OutOnTheOP

Of course I have tried them, and generally enjoy them (and the MiG-21). Why would you get the impression I had not? I simply stated that I enjoy the simpler fighters for PvP play. ...of course, the *problem* is that many of the people designing missions for multiplayer servers feel inclined to have the biggest and baddest aircraft on them, and it's a lot *less* fun playing with MiG-21 against F-15, or F-86 against Su-27. Having a good match available makes it a lot more likely that you'll see servers with less of that frustration. Until F-5 comes out, MiG-21 is kind of an orphan module for MP. It's either fighting F-86 it totally outclasses, or F-15s that it cannot really match.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the F-5E, and I *hope* it's a WVR-only version. I'd like Maverick (just because so many missions online have tanks and IFVs as the main, if not only, ground targets, and dumb bombs are pretty crap against them), but I could do without sparrow or amraam. The reason I look forward to the F-5 is the same as why I like the WW2 prop jobs: you have much more limited performance, you can't just climb and climb all day (since it has insufficient thrust:weight compared to the modern superbirds), and weapons employment parameters are more limited. All in all, it's less about the avionics, and more about pilot vs pilot. Dogfights last longer than with the high pK modern missiles, and the fight goes to the guy who out-thinks and out-flies his foe. Also, the F-5 is just tiny and adorable. :D

An F-16? F/A-18G? Even an F-4G. Anything with adequate speed and ceiling, preferably a dedicated weapons and sensor officer. If you mean Russian, a Su27 derivative (Kh31 capable). Su24 (Kh58 capable) would even be better than Su25. Su25 has none of the characteristics of a good SEAD aircraft (besides perhaps loiter time).

....for which, the Su25 is a TERRIBLE choice. It does not have the speed or performance to be good at it (as in, it can't get itself out of trouble once it gets in, and SEAD aircraft are out there looking for trouble), it has insufficiently advanced sensors to adequately acquire radars, and it doesn't have sufficiently advanced navigation for preplan SEAD missions. Just because it *can* do SEAD, doesn't make it a good choice. That's like bragging that the F-104 can drop bombs. :doh: That's kind of the problem in comparing the Su25 with the A-10. The A-10 is a CAS aircraft. The Su25 is a front-line attack aircraft. The Su25 generally performs missions closer to that performed by an F-16 than those performed by A-10. Really, it kind of occupies a middle ground somewhere between an A-10 and an A2G-configured F-16. For true CAS, A-10 is superior on account of it's sensor and weapons suite, and for BAI and strike, F-16 is (generally) better due to better aerodynamic performance and much higher speed.

Why would a destroyed aircraft suddenly become non-radar reflective? I mean, if it had been damaged and shed large, irregular shaped pieces of aluminum, I would expect it to be MORE visible on radar than an intact aircraft. For that matter, I would expect it to keep moving (under inertia and gravity) for a while, too. But if you're saying a radar return remained after the aircraft had impacted the ground, yes, that sounds like a bug.

Exactly. You can hit a maneuvering target, but since the velocity is low (and as a result, time of flight of the projectile is so long), you have to be extremely close or any slight change of flight vector of the target will cause a miss. The battery of .50s on the Mustang fires a LOT more bullets per second, in a harmonized pattern, at a much higher velocity and therefore much lower time of flight at any given range. Estimation errors in lead, and unexpected target motion (jinking) are therefore lessened, and effective range (the range at which you can reasonably expect hits in a combat situation) is much greater. I can hit maneuvering targets with the 30mm.... but I can hit them from three times as far away with the .50s.

Where did I ever say it was? In fact, that's kind of exactly what I'm getting at: the variations in performance on the fighters are so small that they can be easily nullified with good tactics. I feel the Dora is an inferior turnfighter to the Mustang, but I only know that because I've had a LOT of time to dogfight them in controlled, stress-free conditions. If it were a real war, and my contact with the type was a single encounter probably lasting under a minute, I doubt I'd even perceive there *was* a difference in performance between their aircraft and mine.

