Echo38

Very cool! It's surprising how much a few invasion stripes & iron crosses make the modern stuff look less inappropriate. : )

This is an interesting point. In real life, speed is life, and you usually don't want to slow down to sustained turn speeds in air combat. It's a quick way to get killed by another fighter you don't see, and minimizes your options for disengaging if things don't work as planned. So, usually, IRL, they had loads of altitude and loads of speed, and were in no hurry to burn either one. If they couldn't get a good shot right away, they'd often try to extend, or to maneuver defensively (staying fast, rather than burning E to try to get on the enemy's tail) while waiting for a friendly to help out. Thus, the nature of real air combat, with greater fighter saturation and real consequences, was such that "burn E to get on his tail ASAP and finish the fight at sustained turn speed" wasn't the order of the day, the way it often is in multiplayer sims. Most simmers put a greater priority on potential kills, and a lower priority on personal survival, than real fighter pilots. After all, we respawn each time. For this reason, I believe, real air combat tends to happen at much higher speeds (as well as altitudes), on average, and thus takes far longer to get down to sustained turn speed. So, IRL, instantaneous turn often matters more than sustained turns. The F model had better instantaneous turn than the G, but I expect most G variants to have better sustained turn (because of the power increases). So, a simmer might rightly consider the G-10 more maneuverable than the F, because we're more concerned with sustained turns, because our burn-E-to-make-the-kill duels at low altitude get down to sustained turn speeds very quickly. But a real fighter pilot might rightly consider the F more maneuverable than the G-10, because he's more concerned with instantaneous turns, because he has a lot more E to work with. For these reasons, in real life, if given the choice between two fighters, one of which had better instantaneous turn and the other of which had better sustained turn--well, I'd take the one that was faster, but if speed wasn't the deciding factor--I'd take the one that had better instantaneous turn. However, in a sim, I'd take the one with sustained turn, rather than the one with instantaneous. The overly-aggressive (good for kills/hour, bad for survival chances) way that we simmers behave ... we spend most of the fight at sustained turn speeds. In a duel to the death, sustained turn beats instantaneous turn, because when both pilots perform maximum-effectiveness maneuvers to get a killshot, very little of the fight is spent at corner turning speed and most of it will be at sustained. You're more familiar with 109 variants than I am. Which variant do you think would be the closest match for a 67" P-51D, at low altitude? I'm guessing the G-14/AS? Maybe G-6/AS? How do all of the major post-F 109 variants compare for low-altitude speed? Speed's the major factor here, because all of them are going to handily out-turn and out-climb the P-51, so to get a close match despite this, it'd have to be on the slower side of the range, at normal multiplayer altitudes.

Since mass increased, it should have slightly worse instantaneous turn, yes. But if the power increase was more than the weight increase (i.e. if the thrust/weight ratio improved), than it should be better at sustained turns. That's without counting the improvements in drag, which could also affect the situation. The increase in sustained turning ability from the power increase should be greater than the loss in instantaneous turning ability from the mass increase. With WWII fighters, when they put in a bigger engine, it usually improved the thrust-to-mass, and so it would generally make it "slightly" worse at instantaneous turns but "significantly" better at sustained turns (along with climb & speed, of course). It's the same principle that allowed the P-38 to have similar sustained turning ability to the 109, even though the '38 was much worse at instantaneous turning. Even though it was ~twice as heavy, it had a similar thrust-to-mass ratio. ~8000 lb. @ ~1800 hp ~= (in sustained turns & climbs) ~16000 lb. @ 2(~1800 hp) ... I think that's a heavier load for the 109 and a lighter load for the '38, so if just looking at thrust/weight, the 109 should come out slightly on top, on average, but it's close enough for the P-38's Fowlers to about make up the difference. So, I'd expect the 109K to be better at just about everything than the 109G, except for instantaneous turn. Kurfurst (the forum user, not the airplane) says that certain blocks of 109G had engines designed for better low-altitude performance, so that can mix things up a bit, but at least when just looking at the mass, thrust, & drag situation, K is a clear improvement over the G.

