Echo38

There shouldn't be any throttle changes in a level speed test. I'm not as concerned by the wing-waggling as I am by the hidden slip&skid indicator. That 109 could have been in a pretty significant slip, with no way for the viewer to tell. Even a small slip can make a large difference in speed.

Even in B&Z, greater mass is a disadvantage, rather than an advantage, in almost all cases. Again, there's a window during the zoom climb where I can maybe see mass being an advantage (from the level point of the pullout, to somewhere between then and the best sustained climb speed), 'coz momentum, but that's the only time I can think of that you might want to turn the mass dial up, so to speak. And even in a zoom climb, it's better to have a high thrust/mass than to have a high mass. Since higher mass means worse thrust/mass, all else equal, I'm not sure that the extra mass "pays for itself" even in this one case. If the airplane had its engine stopped, then the more massive airplane would end up in a better position (compared to the less massive airplane, all else equal) after a dive and subsequent zoom climb. But we're putting loads of energy into the situation via our engines, and that changes things quite a bit. Physics experts, what say you? Addendum: I watched Otto's level speed test, and noticed two things which could have affected the results: the 109 looked more wobbly than the P-51, and the slip&skid indicators were not visible. The latter is all-important for a speed test. I don't have DCS updated to 1.5x; can someone take a look at the track and keep an eye on the ball?

Sorry to bring up something from a few days ago, but I just realized, while thinking about level speed acceleration, and then dive acceleration: without drag, all objects are supposed to fall at the same speed, regardless of their mass, yes? So the P-51 shouldn't dive any better with a full tank a fuel than it does empty. The P-51's superior diving ability over the 109 comes from the P-51 being less draggy, not from being more massive. Mass can only be an advantage for an airplane in the case of momentum, which only comes into play during a zoom climb (and even here, superior thrust/mass is surely more of an advantage than simply having more mass for momentum).

It does, and it should. (By a large margin—much larger than that in the top speeds.) The 109 is draggier, but has a much better thrust/mass. So, the 109 reaches its approximate top speed much sooner than the P-51 does, in level flight. This means that the 109 is faster than the P-51, for however long it takes to get to that point, if they both started out at similar speed (e.g. both began the race at best climb speed). The 109 can even begin the race at a lower speed, then pass the P-51's speed, and remain faster for at least a full minute. No, no better cooling, other than airflow increase from increased top speed (but, as mentioned, the speed increase is smaller than the power increase, because drag). The only difference is an adjustment to the engine's governor(s) and filling it with 100/150 grade avgas instead of 100/130.

I see no reason why G-suits should still be withheld, given that these are contemporary with the 109K-4, and it would also help to close the gap. But, yes, the addition of 72" and G-suits should fix the P-51's competitive situation as much as is reasonably historically possible. 75" may be hypothetically necessary to achieve actual parity down low, but 75" is not an option, because (as far as I can tell) it was never officially authorized (although, of course, that didn't stop plenty of crews from using it, historically). The benchmark for an item's introduction in the sim seems to be official authorization and combat use, which would automatically exclude anything that never made it further than field tests. Regardless, 72" should at least be "good enough." Putting back the G-suits should help a little bit more, but I don't regard these as highly as the power rating, in low-altitude fights. These two things are best that can be done to make things even at low altitudes, within a requirement of strict historical accuracy. No, I don't think it would unbalance higher altitude fights. My understanding is that 72" helps more down low than it does up high. Something about supercharger states, or something like that, if I remember correctly. Yo-Yo mentioned something about this a while back. However, regardless, I think it's been generally understood that 72", if introduced, would indeed be an option, for the mission maker to decide, rather than replacing the 67"-rated P-51D. I don't think anyone has suggested that the 67" be done away with. Indeed, I'm counting on that not happening, or else the FW 190D could be in the same boat that the P-51D is now.