Ok... just making sure you didn't have access to some that I haven't seen. I used the ones on the Kurfurst site and the WWiiaircraftperformance.com charts for the v 1650-3 and -7. From what I see, around 20,000 to 25,000 they're quite close in power output, with the v 1650-7 edging out the DB 605 as you get even higher. Considering the cleaner aerodynamics on the Mustang, it should be expected to build speed faster and loose it less quickly (barring accelerated stalls) at high altitude. Top speed at height seems to bear that out. All considered, they seem quite close in performance up high, with level and diving performance going to the Mustang and climbing arguably going to the Kurfurst. Considering the wide turning circles up high, longer range shots would be more common than the super-short range shots you get down low (as the target cannot deny the long-range shot by sharply turning in the way they can in the denser air down low), so the weapons and sighting on the Mustang is also at a greater advantage up high. Down low, I have found that the biggest difference between the two seems to be in cooling: I can run the Kurfurst all day at max MW50 and low speed, but the Mustang will toast its engine if you push it too long at low speeds. Luckily, 10 degrees flaps (well timed) will allow the Mustang to horse the nose around fast enough to get a killing burst in before the engine gets *too* hot. The only frustration I've had with the Kurfurst is that it can more easily disengage from the fight by climbing out... assuming it can pull away out of guns range quickly before starting to climb (which, luckily, many Kurfurst pilots online seem too impatient to do). Sure, the Kurfurst has more horsepower, but I've never actually seen that manifest in a dogfight as a noticeable advantage. I think the higher drag seems to more or less cancel it out. Or maybe every single Messerschmidt pilot I've fought online was really sloppy. Who knows? *edit: I should note that I make these comparisons at equal fuel weights... which is, of course, not equal fuel percentages; it is more like 80% fuel in the Kurfurst and 34% in the Mustang. Just because the Mustang can carry a zillion gallons doesn't mean it would have to if expected to perform the same short-range interceptor role as the Kurfurst. Obviously a Mustang at 80% internal capacity against a Kurfurst at 80% internal capacity isn't a fair fight. Speaking of interceptor Mustangs, it would be great if a -H Mustang was modeled at some point, as that is the technological and generally chronological contemporary of the Kurfurst, and would have been put in service had there been a perceived performance gap. As it was, there just wasn't a need for it; I suspect the allied pilots never even knew the Kurfurst had better on-paper performance, because by the time it came out, it was flown by rookies, fueled with fairly low-grade synthetic fuel, and suffering from inadequate spare parts and manufacturing capability (not to mention crushing numerical superiority of the allies), so the observed performance probably never quite lived up to the technical specifications.

Exactly. That's what I was getting at earlier: the AI logic is so stupid, they will try to use a high-speed aircraft as a low-speed turn fighter, and put themselves into really bad positions by doing so

And yet, at 23,000 feet, the v1650-7 and DB605D, from what I have seen, are both pushing right around 1300 hp. With the same output, but a cleaner airframe on the Mustang, that still puts the advantage to the Mustang up high. At 26,000 feet, the v 1650-7 is still pushing 1270. Maybe I should have said "over 20,000" instead of "over 18,000", but still, the higher you get, the closer their engines are performing. I haven't seen many solid power curve charts for the DB 605D, though... I seem to recall you were searching for one not long ago, Yo-Yo. Ever find one, and could you please share it if so?

Really? I find it quite easy to hide behind one of the many oversized canopy bows the kurfurst has cluttering it's tiny cockpit ;) Seriously, though, the kurfurst has the edge in low altitude 1v1, but above 18,000 feet or in a many vs many, the superior situational awareness, better gun sight, and flatter trajectory .50 cal bullets make it much easier to put bullets on baddies in the 51; at least in my opinion

You make it sound so simple, but the P-51 does have better maneuvering characteristics at high speeds. For the 109 to win, it really has to sucker the P-51 into burning off it's energy. At high altitudes, where the P-51 was best suited, the 109 *cannot* turn with a P-51, period. Up past 18,000 feet or so, the 109 loses too much of it's engine power.

It also has heavy control forces at high speeds, miserable situational awareness, and a gunsight/ nose design that makes deflection shooting nigh impossible. It also has ridiculously poor ballistics on the 30mm which makes it practically impossible to hit maneuvering targets (except AI, which aren't particularly good at guns defense; they offer nice smooth sweeping turns) None of which affect the AI, but which do affect human players (and real pilots) This is part of why I absolutely refuse to play on servers with labels on: it gives an unrealistically huge advantage to the 109 pilots who suddenly have one of their biggest deficiencies magically removed (since they can suddenly see through their obtrusive canopy frame and the back of the aircraft), while nullifying the advantage the Mustang has in superior SA, to include the tail warning radar. It makes a HUGE difference. On a related note, though, it seems that the AI is a little less sniper-ific in the latest patches. They're still good, but they have much more believable margins of error in aiming. No longer do they always put the first round right through your windscreen.

