Echo38

And here you present nothing I've not already seen, but only more assumptions. Specifically, in this post, you are assuming that what Holm meant by "delightful" and "very well" and "mild" and "easily noticed," are the same as what you mean by those terms. Has it never occurred to you that one man's "mild" is another man's "severe"? That one man's "delightful" is another man's "difficult"? For this reason, such subjective terms are virtually useless when comparing aircraft, real or virtual. Test data--numerical data--matters, provided that the tests are thorough; pilot opinions, on the other hand, only go so far. Although not a 109 expert (and, I'd wager, neither are you, judging by how much you overlook, regarding the subject--here as well as in other threads), I've done a fair share of reading on the subject. I've not only examined several articles by Hanna, Holm, et al., long before you ever joined this forum, but by many other such experts as well. That I haven't "read a bit" about the 109 is another of your (false) assumptions. Regardless: you are making a wholly baseless assumption that the 109 pilot's idea of "mild" is the same as your idea of mild (and so on), every time you pull out a quote rife with such subjective words, and try to use it to support your opinion (no hard numbers, just feelings) about the same subjective aspects. Too many assumptions! A simulator cannot be built upon them. Must I tell the story about the P-40 vs. A6M wartime acceleration test again? I grow tired of bringing it up every time people use solely-subjective words to try to prove something about a virtual aircraft's accuracy, but I suspect that I do need to, if my point in my previous post about assumptions was entirely missed (which it was).

Lots of assumptions here; I counted nine. Have you ever considered that what a given real pilot considers "gentle" may not be what you consider "gentle"? And so on, for each of the subjective--and not quantified--terms you've used here (mild, violently, plenty, sensitive, etc.) ...

That is inaccurate. For most of these matchups, the question wasn't "which is better," but rather "which is better at what" and "which is better at that under X conditions." With most of the contemporary front-line fighters on the Western front, there was no clear superiority between two opposing fighters. Often, there wasn't even a clear superiority between the two within a given area (such as speed). Even trying to narrow it down to a superiority in said given area (e.g. turning ability) didn't always let you make a clear statement about which is better, because the answers often depended on a bunch of conditions which you're pretending didn't exist (which models? which altitude? which WEP ratings? what fuel masses?). Even a change in one of the latter could, for some of the matchups, cause the statement to go from X turns better to Y turns better. A combination can do it easier. I think you know this*, so I'd rather avoid rattling off a longer and clumsier list of said variables. Your bias, I suspect, causes you to support "factory for all," even though this is neither fair nor historically-accurate/representative, because the common on-paper figures for US meant "almost the very worst examples," while the common on-paper figures for Germany meant "almost the very best examples." This is a years-old bandwagon for those with a pro-Axis (or anti-Allied) fighter bias; seeking to gain/retain an unfair (and not-historical) advantage over their opponents in multiplayer, they hide behind the deception of "factory for both is historical" (despite it being less so than my alternative). The majority of these fighters on both sides didn't fight under factory conditions, anyway. Like the other fellow said, you're doing a fair bit of cherry-picking yourself. Hence my suspicion of bias. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. And before you suggest it, "fair & realistic" isn't doing the cake thing. Pitting well-matched aircraft against each other meets both requirements handily, without having to stretch (fair because they're well-matched, and realistic because those two did regularly meet each other in battle--and, I'd wager, more often than your two factory-fresh ones did). *Any reasonably experienced virtual fighter pilot must know that the fuel load alone can often tip the balance between one aircraft turning better, and the other. The ambiguity of "which is better at X" only gets greater when you throw in "which model/block" and "and what altitude" etc. etc. If you genuinely don't know what I'm talking about--which I doubt--then fire up DCS and check out the difference between the P-51D vs. A-10C matchup with same fuel percentage, and then the same matchup with grossly disparate fuel percentages. With 100% vs. 15%, respectively, they're on fairly even terms in a standard duel, but with 50% vs. 50%, the P-51 eats the A-10 for lunch (all else equal in both cases, of course, if the SD wasn't a giveaway). The same principle applies even more noticeably when you pick two aircraft which are closer to each other to begin with (e.g. the P-47 and FW 190, or even Me 109, rather than the P-51 and A-10). This is why no one with any significant knowledge of WWII fighters can "accept that one aircraft will be better than another," when comparing ships like the P-47 & Me 109. It wasn't & isn't that simple, whether comparing fighters (e.g. P-47 & Me 109) or even models (e.g. P-47D & Me 109K)--let alone blocks et al. I cannot imagine that anyone who knows enough about the subject {to be able to start up the WWII fighters in DCS} wouldn't already understand that, and so I can only assume a dishonest bias, as has often proven to be the case in the past, on the part of those who favor "nerfing" the Allied fighters like this (while keeping a higher standard for the Luftwaffe birds, relative to the historical norm).