Been a few years since I've done a speed test, but IIRC, one minute may not be long enough for the fighter to reach its top speed. I seem to recall doing tests where, from sustained turn speed to top speed without any altitude change, at least a minute and a half were required to reach actual top speed (most of that time being the last few MPH or KPH, of course). Back when I flew the P-51, I also used automatic radiators, and would also frequently suffer engine failures at WEP (even when consciously keeping airspeed high during maneuvers). Some of my fellow fliers said that radiators should be manually opened at WEP, and that this can keep the engine from failing. I'm not sure if this is the same thing you're talking about with "detonation," though, as I'd expect radiators to matter for overheating and detonation being something more related to fuel burning in the cylinders. But, I'm shaky on my definition here. Okay, ancient forum thread indicates that the information in question comes from Warren Bodie's "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning," which I own ... somewhere. And it's a very large book. [sigh]

If memory serves, it was for the P-38's Allison and not the P-51's Merlin, and now that you mentioned knocking, I suddenly realized that it (mid-range ratings on the 100/130 fuel) may not have worked for the P-51, because the Allison had a much lower factory rating (and proportionately lower "mid" and "high" ratings) than the Merlin. For example, factory rating being 60" for the P-38L as opposed to 67" for the P-51D, which eventually got officially raised to 66" and 72" respectively (with plenty of stories about, but AFAIK not officially documented for combat, higher ratings such as 75"). So, I would expect the P-38 going from 60" to 64" or 66" to be more viable on 100/130 grade fuel than the P-51 going from 67" to 72". But I don't know much about the differences between the Allison and the Merlin, or about how each reacted to the different fuel types. Now, as for the document(s) in question, I've spent over an hour looking, and am only finding ancient forum threads with dead links which may or may not have once pointed to the one(s) I'm looking for. I know I saw it ... not that I could reasonably expect anyone to take my word for it, of course. : /

I calculated his K/H to be 3.9 in P-51D and 4.3 in 109K. That makes his K/H more than 10% better in the 109 than in the P-51. (28 kills / 7:10:08 flight hours, and 21 kills / 4:52:59 flight hours, respectively) K/H isn't nearly as important as K/D (which doesn't seem to be listed), but it's still notable that a guy who flies P-51 more than 109 can still get 10% better kills/hour in the 109. I don't know, myself, but BodyOrgan is the second high-scoring pilot who, in the last two days, has mentioned to me that the current P-51 is slower than the 109 on the deck.

This can work if you give the players air-starts, but air-starts are themselves problematic for several reasons. For one, when users don't have to take off every flight, they start to get rusty at it. I've seen this first-hand, and even experienced it to some degree. It's terribly embarrassing when pilots are excellent at combat but can barely take off without scraping a wing. : ) But what really gets me about air starts is that, well, so much of DCS's wonder comes from the almost-impeccable modelling of the systems management. Skip the startup and takeoff, and you're missing, like, half of that. It'd be a shame if the community effectively forswore startups and takeoffs, so that they could have high altitude matches without axing their combat/hour rate. I personally love high altitude dogfighting. It's more slow-paced and tactical, with lots of planning and grokking of E state required, much more thoughtful and less reflexive than low-altitude combat, which occurs at a faster pace due to the tighter turning circles and such. But, consistently getting into high-alt fights in a timely fashion is impossible without air starts, and air starts are a bad solution.

