Echo38

100 / 67 * 72 = 107.46 The high-octane fuel has nothing to do with the percentage of power increase from 67" to 72". 150-grade gasoline wasn't necessary to run at the 72" rating; it simply made it safer to do so. I don't remember, offhand, the exact situation for the P-51, but the P-38 (factory rating: 60") was officially cleared for 64" or 66" (I don't remember which, for sure) on 130-grade, with 150-grade being recommended for improved reliability (although, for the record, 150-grade fuel introduced reliability issues of its own, namely sparkplug fouling, if I remember aright—there was a simple procedure to deal with this, however). For some reason I can't comprehend, many people here (even proponents of the increased ratings!) ignore this fact. The 150-grade fuel wasn't actually necessary for the higher-than-factory WEP ratings, and some of these ratings were cleared for use with even the 130-grade fuel. The 150 just made the high boosts more reliable than when using 130. This is true. You aren't going to want to use it in a sustained turning fight down low, 'coz at low airspeed, the engine'll pop in a matter of seconds (it already does at 67", under those conditions). The main utility for 72" will be in energy retention and in extending, not for turn-and-burn with flaps down. Used properly, the extra power should "pay for itself," as keeping your speed high for longer means having better cooling for longer. It just isn't going to be a magical win button. The 109 will still have the superior turn at all altitudes (except for possibly near ceiling—unsure on this point). But the 72" will still be immensely useful in lessening the gap in overall maneuverability, and improving the ability to extend (which is the P-51's most important defense against the 109).

Not sure if serious.

I just realized that I made an error here. It was 5% more fuel mass that I was able to notice, not 5% more fighter mass. So, the actual increase in total aircraft mass increase was much smaller than 5%. In which case, I may indeed have noticed a 2% difference or less (depending on the capacity of the fuel tank). This strengthens my point: even small differences in aircraft thrust/weight are noticeable to highly-experienced fighter pilots.

I definitely agree with this. Another thing is that true airspeeds are higher up there, and so the P-51's superior high-speed turn is more of an advantage up there, even in sustained turns. Unless I'm grossly mistaken, it's TAS and not IAS that determines turn time. When both fighters are at max alpha, their TAS is higher up there than it is down low, and so that means the P-51 has less of a disadvantage in sustained turn up there. It may even reverse (i.e. P-51 might have superior sustained turn) at ceiling, although I'm not sure. A problem of definition: a sustained turn is a turn which neither gains nor loses energy. A diving turn cannot be a sustained turn, by definition. I'm not trying to be snarky or know-it-all, here; it's important that these discussions use accepted IRL air combat terminology, to avoid confusion. I understand what you meant, and yes—the P-51 does have a turn rate advantage during that max-throttle diving turn at "corner turning speed" (although, again, by the time he's out-turned the 109 on the horizontal plane, he's lost too much altitude to be able to make the shot).

I've heard this argument across four different flight sim/game forums for over fifteen years, and I still don't agree. While it sounds reasonable on paper, it doesn't hold up in practice. "Better dive and instantaneous turn" are temporary advantages, while "better climb and sustained turn" are permanent advantages. They don't simply cancel each other out, because once you've burned your E, the former two advantages are useless, while the second two advantages are all-important. Let me focus on turn, to demonstrate a not-obvious phenomenon. Superior instantaneous turn will never defeat superior sustained turn, all else equal. I mean, sure, instantaneous turn can make it easier to make the kill when you sneak up on someone and he breaks at the last moment. In that situation, yes, instantaneous turn is better. But in an otherwise even fight, instantaneous turn loses, because you can't fully out-turn your opponent before you run out of energy (or at least lose enough E to be at a serious disadvantage), at which point you flounder and then lose to his superior sustained turn. The fighter with superior instantaneous turn needs to dive steeply while turning, in order to maintain that energy-consuming "corner turn." If the other fighter performs a flat turn to counter, it will temporarily fall behind in the turn, but by the time the first fighter has fully out-turned the second on the horizontal plane, the first will be far below the second and in no position to nose up to make the shot. Which isn't to say that superior dive and instantaneous turn are useless (see my following quoted post for explanation); they just aren't very useful in a one-versus-one (compared to superior climb and sustained turn). That's why our 109 tends to dominate the P-51 even at medium altitudes, not only at low altitudes. Here's my mini-essay on sustained versus instantaneous turn, in simulators and in real life:

