Echo38

Over the years, there's been a myriad of aircraft wish polls. I don't know if any have ever made it onto Eagle Dynamics' announced to-do list, but I know that the great majority haven't.

Yes. However, the question was about dogfighting, not about disengaging. : ) Not in a mirror duel dogfight. I was able to quickly defeat him A-10 versus A-10 and P-51 versus P-51, but I couldn't win A-10 versus P-51 unless there was a massive fuel discrepancy in my A-10's favor. In a mirror duel with two good pilots, the A-10 with 60% fuel cannot win the dogfight, even if the P-51 is at 100% fuel (even with that CoG weirdness from the rear tank being filled). ... Except when the pilots are sufficiently close in skill. At a certain point, other factors (such as the aircraft's overall capabilities, and the fuel masses) begin to be more important to the outcome of a dogfight.

No. I probably have more experience dogfighting in the A-10 than anyone else in the community. Before I got the P-51D module, I only had the A-10C, and I'm exclusively interested in dogfighting, not air-to-ground. After many duels against the same partner, under various conditions, I concluded that the A-10C was no match for the P-51D. After I got the P-51D, I proved that hypothesis correct by effortlessly downing him P-51 versus P-51 (at the time, he was a much less experienced VFP than me). In my A-10 versus his P-51, I only had a chance when he seriously screwed up, or when I took ~15% fuel and he took 100%. That said, if you do manage to get guns on target ... GG ("when he seriously screwed up")

As you are evidently very well-informed (everything else you've written agrees with what I remember), and as it's been more than ten years since I looked at the P-38 in any significant depth, I'll take your word for it and concede the point. I don't remember where I read that stuff about P-38 escort preceding P-51 escort; you imply that it isn't in the two books which you & I both own, so I can only conclude that it may have been from a slanted source (some of the overly-zealous quotations attributed to Captain Arthur Heiden come to mind). Yes, I distinctly remember Nuthampstead from the P-38 episode of Roaring Glory Warbirds.

What I remember reading from various sources (like Horseback, I favored strong books like Bodie's and, of course, America's Hundred Thousand—though the latter had at least one error, namely continuing the tradition of copying a mistake from the P-38 pilot's handbook) was that there was a substantial period (six months, during 1943? I don't remember) before the P-51 arrived on the scene, where the P-38 was the only Allied fighter with the range to escort the bombers all the way to the target. I'm pretty sure Berlin was getting hit well before 1944. Hell, Berlin got bombed all the way back in the Battle of Britain, didn't it? So, during that period of time, before the P-51, the P-38 was the only fighter in the heart of German territory, where the bulk of their defensive efforts were focused on trying to stop the bombers. I'm not sure where the discrepancy in our information comes from. All else remaining the same, losing the war in the West would doubtless have meant also losing the war in the East, as a consequence. Do note that I'm not taking an "America won the war hurr" stance; I believe that the war could not have been won without the P-38 being on the scene when it was, but I'd also say the same of several other fighters (for example, the Spitfire and/or Hurricane during the Battle of Britain). "The war could not have been won without X" isn't the same statement as "X is the sole reason the war was won." Oddly, I wouldn't put the P-51 in that short list. It was a better escort fighter than the P-38, I don't deny it; the P-51 had superior combat range and better high-altitude performance, to say nothing of the logistical advantages. But the P-38 was available for the extreme-range missions long before the P-51 was. For this reason, despite being comparatively unsuitable for the role, the P-38 was the more important of the two aircraft. Better an "okay" escort now than a good escort too late. By the time the P-51s took over, the Luftwaffe had already lost the bulk of its fighting strength & wasn't well able to replace it. So, the P-38 was ultimately the more important of the two fighters. Could have continued to struggle on without the P-51. Couldn't have done without the P-38; there were a few months where the bomber command tried no escorts, and the loss rate on those missions was 80%. Dive flaps, not dive brakes. Primary function was to increase lift, not to decrease speed. The P-38's main problem during dives from high altitude was loss of lift, hence the dive flaps. They weren't a cure-all, though. The critical Mach improved but was still lower than any other high-speed fighter, and they weren't guaranteed to deploy when you needed them, either. As you've read the same books as I have, I'm sure you already know this; just pointing it out because it needs to be said. I just read a classic ignorant Youtube comment (from the video most recently posted in this thread) claiming that the "dive brakes" only served to keep the P-38 from reaching the speeds at which it suffered the problem, which is entirely inaccurate. I don't think there's a single fighter with more misinformation floating around it than the P-38.

P-51 pilots must simply accept that they are at a competitive disadvantage in normal multiplayer engagements until 72" WEP rating is introduced, if ever. This doesn't mean that you cannot be successful in a P-51, only that you cannot be successful in a "mirror" situation against a 109 or 109s. ("Mirror" meaning that it's a co-everything engagement, i.e. equal numbers, equal energy states, similar pilot skill pools, etc., with the aircraft being the only major variable.)

Fixed for life, yo'.