It seems to me it's more a matter of the AI Mustang pilots not being very good at exploiting the 109's weaknesses, nor of using the 51's strengths. All three of the WW2 AI seem to run the same "playbook" right now. They are "impatient", and tend to turn hard in to an opponent without ever extending to rebuild energy, they rarely split-S or use any downward energy-building maneuver, over-use zoom climbs and stall turns, and like rolling scissors. All of these maneuvers favor the aircraft with greater power loading and superior low-speed handling, and are detrimental to the aircraft that performs best at high speed. In PvP online, I have had absolutely no problem mangling 109s with the '51, generally taking between 1:1 and 3:1 ratios against them. I find them little more challenging than the '51 (though harder than the 190), but you *really* can't fight them the same way. If you fight a 109 like you would fight a 190, you will lose. You just have to keep your speed up and be patient. I love it when the 109s break hard into an attack to try to force a hard turning fight, because I just zoom climb out and look to re-enter the fight, now that they have burned all their energy off. It's hard to kill a 109 in a single pass, because the best method of attack against them is often a high-speed diving pass, usually at high deflection angles- because 109 pilots seem to jump straight to "haul back on the stick as hard as you can" when threatened, and kill their airspeed immediately (not without reason; the pilots are trying to play to their ride's best characteristics, and trying to sucker their opponent into burning off their energy, too). This, of course, means that flying with a wingman is very effective against 109s, because the type of fight the 109 is best suited for means that the pilots are often more inclined to fall for drag-n-bag tactics. If you try to get into the slow, hard-turn fight in a '51 against a 109, you had better enter the fight in a position to take a killing shot immediately, because otherwise, the 109 will just keep pulling you around a tight turn until your engine overheats. You *can* hold a turn with a 109 at low speeds, if you use 10 degrees of elevator. Problem is that to keep up in the turn you have to max your throttle, and even with radiators full open, you can only last a minute or two before you overheat due to insufficient airflow at those speeds.

I hope so. I'd really love to see some Mosquitos and Me410s and Yak9 and A-26s and P-61s and B-17s and C-47s and Pe2s and C.202s and Horsa and.... ...but of course, there are some that are needed before others. I think B-17 or B-24 is most desperately needed, followed by Ju88 or He111

Absolutely, the weather affects the other prop aircraft; the most noticeable difference is that you will start with your oil temperature extremely low, and if you push the throttle forward with the oil temperature low, it will cause the oil pressure to surge (because the oil is too viscous at low temperature), which will blow gaskets and ruin the engine. However, once you get your temperature in the correct operating range, you will find you can push the engine harder, because it won't overheat as easily... so high-throttle, low-speed, hard-turning dogfights are less likely to fry your engine. As to their effect on the aerodynamic performance, I *believe* they do affect climb rate, which increases due to the denser air, and airspeed, which decreases due to the denser air. However, as that is a much more subtle effect than the engine behaviour, I can't personally confirm it; I haven't done the kind of precisely controlled testing that would confirm it.

That, or ground test stand and/or wind tunnel. I know that similar tests were run for the US Packard Merlins before standardizing the uprated WEP limits (72/75 and 90"), where it had to be run for seven(!!!) hours straight at the WEP rating without failing. It was accomplished on a test stand with a simulated cooling system; I would imagine a wind-tunnel type setup blowing through the radiator assembly

Yes, and at more than a few points, that same table (88 ) tells a different story (note this is from an overleaf page, so you have to count down the rows based on the previous page's legend, which would have been on the opposite leaf): April 44, 2040 B-24, 1860 B-17 in theaters vs Germany. May 44, 2484 B-24, 1863 B-17 vs Germany. June 44, 2440 B-24, 1786 B-17 vs Germany. July 44, 2594 B-24, 2011 B-17 vs Germany. August 44, 2685 B-24, 2195 B-17 vs Germany. September 44, 2661 B-24, 2334 B-17 vs Germany In October, the B-17 finally overtakes the B-24. But when considering for what is, as was rather snidely pointed out to me earlier, supposed to be "Europe 1944", and the "Normandy" theater, it seems that the relative numbers during the period from the landings in early June, until the Operation Cobra breakout in early August, are the most pertinent to consider. Yes, B-24 was drawn down in Europe after Cobra; at that point, very-long-range aircraft were much more valuable in the Pacific, considering that continental bases were available in Europe after that (yes, I'm aware the 8th AF continued to operate from England, but the point is that the planners would have known that if they needed to strike targets further east, that they had airfields from which they could) Moreover, table 91 (aircraft in theaters against Japan) shows not a single, one, solitary B-17 after November 1943. Not one. Ultimately, it's worth considering that while ED may be advertising "Europe 1944" now, there are other developers with an eye on other theater (with LNS strongly hinting at a Zero); the B-24 fits in to Europe every bit as well as the B-17, and it also it fits in the Pacific infinitely better than late-model B-17s.