That's a 7.5% power increase. The average pilot may not be able to notice it, but the good ones certainly can. To recycle the analogy I just used yesterday in another thread, ask an Olympic runner if he's cool with the idea of carrying a weight that weighs 7% of his bodymass, during the big race, while his opponent runs unhindered. You think he'll be agreeable to the notion that it isn't that big of a deal? I'll give you a hint: he won't be. At the highest levels of competition, 1% can mean the difference between win and loss. I personally have been able to identify, in a "blind test," a 5% difference in an opponent's fighter mass, simply by observing how quickly I was gaining on it during sustained turns. While I can't determine a 2% difference, myself, even this "small" difference will affect my success, whether I realize it or not. Conclusion: to any fighter pilot worth his avgas, 7.5% more power is a large improvement, more than noticeable to a good pilot. 72" is that big of a deal.

You say that as though it were unreasonable for us to want realistic physics, accurately-modelled aircraft, & historical fighter matchups, but not historical time-to-target. Why would wanting to fly the real airplanes in realistic mock-combat equate to also wanting to spend historical-like amounts of down-time between fights? That doesn't compute. Speaking for myself, I do not want a realistic simulation of air war. I want a realistic simulation of dogfighting. Why do you judge me a lesser simmer because of this? I am no less serious of a simmer than you. (Indeed, I suspect that my passion for hardcore simulation greatly exceeds yours, given how earnestly I dedicated myself to mastering the virtual dogfight.)

Why? Was the D model incapable of safe/effective snaprolls, or were snaprolls regarded as redundant because of the high roll rate?

Last time I checked, yes, it's possible. Unfortunately, it merely reverses the disparity, rather than correcting it. That is, when you take away the 109K's MW50, it becomes a real underdog compared to the 67" P-51, just as the 67" P-51 is an underdog compared to the MW50 109K. (According to my contacts, the disparity is even worse in this case than it is normally. I can't confirm or deny.) For duelling purposes, the best thing I can recommend is for the 109K to take full fuel and the P-51 to take a very light load (20% at most). That should hopefully do the trick for duels. However, there doesn't seem to be any option for regular dogfight missions, sadly. The "ideal ideal" situation (that is, if development resources were unlimited, and so on) would be for there to be a 109G-6 (or some other "low-end" 109G) to face the 67" P-51D, and for there to also be a 72" (or possibly 75") P-51D to face the 109K. Which exact block/variant/configuration of 109G which would be best suited to face a 67" P-51, and which historical P-51 WEP rating would best be suited to face a 109K, is a point of some debate. As it is, Eagle Dynamics have (IIRC) indicated that they are at least considering—perhaps even planning—to add the 72" rating at some point. This is what I (and others) consider to be the most practical solution to the problem. It at least would allow 67" P-51 to be a match for the FW 190, and the 72" P-51 to be a match for the 109K. Missions featuring both Axis fighters would be problematic, as one of the three fighters would be guaranteed to be the underdog, but at least missions could be made with relatively even fighter balance for each of the German fighters. (In other words: a mission with P-51, Me 109, and FW 190 would be a problem, but at least a mission with P-51 vs. 109 and a mission with P-51 vs. 190 would both work.) Bear in mind, however, that high-fidelity sim development is naturally slow. Doing things right takes a long time, and ED isn't one for shortcuts. I agree with this method, even while I share the community's general impatience. Such is life! That means that we aren't likely to see 72" anytime "soon," I think.

Eagle Dynamics has always made it clear that the focus is fidelity. That's why most of us were here, I thought. Being a hardcore competitive guy myself, I agree that it's a great shame that the balance isn't better than it is (I'd like it to be as balanced as it can be without compromising historical accuracy). But E.D. has always indicated that fidelity trumps competitive balance (and even historical commonness). They aren't pulling a bait & switch on us. On the other hand, it isn't reasonable to expect players (even hardcore DCS users!) to climb up to & fight at 30,000 feet all the time. That requirement alone practically ensures that multiplayer will be dead. Well, there's air starts, but that isn't exactly lifelike, either. You must understand that the player base as a whole (and, with two or three exceptions, even the most hardcore of us) want fights to be had in a timely fashion. Practically no one wants to fly six-hour missions where they never see an enemy. Why should we? The reality of things is that the vast majority of serious simmers want fights to be reasonably accessible. And there's nothing wrong with that. Even real fighter pilots trained their dogfighting skills via pre-arranged mock-dogfights, rather than flying full-length artificial missions with little chance of finding their "aggressor" trainers. Labelling this kind of quick dogfight practice as "Air Quake," looking down on it, and suggesting that DCS should not accommodate it isn't good. It does a great disservice to serious simmers who wish to maximize their potential as virtual fighter pilots, as well as to have fun dogfighting. These quick combat missions are the most efficient & effective way to become a great flier. And there's nothing wrong or "sub-simmer" with wanting to enjoy lifelike dogfights in accurately-modelled aircraft, without a long wait time in between each fight.