I have seen this discussion several times now, and I've never seen either side support their position with hard evidence. Those who believe that pilots did set custom convergence/harmonization: which military(s), which aircraft? Got sources? Those who believe that pilots/{ground crews} were not authorized to set convergence/harmonization: no militaries allowed this, at any point in the war? Got sources? So far, all I've seen in these discussions is "yes they did" and "no they didn't," but zero evidence for either position. Come on, folks, this is the DCS forum, not the bananaforum. I expect better. : )

That's done it! I'm not getting my posts blasted anymore. Thanks for the tip! This "remember me" would be a problem if I were on a public computer, but I'm not, so ... gift horses & teeth, you know ...

Some of these "crazy field mods" were standard. To the point where, in some cases, factory-default was non-standard and "modded" was standard. E.g. certain of the moderately higher WEP ratings (e.g. 64" & 66" on the P-38) were officially authorized (and for the standard fuel, too, not just the fighter groups which got the good stuff) and used as standard from that point on. The "pilot manuals" just never got updated--many pilots never even saw the manuals, you know; the USAAF was not on top of their game in regards to the manuals, which contained not only these omissions but several outright errors. Limiting the "Big Three" (the USAAF fast heavy fighters) to the extreme-conservative factory settings is less representative of how things really were in general practice; portraying them at their actual wartime standards is both the most fair and the most realistic & historical representation. Everyone wins, except for the people who want the US birds to be "nerfed" so that the Axis fighters have an unfair (and not-historical) advantage. Telling people "lol just don't fight at low altitudes" isn't gonna cut it, for so many reasons. I myself greatly enjoy high altitude (~30,000 ft.) fights, but it's very difficult to get fights up there, 'coz almost no one goes up there (for several reasons that aren't forseeably going away). Besides, handicapping one side's ships and telling them "you'll be fine, as long as you restrict yourself to a location where few people go" isn't fair at all. For clarification: I support the idea of modelling both side's aircraft on standard wartime examples (which doesn't mean factory), and since wartime standard examples vary greatly (e.g. one boost pressure in 1943, but another boost pressure in 1944--just to name one), that gives a lot of room for picking examples which are well-balanced against each other, without even slightly compromising realism, historical accuracy, & aircraft fidelity.

Sobek, PLEASE can you set the timeout back to how it was before, so that it doesn't log me out every five minutes & destroy my post half the time? Or bring it up to whoever is in charge of this? It's driving me crazy and I'm starting to not want to waste my time wrestling with this in order to try to talk to other people about my favorite flight sim

Ditto. That's the sort of Thunderbolt I always heard about, myself, as well. I'm afraid we aren't going to see it in its full glory, being limited to woefully-underpowered factory WEP ratings. The heavier the aircraft, the more they suffer from the power reductions (reduction from standard field ratings, down to factory ratings), which is one of the larger of the reasons why the U.S. heavies aren't going to do as well versus the 109 & 190 in DCS as they did historically. The more power you have, the less a few thousand pounds of extra weight matters. The Thunderbolt is going to be particularly harmed by this, because of its colossal weight. Thing was almost as heavy as a Lightning, but only had one engine. Its crazy-high power was so vital to its good maneuverability. Take it away, and you're stuck with a brick. I'm afraid we're going to end up with a ship that's no good unless the odds are stacked in other areas (e.g. numbers), unlike the real thing. Real Thunderbolt couldn't turn fight worth a damn (maybe with a 190--maybe--but that's about it), but (like the 190) the P-47 was quite maneuverable in the vertical--when it had its usual horsepower ratings.