As I've said before, I want nothing more in DCS than a max-fidelity P-38L. While the '38 was able to serve reasonably well in the recon and ground attack roles, its most important role was that of fighter. P-38s effectively destroyed the Luftwaffe over the latter's own territory, long before the P-51 came along, while the P-38's shorter-ranged counterparts lacked the ability to keep up on those deadly long-range missions. Without the P-38, the Allies would have surely lost the war; prior to the advent of the P-51, only the P-38 could escort the Allied bombers all the way to Berlin, and when they tried flying them there unescorted, a consistent 80% loss rate ensued. My research led me to conclude that this was the most under-rated and least well-understood fighter of the war. The Lightning gained my affection with her lovely lines & curves; what gained my respect was how well she fared with so much stacked against her.

Unless the controller has a hardware error (e.g. controller outputs 10% back-stick when it's actually centered and thus should be at 0%), then it shouldn't matter what sort of controller it is; 0% deflection should be 0% output on all controllers. So, if User A experiences pitch-up, hands-off, under the same in-sim conditions (trim, speed, power, mass, etc.) where User B experiences pitch-down, then either one of them has a very faulty controller, or else there must be a bug in the sim, causing a discrepancy between the two experiences. Can anyone experiencing behavior contrary to that shown in Sithspawn's video post a mirroring video displaying the difference? Addendum: it just occurred to me that CH Products joysticks have hardware trim—which, by the way, you should normally never use, as trying to use it as a substitute for the virtual trimwheel will quickly wear out the plastic & loosen the potentiometers in their mountings, causing unnecessary extra sloppiness. The hardware trim is meant for rare maintenance corrections of minor hardware deviations caused by aging. If any of you are using these sticks and misusing the hardware trim, then it can also erroneously affect your results in-sim (effectively producing a "double simulation," except that the secondary "layer" doesn't account for virtual stick-force et al.).

Err ... cruise flight means "fuel save flight." Cruise = fuel-saving power settings

Happens just about every patch. : )

The Thunderbolt doesn't exactly have a girlish figure, it's true, but the Hurricane hardly has feminine lines, either. I think the P-47 looks better, myself. (Considering calling mine "Helga.")

If it worked in old IL-2: FB, then that isn't exactly a vote of confidence for the method's authenticity. : ) (Or doesn't anyone remember the slider trim-speed exploit and the manual prop pitch oscillation RoC exploit?)

Yeah, as I mentioned in aforelinked post, lowering RPM while remaining at high MAP damages the engine, IRL, in addition to reducing thrust. So, if the P-51 can only reach its intended speed by using this bad method, that isn't right. Emphasis on "if" because we don't know exactly how the secretive sim-racers are doing it, which doesn't help confirm/deny the suspected bug.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that the real P-51 should go faster by reducing RPM, or that the P-51 does in the sim even though it shouldn't? I can't comment on whether or not the latter case is occurring, but if you mean the former, I must disagree. Yo-Yo and I both (independently) concluded that reducing RPM should not, in real life, increase the P-51's maximum speed. 3000 RPM is how they got max speed, IRL.

That isn't supposed to work. See my post, and the one by Yo-Yo immediately following mine, in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1898184&highlight=rpm#post1898184 So, if that works in the sim, it'd be a bug, because Yo-Yo said it shouldn't. (It took me over half an hour to find that post again, so here are some keywords for next time this question rises: RPM pitch thrust power speed ) M1Combat did, but only by using a secret trick. This trick is something other than the historical method and, in the absence of further information, and in light of the secrecy surrounding this magic trick, I can only assume that this is a bug exploit and not something that would work IRL. If you're using a non-historical method and getting a result faster than the result gained by the historical method, then it's most likely a bug. Especially likely if the former result is not only faster than the latter result in the sim, but also faster than the actual historical figure! Both are true in this case, making it especially likely that this is a bug exploit; the only alternative would be that M1Combat has discovered an amazing method that would have worked IRL, but none of the real test pilots learned it. Meanwhile, according to those who have performed tests using the historical method, the latter does not yield the expected figure.

It occurs to me that there may be a bug with the way the speed is being calculated in the sim. If our P-51 isn't matching its RL example's "normal conditions" top SL speed in the sim, under the same conditions, but is able to reach (or exceed) that speed under different "special" conditions, then I would assume an error in the sim. Another question arises: was the real P-51 likewise able to go faster than its actual tested speed, if operating under these mystery conditions (which the only simmers who know them won't volunteer), and the real pilots (like 99.999% of the simming community) simply didn't know about this trick, thus the RL test was lower than optimal speed? I doubt this, but it isn't impossible. See Lindbergh and the P-38 range for an example of a similar situation. It's also questionable whether these mystery conditions would work in reality at all. Again, there could be an error in the simulation. We'll never know any of this, though, it looks like, since the key piece is missing. [stare @ M1Combat] The more I think about this secret trick that only ~0.001% of the community knows, that causes our sim P-51 to be able to reach a speed that no one using solely historical methods can reach, the more I think that this is a bug exploit. Again, impossible to say without knowing what exactly it is, but the murkiness is hardly a vote of confidence.