Sorry, "ninja edited" my post while you were writing that, it seems. I'm specifically thinking of Game Mode. I imagine Game Mode comes with other simplifications which you might noticed, but it's worth looking at the mission in the editor just to make sure no options are being enforced, which could possibly affect this in any way. To be clear, there are two boxes by each option--one to determine whether or not to enforce the option, and one to determine whether the option is on or off. So, if Game Mode has "enforce" checked and "on" checked, then there's a problem. If Game Mode has "enforce" checked and "off" checked, then this option is okay. If Game Mode has "enforce" un-checked, then it shouldn't matter whether "on" or "off" is checked, as your options that you set in the Options menu from the main menu should over-ride this.

Because the throttle governor was on real Me 262s, and a simplified-physics game-mode assist wasn't. It's like the difference between the K-14 gunsight, and the game-overlay lead-PIPs in War Thunder's arcade mode. The ultimate effect is similar (an aid which shows you where the lead-point is), but--to a hardcore simmer--the former is completely acceptable, because it's the real way of doing it, while the latter is completely unacceptable, because it wasn't ever like that in the real airplane. Same goes for the throttle situation. Please note that I'm not requesting that Yo-Yo change the version just for my shoddy joystick throttle-slider, mind you--he's got enough on his plate already, I'm sure. I'm just wondering which version we're going to get, and hoping its the one with the better throttle.

Has anyone having this issue checked to confirm that it isn't due to the "enforce" checkbox(es) I mentioned? AFAIK, there's no mission-editor setting for Takeoff Assistance, but there is for Game Mode et al.

If 72" comes along and the FW 190D falls behind, then--yes--I certainly hope that it would get one of its higher historical ratings, too, so that it remains a good match for the P-51. However, I'm not sure that the 190's situation against a 72" P-51 would be as dire as the current P-51's against our 109. Aside from the question of just how the ASL top speeds of the two would end up comparing, the 190D does have a powerful ally that the P-51 doesn't have, for one thing. And there'd still be the 67" version of the P-51, so that some missions are balanced around 67" P-51 vs. 190D, while others are balanced around 72" P-51 vs. 109K. But, yes, ideally, the 190D would get the most appropriate historical rating to keep it a good competitive match with the 72" P-51D. Although, I suppose the prospect of this "snowball effect" is not a good incentive for ED to add the one rating. : / Still, again, even if 72" P-51 is the only addition, that still leaves the mission editor option of 67" for missions designed with the FW 190D in mind. And that'd leave the FW 190D in a better position than the P-51 is now. And, if we're lucky, our current FW 190D might still be a good competitive match for a 72" P-51D.

Would a 72" P-51D really be superior to our current 190D? Genuine question--I haven't examined the matter in great detail. I know they're close in turn, but the FW 190D is faster on the deck. How much faster, though?

Turbulence from wind isn't the same as near-stall buffeting. Either way, I've never heard a rattling sound in the small planes I've flown, either from turbulence or when performing a slow-stall. Airliners, being larger, have much more play in them. For example, the Cessna 152 has a few inches of flex at the wingtips, while an airliner's wingtips can flex several feet. That sort of thing might explain the rattling you hear on an airliner.

If a P-51 makes a metal rattling sound whenever you approach stall AoA, something is very broken and you should land immediately, if not prepare to bail out.

I'm not a 109 expert, so if you say that there was no WEP rating lower than 1.8 for the K-4, I won't dispute that. I certainly have no reason to believe that there was one, and I'm really out of my territory on the subject. It really doesn't matter to my core point, anyway. As I said, even if we assume that there never was a 109K with a lower power limit than 1.8 ata, my main point remains unaffected. Please review my immediately-preceding post. I've made some phraseology edits; I don't think they've fundamentally altered the meaning of what was there before, but it might clear up a misunderstanding or two if you read the rephrased version. Couple of minor corrections, for accuracy's sake: 1.45 is a MIL rating below 1.8, you said, so there must be a rating below 1.8. I'm guessing you meant "no WEP rating," rather than "no rating." I know--it gets very tiresome writing out "WEP rating" each time--my posts are cluttered with the phrase. Even worse when I have to say "officially authorized and used-in-combat WEP rating" each time. I wish there were an easier term for this, which could not be misinterpreted! "Standard" is open to loose definition. The other thing: there were modification kits deployed to adjust the Allisons & Merlins for the higher WEP ratings and/or fuel grades. I'm not sure exactly what it entailed, but at least a governor needed adjustment or replacement. Since certain low-end-but-higher-than-factory ratings were authorized on the standard fuel, I'm not sure if this would require less modification. My guess is that increasing the rating on standard fuel require only modifying the CSP & throttle governor(s), while increasing the rating for the 150/100 grade fuel would also require modifying something for the mixture control. But, I really don't know the details. All I know is that there were modification kits sent out with the authorization for higher WEP ratings with the 150/100 fuel, for modifying the aircraft to use them, and that some of the lower of these higher-than-factory WEP ratings were authorized even with the standard 130/100 fuel.