Like that one SR-71 that stalled while supersonic and broke up. But it did stall, briefly.

This is a splendid way of setting yourself up for an engine failure.

Yes, I know. The Me 109 is generally going to outmaneuver the P-51. However, cutting the power makes the difference more extreme, hence my low opinion of Mr. Hanna's comparison. The actual difference was smaller than often is suggested. Just wanted it to be clear that I'm not making, and never have made, the claim that the P-51 was more maneuverable than the Me 109 under average conditions; I concluded ~10 years ago that the (real) Me 109 was generally better at turning & climbing than the P-51. I hope this clarification settles the misunderstanding.

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. My point remains: the more you cut the power of the pair, the faster the fight drops to sustained speeds, which works in the favor of the Me 109 and against the P-51. This is one of many factors that you're overlooking. I'm dubious at this point whether anything I say can convince you that the narrow parameters you are focusing on aren't sufficient to draw conclusions. No hard feelings; good evening & see you in the virtual sky sometime.

One of the things you're overlooking: more power means better E retention, i.e. the fighters won't fall to their sustained turn speeds as quickly, i.e. they can stay at corner turning speed for longer. Higher turn speeds are the P-51's preferred area, yes? So, this is one of the reasons why reduced power hurts the the P-51 more than reduced power hurts the Me 109; the 109 pilot is fine with both birds getting down to best climb / sustained turn speeds quickly, while the P-51 pilot would prefer both birds to stay fast, at corner or higher (where the 109's control stiffening is an issue). In other words: less power for both ships means the fight can't remain a high-speed fight for as long, which works in the 109's favor, since the 109 is more comfortable at slow speed fighting than the P-51 is. Yeah? There are other things you're overlooking (not even getting into all of the other factors! e.g. hp. /= thrust, 'coz prop efficiencies); I'm having a difficult time trying to put them into words, even without worrying about language barriers, so I'm gonna leave that for someone more familiar with aerodynamics & language than you & I are.

Once again, you miss my point. My point is not that the Me 109 has a better or worse P/W than the P-51. My point is that both aircraft running at ~75% power hurts the P-51 more than the Me 109. Low power means slower speeds, and that's where the Me 109 tends to turn better than the P-51. As you raise the power of both ships, the P-51 does better, and as you lower the power of both ships, the Me 109 does better (all else equal). I don't know why you keep avoiding this issue. I never said that; I said the opposite. WEP was used in real dogfights; Mark Hanna, on the other hand, didn't use it in his comparisons (per your quotation). Ergo, his comparisons are not representative of the two fighters' actual wartime abilities. (Particularly when taking my previous point into consideration.) Is English not your native language? I feel that you aren't understanding what I say--not merely a disagreement, but I say something and you think I'm saying something completely different. I'm afraid there isn't much point in trying to converse if I say "I like cats" and you think I said "I hate cats." No offense intended, but it's just too much of an obstacle to conversation. There's no way I can effectively explain anything with this degree of misunderstanding.

You mean, when both ships had their power cut hugely from the historical WEP ratings, right? Because the only modern comparisons I'm aware of were done under that condition, and that's a game-changer. For a good-turning aircraft which relies primarily on P/W for its turning ability, having the power cut is devastating. For a good-turning aircraft which relies less on P/W for its turning ability, because of the presence of other factors which improve turning, having the power cut isn't as bad. Most 109 models should out-turn the P-51D at low & medium altitudes, in general, if they're both running similar configurations (i.e., you aren't pitting a high-boost P-51 versus a low-boost Me 109, and/or stacking fuel loads, etc.). However, it's a relatively small margin of difference, and not nearly as great as the difference when you limit the power of both aircraft to a non-historically-representative level. You're using an ahistorical comparison to try to make conclusions about the historical situation. That doesn't work. You need to look at the issue more closely in order to get a better idea of how things really are & were.