That's disappointing to hear. While I acknowledge that you aren't technically under obligation to do any differently, the fact is that you are placing your ego over the good of the community. When I was topping the leaderboards in Rise of Flight, I offered gratis advanced aerial combat training to anyone who was interested in maximizing their potential. I didn't hold anything back, because flight sims are such a niche genre that they need all the help they can get, in every way. (At least one student eventually surpassed me in dogfighting ability; I wouldn't have given any less if I'd known beforehand.) Hardcore flight simmers should freely share their knowledge with other users, from basic training to the top-level competitive stuff. The community as a whole benefits from this. It is, of course, your right to play "the prisoner's dilemma," but that's that much less respect from me & my kind, and you may lose out, too, in the long run. FWIW

The problem with tracks being unpredictably, wildly inaccurate predates even the announcement of v1.5/v2.0, by several years. I was having difficulties with tracks being a toss-up between "recorded correctly" and "recorded as if I'd fallen asleep while flying" around the time of the P-51's release, and my experience with the problem was not unusual even then.

P-38J & L each had ~420 gal. internal; that's where you got that number. I may be partly to blame for your error; because my expertise was in P-38 and not P-51, I've several times used the P-38's fuel figures to demonstrate points about percentages, range, etc., during discussions on the P-51 (the fuel capacity of which I don't have memorized). Edit: I meant that I'd used the P-38 and its fuel figures as examples in those discussions, not that I incorrectly gave P-38 figures for the P-51 during those discussion.

It isn't, really. Just a small handful of guys trying to make it out to be. [looking at OnlyForDCS & co.] It's sort of like the NASA moon landings. It isn't a controversial subject, despite what a few conspiracy theorists think. ; D

We've already been over this. As established in post #178, extra mass will not help you on the way down, since Earth's gravity accelerates both objects equally, regardless of mass. Meanwhile, on the way up, extra mass may help keep momentum (helping you retain E), but it also means lower thrust-to-mass ratio (hurting your ability to retain/generate E). You've yet to provide anything (beyond mere contradiction) to support your claim that the momentum gained from extra mass trumps the energy input at this power setting. It is not as basic of a question as you think. An extra 7.5% power will make no difference in the fight against the 109? This is unarguably false ... absolutely false. It is self evident why. I don't even ... Are you forgetting the part where I have somewhere around eight thousand hours dogfighting in multiplayer flight sim-games, including several hundred hours in the DCS P-51, before I was forced by my hand injuries to quit? I am not some clueless noober with no experience to back up my "theorycrafting," as you imply. At my peak, there were only three pilots in the DCS community who could consistently defeat me in a "co" duel. (Viks & Xcom being two of them, IIRC). Granted, the DCS WWII community was smaller then, and I wouldn't rank so high today, but my point: not to blow my horn, but I'm not exactly the aerial infant you make me out to be. I'm retired for medical, not a noob.

Alone, not alone, on the deck or not—3% higher top speed is 3% higher top speed. If we're going to assume average improvements in success rate, 3% more success rate on average is the logical one, for any but a foolish pilot who doesn't know how & when to extend. And that 3% is when ignoring (as you are, to the further detriment of the accuracy of your assessment) the increases in acceleration and climb (and turn), which are more like ~7%. So, average improvement for most pilots should be around 5%, not your insanely pessimistic 0.2%. Like I said, this is true when the engines are off, or at low power settings, but at what point does thrust/mass matter more than momentum, for a maneuver such as a zoom climb or hammerhead (which is, again, the only type of maneuver where momentum can be utilized—unless you can list another)? I suspect that point occurs before 67". You say it doesn't; on what basis do you make this claim? Yes, it's going to be like the Mustang, but more so. It's going to similarly have a bad chance against the 109 at lower altitudes (i.e. 90%+ of multiplayer engagements), if it doesn't also have one of its higher historical WEP ratings. Even with, turning with a 109 is a terrible idea unless you know you have the great upper hand in some way. Edit: by "like the Mustang but more so" I don't mean "more powerful," I mean like more "you don't want to turn with a 109 at low altitudes." If it's factory-boosted, I expect the P-47 won't even be able to get away, at low altitudes; IIRC, the factory P-47D was slower than the factory 109K at sea level. We didn't win the war at all. None of us here were alive back then. I'm not making niggling over semantics; it was long enough ago, and a different enough culture, that we can only objectively look at it as "they."

Seriously? The G-suit helps at high altitude, not low. You can't pull enough Gs to black out in sustained turns. The G-suit helps more up high, where you have enough energy to keep up a hard instantaneous turn. Meanwhile, the 72" WEP rating helps the most down low. And however could you possibly think that 3% more speed would mean only 0.2% more survival chance?! Why are you trying so hard to downplay the significance of the 72"?

How is 72" controversial? It's well-documented to have been officially authorized and extensively used in combat. There are few who argue that it shouldn't be in the sim. There's little controversy on the matter. There's also no reason why having both 72" WEP and the G-suit would be a bad thing.