I remember reading a German account of how his airfield had loads of ammunition but no fuel, while an airfield only a few miles away had loads of fuel but no ammunition. The idea is, the German logistical situation was often pretty bad, late in the war. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to MW50, even if it was easy to produce & transport. Yes, I'm only speculating that K-4s flying sans MW50 may have been sometimes necessary. I'm not desperate to cling to the idea of 1.45 ata being a WEP rating; I merely suspect that a 1.45 restriction may not have been as unheard of as you think it was. However, as I don't have solid information either way, I'm not arguing that a 1.45 ata restriction was common, or even stating that it happened for sure on the K-4. Again, I'm not a 109 expert, so I simply don't know. I agree that K-4s with a 1.45 restriction would have been unusual, and may or may not have even seen combat at all (much like 1.98 ata). That still leaves the median for 109K WEP ratings firmly in the middle of 1.8 ata, which is in accord with the core of my point--you're focusing on small details which are almost entirely irrelevant to what I'm actually trying to point out. If I completely concede the argument about 1.45, and we agree that a 1.45-capped 109K never saw combat (debatable, but I don't have good info pointing in either direction), then my core point about standard (authorized & used in combat) WEP ratings remains: we have a P-51D with its lowest WEP rating, far below the median of standard WEP ratings, while we have a 109K with a WEP rating that's at the median of standard WEP ratings. Hence, low-end WEP rating for P-51D versus average WEP rating for 109K-4. Can you agree with that? And the result of this rating disparity is (non-historical) complete 109 dominance at the lower altitudes we normally fly at in multiplayer. And that makes balancing a quick-action mission, such as the one running on the ACG WWII server, virtually impossible. The only workaround is to have the mission occur at high altitude, which defies the purpose of a quick-action mission. Unless you have air starts, that is, but then you're not practicing your takeoffs as much as you should. So, my only remaining recommendation for this server is to edit the mission to include a pair of heavily-defended rear airfields, on each side, with each airfield spaced far enough away from all others that a fighter can get away and have time to climb up to a safe altitude. Without the historically-accurate 72" rating, we can't have a balanced quick-action mission with proper ground starts. There's gonna have to be be time wasted climbing up to 15 or 20 thousand feet, or whatever altitude it is where the P-51 starts to have a significant speed advantage to match the 109's large climb & turn advantages. Or air starts, if that's your preference.

Bogus argument. In another sim/game, I used to fly a terrible fighter that just about no one else would fly. I'd dive into a bunch of average-skill pilots, and take 'em all down in short order. People would regularly comment stuff like, "How are you doing so well in that ship?" But, then, I'd get my empennage handed to me, whenever I met someone of my own skill level, who was flying a normal-capability fighter. Point is: a good pilot can do amazing things with a shitty fighter, as long as he isn't facing people of similar skill to him. That doesn't at all mean that the aircraft are fairly matched. Surely you know this.