A small number of vocal players oppose it; I don't know what the actual ratio is of those who do and don't. Some oppose it because they don't want to see their competitive advantage disappear. Not all who dismiss the concept of balance are doing so for that reason, I'm sure, but it makes me wonder when people say things like, "As long as it's historical, balance doesn't matter"—despite the unarguable fact that there is a wide range within historical accuracy which allows for well-balanced matchups. What we have here isn't really the "historical crowd" versus the "balance crowd," the way some insinuate. It's more of the "historical & unbalanced" crowd versus the "historical & balanced" crowd. (Balanced for standard multiplayer matches, anyway.) And, really, the "historical & unbalanced" crowd must not want historical accuracy as much as they say they do, or else they'd be clamoring for an actual average wartime example of a 109, degraded manufacturing and all. Not that I want manufacturing defects—I don't—but I'm not one of the ones claiming that historical accuracy is the only thing that matters. Not exactly. There were some examples that were so close as to be virtually indistinguishable, though. "For any year" is much too broad; one has to go down past model, often past block. There were so many variables in configuration (let alone the variation in individual examples), and that's a happy thing, because it means that you can find two examples for almost any given fighter matchup (e.g. P-51 versus Me 109) which are effectively "perfectly balanced" with each other, for a given scenario (e.g. dogfighting at <10,000 feet). One may need to delve into the realm of individual variation in some cases, but that generally is unnecessary. You give me (IRL) a healthy body, unlimited fuel & maintenance resources, and exact replicas of every individual P-51 and 109 ever flown in combat, and I promise you that I can come up with two examples which are perfectly balanced for low-altitude dogfighting, or close enough that no one can tell which is superior, when both are flown by the best dogfighters in the world. Might take me a few months, given how physically exhausting dogfighting is IRL, but I'd get it eventually. : )

The only one I've talked to directly in the last few months is Solty. While I don't always agree with his assessments (flying any aircraft exclusively can make it difficult to remain objective about it, both in sims and IRL), he is an excellent virtual pilot who is more familiar with the P-51 than most fliers ever will be with their chosen aircraft. If he says that the P-51 isn't able to reach its listed speed at sea level, then I'm going to assume that this is the case until someone posts an up-to-date video of the P-51 reaching its listed speed at sea level.

Compared to a well-made 109K? Yes. "The P-51 won the air war in Europe" primarily by superior numbers and a steadily-replaced pilot pool (we're in agreement on this), with the Luftwaffe being further constrained by material shortages and supply-line disruption (resulting in degraded fighter performance, on average). Had the logistics been equal, I expect the 9th Air Force would begun rapidly losing, as a result of its retention of the factory rating.* At which point, I expect they would have raised the boost like the 8th did, with or without 150-grade fuel. Which air force would have ultimately been dominant in an equal-logistics situation? Without bringing range into it, my guess would be the Luftwaffe, but this would have necessitated them keeping up in the boost "arms race" (in which, I have no doubt, the Daimler-Benz & Jumo 213 were capable of succeeding, had the logistical situation allowed it). * I assume you're correct when you say the 9th only used 67"; I have insufficient information on that point. I'm not trying to ignore any actual response of yours. I simply haven't seen you say anything which counters my point about historical accuracy and balance. As far as I've seen, it's mostly just been "balance doesn't matter, only historical accuracy," and ignoring the fact that having both is entirely possible, without making any concessions to fidelity or historical accuracy. I mean, you said that it's up to mission makers to balance things, but how are they supposed to balance a low-altitude P-51 vs. Me 109 engagement with only two basic choices (109K with MW50 or 109K without MW50), neither of which can result in an even match?