What's the point in doing it, then? So far, the only suggested answer to my question ("how do I deactivate my P-51D module?") has been do do it with this protect.exe, but if what you're saying is true, then the protect.exe doesn't deactivate it, which leaves me at square one. How do I deactivate my P-51D module, in a manner that doesn't waste any activations or deactivations? The FAQs don't say, nor do any of the sticky threads, nor any of the {threads on the subject} posted by any ED employee, at least as far as I could find.

I think you're missing my point. My point is that cutting the power to ~75%, even if done to both airplanes, screws the P-51 more than it screws the Me 109. The P-51 is more reliant on it's P/W for its horizontal maneuverability than the Me 109 is, because the Me 109 has other advantages in that area that it can rely on, in the absence of good P/W. That is: take away an Me 109's good P/W (e.g. by forcing it to run at 75% of standard WEP), and it still has other things that help it remain a good turner. But take away a P-51's good P/W (e.g. by forcing it to run at 75% of standard WEP), and it's lost damn near everything that made it a good turner. So, if both ships have their power limited to the military power rating (as any surviving WWII fighter does, in practice, except for those used in air races), the P-51 is more screwed than the Me 109. This is why Mr. Hanna's expertise isn't as relevant as you might think, in determining how P-51s and Me 109s fared against each other in combat. His experience was with "nerfed" Mustangs, which do more poorly (for reasons I mentioned) versus similarly nerfed 109s, than the WEP-running '51s did against the WEP-running 109s (all else equal).

There's part of your problem. That power setting is ~75% power for a typical wartime P-51D. If both aircraft operate at lower power settings (like that one), that will exacerbate the P-51's low-speed problems relative to the 109. The more power both aircraft have, the less inferior the P-51's near-stall fighting ability will be. That is, if you raise the power on both aircraft, the P-51 will struggle less (compared to the 109), while if you lower the power on both aircraft, the P-51 will struggle more. This is one of the reasons that Mr. Hanna's high opinion of the 109 relative to the P-51 isn't to be entirely trusted, despite his experience with post-war examples; his comparisons lack conditions typical of an actual wartime dogfight (e.g. WEP). There are other issues with your reasoning, but as OutOnTheOP pointed out, most of it's been hashed & rehashed for an age, and I'm one of the ones who doesn't particularly feel like smiting dead horses.

Aren't you completely overlooking drag?

Thanks for the quick response. Are you sure that this method is current? The system has changed in several areas since I last purchased something, and since I last activated & deactivated things. The official tutorials are no longer up-to-date, and so I'm concerned about losing activations / deactivations unnecessarily, as I have in the past due to other such troubles with the profusely-confusing system. I'd be much more comfortable if I could receive official word on the current, safe way to do this with no unnecessary loss, but sending a support ticket typically takes days at the minimum and sometimes weeks. I guess I should just send a ticket anyway? : /

So I've wasted the last ~45 minutes trying to get my DCS modules safely deactivated so that I can install & activate them on a new hard drive. Unfortunately, the site is confusing at best. There appear to be some glitches involved, too. The FAQ linked on the DCS main page says to hold Shift while launching the multiplayer shortcut, in order to deactivate stuff. However, this only allowed me to deactivate my Warthog module, and even this doesn't seem to have been deactivated properly. Going into my "Personal Section" and then "My Account," it says I have no user account. Odd, given that it lets me log in on the main site (with a different password than on the forum). Using the in-game module manager (which isn't mentioned in the FAQ, but which I found direction to after some frustrating forum searches), I examined my A-10C key, and entered it into the "Request Information" bit at the "Licensing" section of the site. This function recognizes & shows that I deactivated it today, but it says that it's still active? So confused. And how do I deactivate the P-51D module? When I did the shift+launch thing, it only brought up a dialog box for the A-10C. After deactivating this, it kept asking me to activate the A-10C again, and repeatedly brought up the box when I tried to close it. After ~three tries, it stopped, but never brought up anything for P-51D. Some help would be nice. Gods know I love DCS and am very fond of ED as sim developers, but FFS this web site / activation&deactivation system is terrible and if it were any less of a sim/game, I'd be a VERY unhappy customer right now. A paying customer should never have to go through this sort of hassle just to make sure his game keeps working. Neither the FAQ on the main site nor any FAQs & sticky threads I could find on the forum contain complete, current, & accurate explanations on how to solve this problem.