Yes, 72" was an officially-authorized rating which was widely used later in the war, when P-51Ds would have been facing 109Ks. I would never suggest a non-historical aircraft configuration for balance. My suggestion involves picking the closest match out of the contemporary historical configurations. Improved competitive balance + no reduction in historical accuracy = pure gain. Question is, is ED gonna do it. But, really, this has already been beaten to death, and this isn't the thread for it. It looks something like this, although this picture isn't to scale: On each side, the two rear airfields need to be far enough away from each other to make it difficult for the enemy to CAP both, and far enough away from the middle one to give the fighters some space to climb to appropriate altitude. But they also need to be close enough to the middle that it doesn't require everyone to make a ten-minute flight to the middle, just because someone's vulching at the middle one. So, if the middle two are ~3min apart, then the distance between one of the rear fields and the middle field should be maybe ~6 min. The good news is that if everyone on the server wants to have quick dogfights with no "vulching," they can still do that. And now, if someone does want to spoil everyone's fun by "capping" the other airfield, there are good options for the latter side to avoid combat long enough to climb to a reasonable altitude. Or, they can simply start from the far airfield and make a beeline to the middle, on the deck, if they'd rather sacrifice altitude for minimal time-to-target. The bad news is that this doesn't really solve the P-51-sucks-down-low problem, as they're simply going to have to waste loads of time to get to an altitude where they have a decent chance. Other than high-altitude air-starts, this is the only remaining workaround I can see for the 109-totally-dominates-at-normal-alt problem, until the P-51D gets the appropriate historical rating (if ever). The P-51s are generally going to have to spend some minutes climbing up to at least medium altitude between every fight, which means both sides are going to have to do less fighting and more waiting. The tougher the competition, the higher the required climb, and thus the longer the wait. Doesn't help anyone's rate-of-learning, but that's all we got, for now.

What I used to do on my instant-action servers was to have two close airfields with no AA guns, and then have two far airfields for each side, with heavy AAA. The two closest ones are for like-minded people to quickly get into fights; if someone doesn't wanna play nice and starts covering the other side's airfield, that's what the distant ones are for. AAA alone on the middle airfield doesn't help much for quick-action missions, because it gets in the way of legitimate fights (e.g. we both take off and meet in the middle, but the fight accidentally moves near the AAA, which prematurely ends the fight), and doesn't keep the enemy from "capping" the airfield. They can't actually strafe you on the ground, but they just keep an eye on you and keep an altitude advantage over you until you're clear of your AA, which is little better. So, my recommendation: minimal or no AA on middle airfields, which are <5min apart, and then each side's main airfield has two AA-defended backup airfields, in two different directions, far enough apart to make it difficult for the enemy to cap all three, and far enough away from the center of the mission area to allow airplanes time to climb to desired altitude.

Like I said, I'm not an expert on the 109K, so I'm a bit unsure about all this MW50 stuff. The way I understand it, some K-4s were forced to run without MW50, because of local supply issues. Sometimes airfields didn't even have enough fuel and/or ammunition for the mission, due to the chaos of the crumbling Reich and the Allied total-war strafing. So, I don't know how "standard" it was, but the sans-MW50 K-4s must have seen at least some combat. You say that's 1.45 ata, as 1.8 w/o MW50 would quickly fail. So, of all the ratings for the 109K that I've ever heard of, 1.45 ata would be the low-end rating, 1.8 the mid-range rating, and 1.98 the high-end one. If 1.98 didn't see combat, then 1.45 would be low and 1.8 the highest of the combat-experience ratings. Hence "mid/high-end." 1.8 ata is the closest thing to "standard," regardless, and the average K-4 would be running this. The P-51D's equivalent would be about 72". If you discount both 1.45 and 1.98 ata, due to uncommon usage, then that leaves 1.8 ata as the "only" rating, in which case the median would be 1.8. So, that'd still make 1.8 "mid-range," by definition. The middle of the P-51D's range would be the 72" rating, while the 67" we have is the lowest. The semantics of all this is a bit silly. My point is simple: the K-4's got its average used-in-combat WEP rating, or higher; the P-51D has its lowest WEP rating. The result is that the 109 completely dominates the P-51 at low & medium altitudes, which is unfair and also not historically representative. The solution? Give the P-51D something close to its average rating, too. That'd be 72", which just so happens to be a historical contemporary combat rating, which is also a good competitive match for our 1.8 ata w/ MW50 109K. But, I'm starting to agree with BFBunny--this has wandered a bit off-topic for this thread, at this point. The original discussion of how 109 compares to P-51 at low altitude was relevant, and the bit about how different WEP ratings affect that comparison was relevant to the comparison, but now we've wandered down the rabbit-hole of the MW50 / fuel / logistics discussion, and I think we can all agree that this isn't the thread for that.

