat the rapid low-speed turn rate as an "easy button" on the Kurfurst. Yet, I see many, many pilots online trying to do just that, over and over, online. It's a tool in the toolkit, to be used only when the right opportunity presents itself (mostly, this means "it will give you the opportunity to take a shot"), just like dropping combat flaps in the Mustang: not for every situation.

My point is that they can do BOTH. There is plenty of documentation out there regarding the performance of the Merlin (and the P-51D mounting it) with 44-1 fuel.

There should not be *artificial* game balancing. There SHOULD be game *balance*. These are two very different things. For example: if the FW190D9 was found to be performing poorly against P-51D, and Eagle Dynamics decided to just arbitrarily give the FW190D9 an extra 200 horsepower above it's real value, that would be *artificial* game balance. However, if Eagle Dynamics is deciding which aircraft to model to pair with the FW190D9, they could choose to create completely accurate renditions of, say, a 1941-era P-40 Warhawk, or a late-'44 P-51D. Both the P-40 and P-51D could be modelled 100% true-to-life, but obviously, the P-51D would be a better match, "game balance" wise. By selecting to make the P-51D, it is better balance, without sacrificing realism. The same is true of upgrades to an airframe, production lots, field modifications, and (the contentious issue of) fuel quality and type. They can choose to model the P-51D with, or without, 44-1 fuel (150 grade): either way is representative of reality, and in fact both were used *simultaneously*. So it gives Eagle Dynamics some room to "balance", without breaking realism. That said, if we're talking about choices for "balance", ED seemed to go just hog-wild on the Dora, because they gave it every bell and whistle ever mounted on *a* Dora, in a combination that I'm not certain was ever together on *any* Dora (in particular, I take issue with the gyro sight).

Oh, I know... and I'm not about to suggest that the P-51 should out-turn it at slow speed (I dislike the term "outmaneuver", as the term is poorly defined, and can easily include dozens of different factors). The point is that a smart, disciplined pilot in a Mustang just won't let the fight degenerate to low speeds.

I would argue that bomb payload and lack of forward gun payload would indicate that Mosquito should be on the list, but Beaufighter, I agree, is more akin to Me110/ Me410/ P61, and should be regarded as a heavy fighter-bomber. I suppose technically, Mosquito wasn't a bomber, but filled a (now obsolete) role known as an "Invader", which I suppose would be akin to deep strike nowadays. Speaking of which: A-26C with 8-gun nose!

There, fixed it for you :smilewink:

Didn't know about that; though I recall the P-47M came with only 6, default... does it allow the feed trays for the removed gun to be fed to one (or more) of the remaining guns instead?

That should probably be an option for the DCS P-51D, too; there were accommodations in the design for removing two of the guns, which in turn allowed a higher quantity of ammunition per gun and/or reduced overall aircraft weight. I suspect it was a near-tool-less procedure. ...not that *I* want to fly with a 4-gun 'Stang, but it should be an armament option

Seems legit to me :music_whistling:

Finally, you get it! You're right, we shouldn't try to use one picture to prove that a B-17 should always survive a direct 88mm hit. However, it does prove that a B-17 can survive a direct 88mm hit. See the difference? Let's now apply this same logic to the 30mm in DCS, 'k? Strawman. I never said that 30mm should not do significant damage; I said that expecting that it would always kill X aircraft with Y hits (regardless of location of the hits) is nonsense. Hits, plural. How many? We don't know, do we? Entirely believable. Everyday occurence? I don't know, but I doubt it. As the other Otto posted in a video here, there is plenty of film and video evidence of B-17 and -24 flying on with what appears to be negligible damage to overall airworthiness after closer to a dozen hits. I've flown the Bf109K4 in DCS, and in my experience the tail comes right off the Mustang with a quarter-second burst or less. I haven't been anal enough to count exact hits, but can't be more than a couple. On the flip side, dead-astern shots with the .50 into the Dora on more than rare occasion do no discernable damage whatsoever despite putting 100 or more rounds into the aircraft which, due to trajectory, should continue into forward parts of the fuselage. DCS needs to work on damage modeling, period. There's no conspiracy to nerf the 30mm, and X number of hits with the real thing didn't ensure a kill in real life. *edit*: *LOL* I love how, rather than trying to win through the weight of proof, Otto has now added me to his ignore list.... and is so petty that he felt the need to send me a PM to TELL me he put me on his ignore list, as if that's some kind of moral victory!