I know that! I said that! Several times in this thread ... on this very page, even. Why act like you think I don't understand this? That's a straw-man. We've been over this too many times. Good balance, without sacrificing historical accuracy ... should I put that on my shirt? There was a wide enough range in these birds' configurations, in reality, that you don't have to pick a mediocre P-51 config to face a good example of a 109. You are, again, setting up a straw-man (namely, suggesting that my argument is to reduce historical accuracy in order to improve balance). I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the fine points of which block/variant/configuration of 109 had what, no. I'm not even an expert on P-51 blocks & ratings (and I don't think I've ever presented myself as such). Still, at one point, I did some pretty decent research (including specific dedicated books) on the P-38, and this led me to a survey-level understanding of the encompassing stuff. Namely, a good understanding of how both logistics & fighter performance were involved (one way or the other) in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, with the reason for the fall of Nazi Germany being logistical and not technological. You imply that I don't have a clue what's going on in DCS because I haven't done any significant dogfighting since the 109 was released. This is a reasonable assumption, but you also seem to be implying that I'm getting all of my ideas from old IL-2 etc. That isn't an accurate assessment; while I do have less experience in DCS than I did in the older sim-games, I did get to fly the DCS P-51 for several hundred hours, which was enough for an already-proficient dogfighter to get a good understanding of how things differ between DCS and the older, lesser sim-games. For one example, due to superior modelling of both overheating and drag, flying sustained turns with flaps fully deployed is a terrible idea here, unlike in the lesser sim-games. But in many other areas, things work largely the same. While I don't have any first-hand experience with the DCS 109 (other than some dogfights against the AI, which doesn't behave the same as human players), I don't need to have that in order to understand that it's easily more maneuverable than the P-51 at normal multiplayer altitudes (as it should be) while also being almost the same speed. Why, just yesterday, someone told me that the DCS P-51 is once again slower than the 109 on the deck, although I (of course) can neither confirm nor deny this, what with the joystick thing. What I do know, from talking to all of these DCS users, and from watching videos, is that the speeds of the two are close enough that the P-51 does not, in fact, have a clear, decisive speed advantage at low altitudes. Any advantage in speed (if there even currently is one) is smaller than the disadvantages in acceleration, turn & climb. I don't need to actually fly P-51 vs. 109 in DCS to know what I'm talking about in matters such as this; my experience with the DCS P-51 module—coupled with my observations of, and conversations with, pilots I know to be highly skilled (from past experience duelling them), as they fly the newer fighters—allow me to extrapolate, with a good degree of accuracy, my experience from the lesser sim-games. E.g. my understanding that being slightly faster doesn't do much good if the other guy has much better acceleration (along with turn and climb). That's true in DCS as well as in the lesser sims. Is it possible that I'm wrong about that, and that the DCS P-51's speed advantage is enough that a good pilot can consistently engage and then safely disengage from a well-flown 109, below 10,000 feet? It's possible, yes, but unlikely enough that I'm comfortable with believing the pilots I know to be skilled, who say that I'm not wrong, rather than believing the "109 first" crowd on the forum who say that I am.