Not always faster at all altitudes, no. As I said, a poorly-built and/or beat-up P-51D, running a low WEP, will surely be slower, at least at some altitudes, than a well-made 109K running a mid/high rating. But, assuming both ships are well-made & well-maintained, and running similar contemporary ratings (namely, 72" vs. 1.8 ata w/ MW50), then--yes--the P-51 is likely to be slightly faster at all altitudes, and much faster at some. Meanwhile, the 109 will climb & turn slightly better at all altitudes (except for the last few thousand feet below the ceiling, perhaps), and much better across most of the range. In other words: with the config matchup I described, the P-51 should always be faster--slightly faster at some altitudes, much faster at some altitudes. The 109 should always climb & turn better (except, maybe, around ceiling)--slightly better at some altitudes, much better at some altitudes. Generally, the 109 would have a greater advantage in climb & turn than the P-51 has in speed, but the higher you go, the more the P-51 starts to have a greater advantage in speed than the 109 does in climb & turn. Yes, 72" did increase the risk of engine failure. Naturally, I expect this to accompany such a power increase in the sim, just like real life.

Danke. Two years of Deutsche classes isn't enough to make myself intelligible; it's just enough to make a fool out of myself!

Yeah, the 72" helped down low, not up high. Confirmed by Yo-Yo. And it's low altitude where the P-51 needs such a boost, anyway. There's a reason why the USAAF raised the WEP rating to 72". It wasn't to look good on paper. : ) USAAF manuals were rife with errors, due to bureaucratic wankery. The Major in charge of the P-38 manual had little experience with the '38, and he refused to listen to Lockheed on a number of key points, with the result of a bunch of bogus being put into the manual. Some of it was bad enough that Lockheed test pilot Tony Levier was sent from base to base in Europe, correcting the myths via personal demonstrations. The P-51 manual has errors, too, so I expect North American Aviation had their own such frustrations. So, you shouldn't trust the USAAF handbooks from that era. Any time there's a good source which indicates anything contrary to the manual, you should believe the better source. I don't have a chart comparing the power curves for these two aircraft with these specific configurations, but--on average--the P-51D was faster than the 109K at most altitudes, if not all. It was close enough that, at least at some altitudes, individual variation could have reversed that (e.g. a really well-made K4 versus a "lemon" P-51D), as could a rating disparity. So, yes, a low-end P-51D could be slower than a mid/high-end 109K, but--in general, P-51 was faster, even at lower altitudes. On the flip side, the 109 was the better dogfighter, at most altitudes (and it's a lot easier to drag the fight down low than it is to drag the fight up high). In real life, the two were very closely matched, except that the 109 usually didn't perform to its maximum potential, due to late-war logistical problems (average pilot experience being the most important, but far from the only one). Those logistical problems resulted in a tendency for the P-51 to dominate, IRL, hence the (mis)impression that "the P-51 won the war," but that's a deceptive effect. A well-made, well-maintained, well-flown 109K was a serious threat and a relatively even match for a well-made, well-maintained, well-flown P-51D--neither one was dominant, the way the 109 is in the sim (or the way that some think the P-51 should be). P-51 had speed advantage, 109 had climb & turn. P-51 will tend to have an edge in 10 vs. 10, 109 will tend to have an edge in 1 vs. 1; P-51 will tend to have an edge up high, 109 will tend to have an edge down low, but--on average--neither one will "hold all the cards," at any altitude, the way our 109 does at the average altitude. The fact that this isn't accurately represented in the sim isn't due to modelling error, but rather due to the choice of aircraft configurations ... the whole lowest-rated P-51D versus the mid/high-end rated 109K problem (again, whether our K is mid-range or high-end depends on whether or not 1.98 ata saw widespread combat, which is apparently a point of eternal debate). That choice may have been logical from a development standpoint (because of data availability, and so I do not criticize Eagle Dynamics for having made that choice), but it sure sucks from a multiplayer standpoint. There's no benefit to either one from a historical standpoint, because both {67" vs. 1.8 ata w/ MW50} and {72" vs. 1.8 ata w/ MW50} were common historical matchups, so it isn't a question of which one is more historical. The two remaining key points on 67" vs. 72", then, are development-budget and relative performance (i.e. competitive balance).