As some might have noticed, I'm also critical of the current WWII planeset. I don't feel that the 109K is an appropriate match for the 67" P-51D (or for the upcoming factory-rated P-47D). It tends to make for lopsided multiplayer matches (and, consequently, empty servers). Nor is it the most historically-appropriate choice, as the 109K isn't representative of the average 109 a P-51D or P-47D pilot would encounter. However, Sith is right on an important point: Eagle Dynamics isn't really to blame for this. If there isn't good data for a particular model, then there isn't good data for it. I would rather they have been able to develop a more down-to-earth 109 model than the K, but if the K is the only one they could find a plethora of data on, then it does make sense that this is the one they chose, even if it isn't the ideal choice from either a competitive or historical viewpoint. Regardless of whether Ilya or Eagle Dynamics made the choice, it really isn't fair to blame Eagle Dynamics for it, despite the matchup not being ideal for the health of the multiplayer community. If I must choose, it's better that they ensure maximum fidelity of modelling, rather than pick models which best fit the missions, and then guess on modelling. Unhappy though this dichotomy is, fidelity must be the priority. And, given the data availability problem, it looks like such a choice was necessary.

I prefer the 109. Aside from it being the superior dogfighter at altitudes which don't require a lengthy time-consuming climb to reach, I also consider it a more beautiful airplane. It is the quintessential Axis fighter to me. Always gives me the chills to see one flying in real life.

"It's the pilot, not the plane" is a favorite saying of the pilot in the better plane. (Thanks, Gav!) No one wants to admit that their victory is due—at least in part—to having the advantage of superior equipment. They want to believe that it was solely due to their skill—that they earned it. But the equipment is as important as the skill. A bad pilot can't do much with a great plane, it's true, but a great pilot can't do much with a bad plane, either. I mean, sure, a great pilot in a bad plane can knock down bad pilots in good planes, but he's generally not going to be able to take out even average pilots in great planes—much less good pilots in great planes. If you spend thousands of hours in competitive duels against the very best virtual pilots in the world—as I have—you'll come to realize that, while pilot skill is vital to victory, so is having an aircraft that isn't significantly inferior to your opponent's. Unless you're fighting pilots who are less experienced than you, that is. In which case, you can come to an erroneous conclusion about the role of equipment. As I like to say, ask an Olympic runner if he minds carrying a weight weighing 10% of his bodymass, during the big race, while his opponent runs unhindered. I assure you that he will not take a fancy to the idea. The point is: superior skill generally wins the fight, but when the two opponents are of similar skill, it is the quality of the equipment which determines the outcome of the fight (along with other factors, like starting energy state).

What's so difficult to understand about this? Certain absolutely true statements are even stronger in some cases than in others, but remain true in cases in which the statement is weaker. As an example, the case in point: a 109K has superior sustained turn to a P-51D at 10,000 feet, assuming standardized conditions (e.g. both running clean, both optimally maintained, both running historical ratings, etc.). This statement is true whether the P-51D is running at 67" or at 72". However, the statement is even more true if it's a 67" P-51 than if it's a 72" P-51. The 109K still out-turns the 72" P-51, but the 109 doesn't out-turn it as easily as it out-turns a 67" P-51. Ergo, the statement "the 109K has a superior sustained turn to a P-51D" is true in both cases, but it is more true in the case of the 67" P-51 than it is in the case of the 72" P-51. I assume you are being intentionally difficult by mocking this logic. I don't have any other choice, as I believe the logic is self-evident. Your videos, by your own description, show you shooting down P-51s with a gimped 109. I don't need to watch them to find two major problems with this. Firstly, the fact that even a gimped 109 is able to take out P-51s is support of my position, not yours. My core position is that the 109K is too strong for a 67" P-51 in multiplayer, so if even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51, then the current (stronger) example of the 109 is really too strong for the P-51. Secondly, even a thousand videos of Fighter X shooting down Fighter Y in multiplayer (or even in real life!) is not actually evidence that Fighter X is better than Fighter Y. Superior pilot skill (or an initial energy advantage, etc.) can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane. So, another logical fallacy on your part. It just so happens that in the case of your example, your airplane was superior, but—as I explained in the previous paragraph—that's hardly compelling evidence against the need for a better P-51, is it? I'm having a hard time taking this conversation seriously, too, now. It looks like you've been treating it as a bit of a joke, all along.