This isn't exactly the type of engine failure originally being discussed, but here's an example of how a high-performance aircraft engine can fail catastrophically enough to shatter the propeller: Yes, I know, this is almost the opposite of "stopping instantly" (because in this case, the failure caused the propeller to over-speed), but the point is, as Yo-Yo and others pointed out, there's little to compare with automobile engines and high-performance aircraft engines.

If you learn with twist, you'll likely think it's just as good as pedals--until you've tried (& learned) pedals. Will probably find pedals cumbersome and awkward for a while after the switch. But all of my virtual flight students whom I successfully persuaded to switch (sample size of perhaps a dozen) recognized the absolute superiority of pedals within a month of the switch. Usually about two weeks. One fellow took notably longer; no idea why. At first, there was much frustration, because they had to un-learn the bad habits of twist and learn new good habits, which is difficult. Often initially reported that twist was easier. But in the end, all of them admitted that they did better with pedals than with twist. There's a reason for the superiority of pedals: there are several mathematical absolutes which result (both individually and accumulative) in pedals simply being superior. The main two are throw and "digit-brain workload." As I always say, "there's a damn good reason why real aircraft have pedals instead of twisty sticks." (And it isn't merely tradition, a continuation from when the first aircraft did it that way by necessity.) The only real aircraft which have even the option of twisty stick are a very few fully fly-by-wire aircraft, in which the flight computer makes the majority of the control inputs. Even most FA FBW aircraft still have pedals as the exclusive yaw control.

It isn't merely a minor annoyance; I've lost several large posts because of this. The act of logging in can cause the post to be deleted, apparently at random; I log in the same way each time, but sometimes the post is remembered by the forum and sometimes it's forgotten. Even copy-pasting doesn't always work. For example, just now I wrote a four-paragraph post about flight characteristics (took me ~10 minutes), then hit post. It said I'd been logged out and must login to post. Just in case, I selected all my text, hit Ctrl+C, logged back in, and my post was gone, all the text missing out of the white post box. I hit Ctrl+V to paste, and nothing happened; the clipboard was empty, even though I was careful to hit Ctrl+C. I shouldn't have to wrestle with the forum software like this to make sure that it doesn't "eat" my posts. I've lost half-hour posts on this before. I'm getting to where I no longer bother to post lengthy informative posts; is it really the purpose of a forum to practically restrict people to one-liners and the like, or to force them to write their posts in Notepad and save them there before copy-pasting them into the forum? This forum bug ("undesirable feature," or whatever you wanna call it) has completely destroyed several hours' worth of my work at this point. Granted, one might make the argument that spending several hours of one's life writing posts on a flight sim forum isn't the wisest investment, but given that the forum is here and intended for discussion of the flight sim, I expect it to let me do that without jerking my posts out of my hand every few minutes and throwing them away. I CBA to try to reproduce the post I just lost (or, rather, that the forum software just lost--the error was not on my part), and can't remember the exact thing even if I could, so that's lost to the ether forever. No big loss, I suppose, as not everyone would have valued the information I had to give, but it isn't the forum software's job to be auto-destructing posts because they might not be worth a great deal. This is broken. It didn't used to do this; a few months ago, this error didn't happen for me. And I've never had another forum do this to me. sincerely, Irate Forum User

[nod] The silhouette of the P-38 shows the pre-J radiators, so P-38H at the latest. Kinda strange, given that the other three birds are fairly late models; I'd expected the P-38J to be showing up alongside those, if not the L. P-38J was the "standard" variant in 1943, IIRC.