For crying out loud! None of those lines you just quoted actually say what you're saying they do. None of them (including "all of them, taken together") is a statement to the effect of, "There were only two variants of 109G-6, one without MW50 and one with, and the one with it was the more common of them." If that statement is true, it's news to me. I have no idea why you're telling me that this has been told to me before, let alone many times. Edit: okay, if I look at certain pairs of those quotes together, I can kinda see where you're coming from. But, the wording isn't so clear. As you may or not be aware, I cannot fly flight sims anymore due to joint injuries. I can use neither joystick nor pedals without pain. This has been the case since before the 109 was introduced in DCS. If I were able to use joystick & pedals, the 109 would be my primary ride; out of all the aircraft that are currently in the sim, the 109 is my favorite (yes, I'd rather own an Me 109 than a P-51, IRL). Until the release of the P-47, the 109 would be my DCS ride, regardless of current dominance (that is, I'd fly it primarily, regardless of whether or not it were the most competitive fighter for multiplayer). So, see, my advocacy of 72" to balance out the P-51 vs. 109 situation (without reducing historical accuracy—it's a shame that I have to point this part out every damn time, but if I don't, someone's sure to start hollering about how balance isn't as important as accuracy) is not out of some supposed 109 hate, but is rather objective. It's simply a good thing to have reasonably balanced teams in multiplayer, if this can be done without reducing the fidelity of the sim. Happily, the addition of 72" doesn't reduce historical accuracy in the slightest, and it's an appropriate historical match for the 109K. It's win-win (except for the players who prefer 109 to dominate P-51). To a true sportsman, it is no more desirable for the opponent to have an unfair handicap than it is to have that handicap oneself. That some desire their opponent to have such a handicap is proof of their dishonesty; they are "poor sports" and do not belong in multiplayer. And, as I've mentioned repeatedly, they increased their MAP even when using the standard fuel. I've seen documents authorizing some of the mid-range WEP ratings on 130, with the caveat that the engines will wear out faster. The 150 extended the engine life, but wasn't necessary for e.g. 72". The false idea that the large majority of U.S. fighters ran exclusively factory ratings, with only the groups which had access to 150-grade fuel using higher ratings, is a result of the fact that USAAF manuals were not properly updated (as several wartime pilots said, many of the pilots never even saw a manual). Instead, they issued periodic "memorandums" containing the authorizations (and, of course, not all crews waited for the memo). I've carefully read everything that everyone has posted in all of these discussions (with the exception of Otto's posts since the exchange in posts #142–146, when I concluded that, for whatever reasons, he & I cannot effectively communicate with each other). While my memory certainly isn't what I'd like it to be, I am absolutely not trolling. I'm here because, even though I can't fly DCS (or any other flight sim-game realistic enough to require a joystick), I love these airplanes and this is the most lifelike portrayal of them in any simulator, to the best of my knowledge. Look, I'm not unreasonable. Maybe I didn't make it clear, last post, but I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong about the G-6 situation. What you suggest about it simply isn't something I've encountered before. I'm not a 109 expert, nor a P-51 expert; the P-38 was my area of relative expertise, and even that was a long time ago. So, most of what I "know" about the 109 comes from hearsay, and it so happens that the idea I've heard repeatedly was that there was a range of G-6 variants, and that most of them did poorly, compared to a factory-rated P-51 and later (or even earlier!) models/blocks of 109. If this is wrong, I'm actually quite open to correction, but at this point, I'd rather not take it from the fanatically pro-109 clique on this forum (which isn't the majority of 109 fliers, mind you, but roughly five guys who just can't accept that the two fighters were generally more equal in reality than they are in the sim). If I've mis-characterized you as being one of that group, then I genuinely apologize, but everything I recall you saying in any discussion on the P-51 and 109 ends up supporting the 109. So, if you could simply point me toward a reasonable source (e.g. not Wikipedia and not a sim-fan's 109 page) where I can concisely (as a result of my health, I don't have the energy for hardcore research these days) read up on G-6 variants, I'd be happy to try to improve my understanding of this subject. And, if I'm wrong about the G-6 mostly being garbage compared to other 109 blocks, I am willing to retract my statements to that effect. I'm not going to bullheadedly stand by mistakes; I merely haven't been convinced at this point, because, so far, it's just been a few diehard 109 fans saying, basically, "No it isn't." This is nerve-wracking for me, too. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, or contradicting me; how else could I learn, if I'm wrong? What's unpleasant is the battle to figure out which of them to believe; some do so honestly, while others have an ultertior motive (namely, preferring to skew multiplayer balance in their favor). I have no choice but to doubt the latter, and that doesn't make me a "P-51 fanboy." (I'm really not; I've always believed that the P-51 stole the P-38's credit—so to speak—and the P-47's, to a lesser extent.) If I'm not mistaken, before your edit, you were specifically referring to P-51 versus FW 190D? In which case, yes, I definitely agree that 72" P-51 is too much for our FW 190. However, the 67" P-51 would remain, which at least gives the option to have a mission with a good match for FW 190 and another mission with a good match for 109. Right now, there's no option for a mission with a good match for the P-51 (without going high-altitude, which has been established to be generally non-viable for multiplayer). As it so happens, I do own the FW 190D module. It was a gift from a friend, who told me that it should be less hard on my hands than the P-51, but I haven't flown it (or any other fighter) because of aforementioned health situation. I'm waiting for the Normandy map et al.; at that point, I plan on hooking up the ol' simming equipment, firing up the FW 190, and gingerly doing some basic touch & goes. But I won't be able to do any real flying with it. I digress a bit; point is, the FW 190D is the fighter which I have the best chance of being able to dogfight in, if my medical situation should improve a bit, and so I actually do have a good reason to not want to see the 190 fall behind the P-51 in competitive play. So, I share your concern about the FW 190. The 72" is too much for the 190 at current boost. However, if you believe that 72" would move the balance too much in favor of the P-51 vs. the Me 109, then I must disagree. 72" P-51 is still going to be inferior in dogfights to the 109, while still only being slightly faster. It's going to be less disadvantaged, but it isn't going to have a net advantage over the 109.