Ew, no deal! I'd much rather struggle with my shitty throttle slider than turn on an arcade aid. : /

Oh! I don't remember if this was mentioned in the earlier pages of this thread, but what you just wrote reminds me: you know about the separate difficulty settings, and missions over-riding the ones you set in your options menu? There are two different ways of setting a difficulty option. Say, "Game Flight Mode." So, you can turn Game-mode off in your Gameplay options, from the Options menu at the main menu, but you also can set it off in your Mission options, from the File menu in the mission editor. Or both. Thing is, under certain conditions, the Mission options that you (or whoever made the mission you're using) set in the mission editor can over-ride your Gameplay options you set in the Options menu! One of these conditions is if it's a multiplayer and you're on someone else's server. That one's obvious: if you're on someone else's server, their Mission options will naturally override your Gameplay options. But it can happen to you on your own server, or even in single-player. If the Game Flight Mode is on in the Mission options, and the "Enforce" box is checked, then whenever you fly that mission, you'll be using Game mode instead of Sim mode, regardless of what you set in the Gameplay options from the main menu Options. I now think this may be the problem.

Are we getting the version with the more idiot-proof throttle? I can't say I relish the prospect of constantly killing my engines because of my laughably imprecise (one-inch throw) throttle slider. : (

I suddenly got something, upon re-re-reading this. Well, actually, two things--"ata" is a German noun, yeah? So I should be capitalizing it. But, the main thing: you're saying that 1.8 Ata is 1.8 Ata, regardless of which fuel type, and whether or not there's MW50. That is, 1.8 Ata produces the same horsepower on the 109K's DB, regardless of whether or not there's MW50. The MW50 or higher fuel grade simply allow it to run at that HP more safely. So, it works like the water injection on the P-47, rather than the MW50 actually providing a direct HP boost. Did I get it right, this time? In which case, I'm mistaken about a 109K running at 1.8 Ata without MW50 being a good match for the 67" P-51D, right, because the former would be essentially the same as the current 1.8 Ata with MW50 109K, in terms of performance. Is this correct? If so, then 1.8 Ata is simply overmatched for the 67". Hmm. That brings me back to square one: I can't see any viable solution other than 72" for the P-51D. All other suggestions I've seen or thought of have at least one thing wrong with them, in one or more of the three key areas (historical accuracy, competitive balance, and development workload). Ironjockel, thanks for trying to implement the experimental matchup. If you ever do figure out how to get it working compatibly with your mission scripts, please do let me know what the results end up being. I think I already know the answer (P-51 dominance), but there's still a chance of being pleasantly surprised with a reasonably balanced match, which could then serve as a clumsy workaround until ED brings about 72" (if/when).

I'm afraid not. Go back and read what I wrote, please, concerning that. Basically, "I suspect it won't work, but it's worth trying out." We have nothing to lose by trying out a mission with this combination, since it's already available in the mission editor. I doubt it's a viable solution, but there's no reason not to try it. The worst thing that can happen? You 109 pilots will have two weeks of experiencing what the P-51 pilots always experience. ; ) As I've said several times, I believe that the best (and only viable) solution is a P-51D that has 72" (or 75", if certain conditions are met*). However, that's in ED's hands. They've heard us, and it's down to whether or not Yo-Yo & co. agree that it's worthwhile to DCS: WWII, and if/when they budget time to do it. In the meantime, the community owes it to itself to at least try the experiment I suggested, even if there isn't much chance of it being a success. There's no good reason to refuse to try it out for a mere two weeks, just to see what the results are. * 75" should be implemented only if it can be proven to have officially seen combat, and if it won't result in P-51 dominance. I doubt that a 75" P-51 would be too much for our 109K to handle--they should be on very even footing--but I am worried about the FW 190D's ability to handle a 75" P-51. Thus, in order for 75" to be a good solution, both conditions would have to be met: proven to have been authorized for combat, and not excessively powerful for either of the two opponent fighters. 72" sounds to me like the best solution, as it fulfills both conditions. It might seem so, but the subject of how the P-51D compares to the Me 109K, at lower altitudes, is actually quite relevant to a thread about a server which pits the P-51D versus the 109K at lower altitudes. : )

Ironjockel, what about the without-MW50 experiment? Has it been extensively tried yet?