Funny you should mention; that's the ONLY issue I have with the layout of the P-51D cockpit: given how crucial the slip indicator is during every phase of flight (to include dogfighting and good gunnery), I wish they'd placed it as high on the panel as possible, preferably right next to the gunsight (or better yet, had a slip ball ON the gunsight) As for takeoffs getting easier, I would have to concur that it's mostly a practice and technique thing; it only FEELS easier. Go find a noob and see how easy they find it ;)

...and you don't think an 8% increase in the weight of the aircraft is significant? Ok, I guess our definitions differ.

Surely you can't be serious... or you thought I was referring to the motorkanon.... I was specifically replying to the mention of the underwing gun pods, which added a LOT of weight and drag to the airframe; to the point where there are tons of references by pilots that they hated the way it made the aircraft perform, and many squadrons refused to use them.

The problem with that logic is that a lot of people (who favor the German aircraft) here argue that the Mustang should not have 150 grade fuel because "the DCS Mustang is supposed to represent a 9th Tactical Air Force Mustang", but by that same logic, they would NOT be using drop tanks, because they would be, well, *tactical* aircraft on relatively short-range missions. Also, we're not talking "real" conditions of the real fights; if we were, we would also have to consider the shoddy late war German quality control, poor fuel, and insufficient number of fighters. We're talking purely about the capabilities of factory-fresh, built-to-spec fighters. To make that an honest discussion, you have to take out ALL variables, not just the ones you feel like avoiding. Unless you want to go down rabbit holes about how poor Luftwaffe POL was in late '44 and '45, or that the Kurfurst *also* had to tote around a belly tank just to have the loiter time for an intercept, let's do apples to apples. Similar fuel loadout, no externals.

LULZ I see what you did there. Sure is a good thing that television documentaries are so unerringly reliable, lest I think that maybe that stock footage had been re-used by multiple nationalities and claimed as kills made by different aircraft with vastly differing weapons systems ;)

Ohh, ok. So we're supposed to trust a Russian television documentary, but not the USAAF archives. Gotcha. Man, these rules sure are hard to remember! Oh, and it took me under 5 seconds to google a photo of a B-17 that survived an 88mm hit amidships (around the waist guns). http://imagesia.com/dam-b17-flak-hit-amidships-1_dkvl Do they not teach devil's advocacy where you grew up? Do you not even UNDERSTAND sarcasm? Because the whole POINT is that these claims are ridiculous. The luftwhiners make preposterous claims about what they think the 30mm *should* do, and try to back that up with unverified video, so I show you how ridiculous that is by doing the same from the allied side, making outlandish claims based on cherry-picked videos. Do you *really* not understand that?

Methinks your sarcasm detector needs to go in for calibration...

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think we SHOULD allow cherry-picked youtube videos to serve as unquestioned, absolute proofs. I mean, obviously .50 cal was so explosive it could blow the wing clean off a Fw190 in a massive explosion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU , 8:52) No, wait, I mean, obviously the .50 API was so destructive, it would vaporize TRAINS! Just look at it! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU , 7:30 )

.... I see what you did there :smilewink:

Particularly when you consider that we don't know what make of Fw190 that was, and therefore it could easily have been an -A8 with a wingful of 20 and 30mm ammo, known for sympathetic detonation when hit; that huge explosion could have been a 37mm, or a 37mm and DOZENS of 30mm Also, how do you KNOW it was from a 37mm Russian cannon? Could you read the lettering on the 37mm? Maybe it was a 76.2mm AA gun. :megalol:

Are you really going to argue that? Ok, so, they may not have been able to read the lettering on the shell, but unless you can think of a SMALLER German surface-fired munition that could reach cruising altitude of a B-17, Ima go with "88". Because, y'know, a 3.7cm FlaK 37 can TOTALLY reach 25,000+ feet. By the same logic, those B-17s could just as easily have survived having a 12.8cm FlaK40 hit them. No, wait, wait, another bomber above them blew them up with a 1,000 pound bomb, and they flew home afterward! If the best you have is denial of a fairly obvious circumstances because you "don't know for sure" what the hit was from, that can be used both ways. Ridiculous argument is ridiculous.

Or, y'know, maybe it just means the F4U had more available alpha before flow separation, which would have absolutely NOTHING to do with high speed sustained turns, just low-speed maneuvering at the corner of the envelope no pilot worth the title should ever find themselves in a fight,