Excuse me? This is the first time that anyone has ever mentioned such a thing to me, as far as I'm aware. I vaguely recall a discussion about MW50 use in 109s, some months ago, but "at least a dozen times" is more than a gross exaggeration. It would have been one time, at most (during that MW50 discussion, if ever), and I'm pretty sure there never was any such exchange regarding the 109G-6, specifically. I do recall someone saying that MW50 is extremely easy to produce, and that it must have been widely available as a result. But even this strikes me as a dangerous assumption, given the poor state of the German logistical situation later in the war. I remember one German pilot mentioning two neighboring airfields, one with lots of ammo but no fuel, and the other with lots of fuel but no ammo. The right hand didn't know what the left was doing. The point: one can't simply assume that MW50 being easy to produce meant that it was universally available. You've consistently taken a pro-109, anti-P-51 stance in every one of the many discussions we've had on the subject, which causes me to doubt that you're entirely objective about the subject. Do you have some sort of documentation to demonstrate that the majority of 109G-6s were the upgraded sort, or is this an assumption? I've always heard that the most commonly-produced 109 was the G-6, and that most of them were on the lower end of the spectrum. You, and perhaps one or two other diehard 109 fans here, are the first people I've encountered who would deny this. Speaking of MW50, was that really the only difference between the high-end G-6s and the low-end G-6s, barring production quality? Were there only two variants of G-6 (one without MW50 and one with MW50)? Can someone who doesn't fly 109 primarily/exclusively confirm? I'm kinda tired of hearing most of my 109 info from people with a vested interest in portraying it optimistically. I would agree that the 109 was generally a better fighter than the P-51, if range wasn't a war-winning factor. But, let's ignore range for now; presumably, "pure fighter" was meant as opposed to "logistical fighter." So, yes, then, the 109K was a better fighter than the P-51, in my book. Aside from having vastly superior ergonomics & engine management, its only real flaw in the air was its rear visibility. Its thrust-to-mass ratio was potentially better than the P-51's, by an enormous amount. Had the Daimler-Benz been boosted to the degree that the Merlin et al. were, later in the war, it would have made a massive discrepancy in the dogfight. It would have meant similar speeds and much greater maneuverability, under most conditions. However, the fact remains that the German fighters' engines were, on average, fettered more strictly than those of the U.S. fighters. So, while the 109K was unarguably the better design for dogfighting (other than the visibility), the U.S. practice of continually using higher and higher WEP ratings meant that the disadvantages in thrust-to-mass were less, on average, then they are in DCS. And that's the part you're overlooking. The 109K was, overall, a better fighting airplane than the P-51D, when the two were both using factory boosts, but the German late-war logistical nightmare meant that, on average, the German fighters were running lower boosts than their U.S. counterparts. The U.S. was producing engines to burn, and so the USAAF started using higher-than-factory ratings even before 150-grade fuel came into the scene. For this reason, the P-51s in reality were less handicapped vs. the 109s they faced, generally, than our P-51 is vs. our 109 in DCS. So, in real life, not only was the average P-51D running a higher WEP rating than ours, but also the average 109 they faced surely wasn't in as good of condition as ours, either (the MW50 discussion aside). I'm keenly aware that the German pilots were depleted and outnumbered by the end of the war, but this has nothing to do with the actual performance of the two fighters. The phenomenon certainly affected pilots' perception of the relative performance (because any given 109's potential usually wasn't seen), but not the actual fighter performance. Seriously? You expect the community to be happy with climbing all the way up to 30,000 feet, in between every fight? Are you trying to kill the playerbase? 'Coz, that's what "just fight at high altitude" amounts to—I promise you that you'll end up with nothing but ghost servers. If the only two choices are climb up to high altitude between every fight, or not fly on that server, the majority of even serious simmers will take the latter choice. Your way makes for a terrible rate of learning, and it's also simply a waste of time that could be spent doing something more enjoyable (like, you know, dogfighting). Very, very few hardcore simmers consider long, uneventful climbs to the combat area to be enjoyable, even if you disregard the abysmal combat/hour ratio for learning purposes. Or are you advocating air-start missions (which are also bad, for reasons which should be obvious)?