. Exactly. You can't forget the 15th, operating out of the Mediterranean (later out of Italy itself), against targets in German-controlled territory, to include Germany itself. Not to mention key targets in the Balkans (Romanian petrochemical industry, for example). 30 groups of B-24, and 32 of B-17 in the west, after D-Day, all told. Prior to that, five of the groups operated B-24 instead of B-17. And in the Pacific, it was essentially *all* B-24, and no B-17 whatsoever. It still remains that the B-24 has been done great disservice in historical telling. 19,000 B-24 were built, vice only 12,700 B-17. Either way, the B-24 had higher top speed, larger bombload, and a better defensive layout (specifically, I'm talking about nose and tail positions on the -24 vice the -17).

I'm in total agreement we need some serious daylight bombers for the WW2 set to really "take off", but the more I think about it, the more I believe a B-24 would be a better choice than a B-17. The B-24 was produced in significantly higher numbers, saw extensive use in the Pacific (while, iirc the B-17 did not, outside the very early campaigns), the B-24 was much more heavily used in the maritime patrol role, and the B-24 had significantly better performance all around. It also would be nice from a historical perspective, because while everyone always thinks of the B-17, the B-24 was more significant to the war effort and more numerous, so having it be the lead-in heavy for DCS (even if only AI) would be a nice teaching point for people with only a casual understanding of WW2 history (in much the way having a Lancaster would be a nice teaching point for the US-centric folk who have never heard much about the British nightime heavy bomber campaign- though it wouldn't fit in the current plane set as nicely, as WW2 night ops are poorly covered in general right now)

quick search: B-17 takeoff run, 3400 feet. Su25 takeoff run, 1200 meters. So... maybe from the heavy bomber airfields... but just barely. Certainly not from the fighter fields. Still the exception, rather than the rule; any of the high-performance modern aircraft need more runway; particularly for landings. Good luck with the MiG21 =P

The "why" is simple: so players have additional variety on where they can fly. They currently fly WW2 missions over a modern Caucasus map and have plenty of fun doing so; why would modern aircraft over a 1940s map be out of the question, other than the limitations of airstrip length? If ED went truly all-out, they could even write a replacement script where 1940s-style buildings were one-for-one replaced with more modern-looking structures. It would, of course, not be an accurate modern map, as building density would be too low, but seriously, do you need a Google-Street-View level of real-world precision to enjoy the simulation?

If they only go with historical airfields, that's an unqualified "YES". The airfields of the period are not long enough to support modern aircraft, and in many cases were not paved, or if paved, not hardened to bear the weight of modern aircraft. Now, if ED is smart, they will put the airfields onto the map as the very last step of making the map, and will make a variant where the tiny grass fields are replaced with modern length, paved fields, so there will be a variant that can be used with modern aircraft.

There seems to be a bit of reduction of contrast between aircraft and their background, which increases with distance... which makes it rather harder to spot aircraft at long distances than it used to. I feel like medium-range spotting is much easier, short range spotting is the same, but long range spotting is somewhat harder than 1.2. However, I can say that as soon as I realized that the game wouldn't play full-screen mode unless I used control-enter, the experience improved. For some reason, my game seems to run a slightly different color palette (or shaders?) in full screen than in windowed borderless mode. Colors are brighter and there is somewhat more contrast in full screen, and it makes spotting significantly easier. Pretty happy with it in full screen mode.

.303 is 7.7mm. Strictly speaking, both the British .303, the Japanese 7.7mm, and the Russian 7.62mm all shoot .310-.312 inch diameter bullets (with the grooves in the barrel being around .310 inch, and the lands being between .303 and .30 inches). I handload both Brit .303 and Japanese Arisaka 7.7mm; both use the same .310 inch diameter, 172 grain bullet. The US ".30 caliber" in fact shoots .308 inch diameter bullets. Caliber names aren't always precise, because sometimes they're measured from groove to groove (this is the more modern way to do it), sometimes from land to land (this method was more predominately used when black powder guns were common; the .303 was originally a black powder cartridge and uses this nomenclature), and sometimes named for the nominal diameter of the bullet before it is ever so slightly squeezed into the bore. Sometimes they call a caliber something different than it is, just to differentiate it; for example, FN's "5.7mm" is in fact a 5.56mm; it shoots the exact same diameter bullet as NATO 5.56, they just changed the name so it wasn't confused with 5.56x45mm. Looks like it's the C wing then; the model and the damage on the track indicate it's 4x .303s