It's been a year or so since I took off in the A-10, but I seem to recall it being much easier to take off without the nosewheel steering. Maybe have it on for the first few yards of the takeoff roll, but I wouldn't leave it on until 70 knots. Just make sure she doesn't touch the pedals until the nosewheel steering is off, anyway.

It looks really nice!

You're making sure she turns off nosewheel steering before throttling up for takeoff, right?

So you say. When our P-51D engages our 109K, at 5,000 feet, and then decides to dive away and extend after the initial merge, how quickly can he leave effective gun range of the 30mm cannon? How about that of a 20mm cannon? This is ... debatable. Having a bit less mass but a bit more drag doesn't necessarily mean it'll do better in sustained turns. It may even turn worse, depending on how much it gains and loses of each of those two. So far, several people (e.g. yourself) have assumed that it'll turn better because of the decreased mass (compared to K), but no one has established whether or not the gain in sustained turning ability from the mass decrease is greater than the loss in sustained turning ability from the drag increase. If the latter is greater than the former, then the G will have inferior sustained turn than the K. Only if the former is greater than the latter would the G have superior sustained turn to the K. Edit: oh, forgot to add—that paragraph is applicable only to the G-14 and/or the "upper-end" G-6. The lower-end G-6 (you know, the aircraft most likely to face a P-51, historically) certainly has worse sustained turn than the K-4, because not only is the former draggier, it also has a worse thrust-to-mass ratio. But I'm repeating myself again; I pointed this out just a few days ago in one of the (sigh) two concurrent threads on this subject. So, your statement is debatable—not established to be true—even when referring to the upgraded G-6 and the G-14, and it is downright inaccurate when referring to the downgraded G-6. That downgraded G-6, by the by, was the most common historical opponent of the P-51 ... funny how the "historical accuracy only" crowd turn a blind eye to this—but, this is the wrong thread for that discussion.

Not exactly; with the Spitfire vs. 109 part, I'm referring to the general situation in flight sim-games. I've never flown or faced the Spitfire in DCS, for example. Perhaps our Spitfire is much slower than it is in the older sim-games, but I'd find that surprising, as usually even the lesser sim-games got at least top speed in the "ballpark." In every sim-game I've flown & faced a Spitfire, it shares the same characteristics, which are as I described. They easily out-accelerate, out-climb, and out-turn the other fighters in question, while remaining basically equal in roll. The only significant flight disadvantages are top speed and dive (and, even here, the disadvantages are much smaller in % than the advantages are). As I've stated many times in the past, I do not take any sim-game as a "resource," much less old, outdated ones that have been proven to be wrong on multiple critical points. Still, I'd be surprised if they all were this drastically wrong on such an obvious point (although I suppose I shouldn't be, given the P-38 MIL speed documentation error propagation). Now, with the P-51, I am referring to the one in DCS. It is barely faster than the 109, at low altitude (in some past versions of the sim, it was actually slower). Superior diving ability doesn't really come into play much below 15,000 or so. Below 10,000 feet, any advantage gained over a 109 by diving is rather small (in comparison to normal gun range) by the time one needs to pull out. The 109 only loses a few hundred feet. The 30mm Mk. 108 does change the dynamic here, reducing the 109's advantage a bit, but if we imagine that our 109 has a 20mm cannon, you'll see that the little separation the P-51 gains isn't nearly enough to let it get out of gun range in a timely manner. The 109 has plenty of time to gun down the P-51 as the latter slowly accelerates away, even while diving.

For some reason, this comment made my day. : D

Huzzah!

Not sure as to the exact number, but at normal multiplayer altitudes, it's very small. The reason why the 109 tends to dominate the P-51 is the same reason the Spitfire tends to dominate the 109; the top speed on paper is better for the latter, in each case, but the advantage in top speed is much smaller than the disadvantage in acceleration. One real Second World War pilot (I don't remember his name; sorry) called it "combat speed." That is, he said that the Spitfire had a higher "combat speed," even though it's actual top speed was technically higher. For the majority of a dogfight (including an attempt to disengage), the Spitfire is faster than the 109, and the 109 is faster than the P-51. So, in a P-51, the only way to effectively get away from a 109 in normal multi-play is to be lucky enough to spot him at long range, and then simply refuse to engage. Once you've actually engaged in a dogfight (whether simple turn-and-burn or an intelligent energy fight), you've lost your opportunity to extend safely. It will take you at least a minute to exit gun range (that is, assuming it's a 109 with 20mm, unlike ours), in a low-altitude fight. The 109 will be faster for a large part of that extending phase, while the P-51 slowly accelerates back up to its top speed. Of course, at high altitude, that changes, both because of the superchargers and because of the greater energy pool (being able to steeply dive away). But, I'm talking about normal multiplayer engagements, which are usually less than 10,000 feet (because, naturally, ~no one wants to spend 20 minutes climbing up to 25,000 feet and then returning to the target area, in between every fight).

You'd think that, but in a dogfight, it isn't so. With our faster fighters, the turn times are increased, giving the pilots more time to plan ahead, to see things coming and react to them. In Rise of Flight, a fighter can reverse direction in three seconds or less. So, in a tight scissors fight, you're always 1.5 seconds away from a potential collision, or a shot opportunity (either his, yours, or both). In DCS, the fighters take much longer to turn around, being faster and heavier. This gives you plenty of time to see a potential collision and avoid it, or to see a shot being lined up and react accordingly. The best pilots in RoF were constantly colliding with each other in duels. Multiple times per hour of duelling. It simply wasn't possible to react in the small window. In Second World War sim-games, however, the good pilots never, ever collide in a duel. There's simply more than enough time to react in those wide, low-rate, high-speed turns, compared to the twitchy little kites of the First World War, with their tight, high-rate, low-speed turns. You mock me as though there were something wrong with wanting the two fighters to be a good match for each other in multiplayer. I think there's something wrong with wanting one fighter to be better than the other in multiplayer, rather than wanting them to be well-matched. As I said, to a serious competitor in any field, a ~7% advantage is a large one, not a "very small one." I'm sorry that you lack the experience to understand this, and to feel it, but you mustn't assume that because you and the average virtual pilot can't feel such a change, that better ones must not, either. We can and we do. It matters. Several of my virtual flight students called a 12% disadvantage "almost nothing." Yet, guess who was losing in seconds during each dogfight, even without that disadvantage? I'll give you a hint: them, not me. ; ) The less experience you have, the less a given disadvantage matters to you, because your own margin of error is larger compared to that disadvantage. But the more skill one has, the smaller one's margin of error, the more that given disadvantage matters, by being larger in comparison to one's small errors.

I've explained this approximately a hundred times, now: you (pl) keep saying that balance isn't as important as simulation accuracy & realism, as though it were a "this or that" choice. But, as I've said over and over again, it isn't a "this or that" choice. It is possible to have both. I've made it more than clear that my wish is for "balance, without reducing simulation fidelity." Furthermore, I've also mentioned that I agree that competitive balance isn't as important as accurate modelling & historical accuracy. Happily, as I've pointed out again and again, the former is not mutually exclusive with the latter. I've made it as clear as space. Repeatedly. At this point, anyone who doesn't understand this either isn't reading my posts (at best, skimming them with intent to disagree), or is intentionally pretending not to understand it, out of ... I don't know, sheer contrariness? Desire to see their preferred ship stay at the top, perhaps? I'm losing my patience with this discussion. I don't mind explaining things when people don't understand them, but when people deliberately try to not understand, or are pretending to not understand, that does annoy me. I think I've explained things well enough that anyone approaching this honestly, or with an open mind, or whatever, can figure out things from here, without further input from me. Good morning!