It can be a problem. As someone who was raised on (and who still lives in a culture which exclusively uses) US Imperial, but who acknowledges the absolute superiority of metric, I still get confused by units when switching between US and German fighters. I can easily remember that 100 KPH is ~60 MPH, and do crude calculations within a few seconds based on that, but there isn't always time to convert, and there's really no replacement for grokking speed the way one does when seeing it in units which one has been using for one's entire life. While it's true that memorization of key airspeeds doesn't require one to know the relationship between the two units, it's still disorienting to not have any idea what your actual airspeed means at any given time. That is, to not know intuitively what your airspeed is, and instead know only an arbitrary number. I mean that I can "feel" what my airspeed means, at any given point, when I see it in MPH, but I can't when I see it in KPH (or even knots!). With KPH, I only know when I'm close to one of the pre-memorized figures (e.g. stall speed, best climb speed, etc.). The intuiting the relationship between my current speed and the figure I'm watching for is missing when the units are foreign.

The A-10 is quite simple for the flight fundamentals. Usually, when I fly the A-10, I skip the parts of the startup procedure which aren't necessary for basic flight. That means no navigation systems, communication systems, or weapon systems knowledge required. It takes me under a minute to start up the A-10 this way, most of which time is simply waiting for the engines to spool up and watching the RPM & temp guages. Basically, you just need to turn on the APU & engines, adjust a select few instruments (calibrate the altimeter, uncage the gyro horizon, etc.), and do a small handful of other basic tasks such as turning on nosewheel steering. It really is almost as simple as starting up a Cessna 152, with the major difference being the process of APU & engine startup.

The plot thickens! But, surely, anyone seriously considering buying it will easily discover that fact, yes? I doubt there's any intent to deceive.

Oh, derp. Thanks.

Forgive me if I missed something obvious, but is there a way to get English subtitles on that video? I ended up just reading the transcript, but I'd like to be able to see what he's saying as he says it.

Not performance, but handling, yes.

Well, yes, they'll always be behind shooters. Flying in Arma 3 will quickly demonstrate why this has to be, until there's a quantum leap in PC power.

I couldn't tell if that picture was a screenshot or a photograph. Even after full-screening the picture in my browser, it took me a few seconds to decide that it's a photo. Really, if it weren't for the dents in the fuselage, I still wouldn't want to put money on it. It makes me happy that flight simulators have come this far, even graphically. : )

The "bad G-6" was worse than the K-4 in not only drag but also in thrust-to-mass, yes? Being lighter made it better at instantaneous turn, but having worse thrust-to-mass made it worse at climb, acceleration, and sustained turn (and sustained turn speed is where most of the turning happens in multiplayer). This would be true even if the G-6 had the same drag as the K-4, by the way. As the G-6 was draggier, this compounded the problem. So, while an early G-6 had better instantaneous turn from being lighter, it had worse sustained turn (along with climb, acceleration, and speed) from having a worse thrust/mass ratio (as well as more drag). Overall, the K-4 was a much better turning fighter for normal multiplayer altitudes, even ignoring the climb and acceleration. At higher altitudes, the G-6 would have more potential energy with which to utilize its superior instantaneous turn, but then, too, the K-4 should have an even better thrust/mass ratio up there because of the supercharger (or whatever it was that was optimized for high altitude on the K-4), which again means that the K-4 is the overall superior turner, up high, too. Pretty sure the standard operating procedure was to burn the rear tank off before starting on the drop tanks. So, after dropping the tanks, you'd be at ~70% internal fuel, not 100%. But, regardless, this tangent ... no, completely irrelevant point you've embarked on has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, or the encompassing discussion! How much fuel players carry in multiplayer has nothing to do with which aircraft is best matched to which aircraft. I don't see the connection you seem to see. Whether all players use 100% fuel, or 15% fuel ... whether all P-51 players use 15% fuel and all 109 players use 100% fuel, or the other way around, or any other combination of fuel states, my point about 67" P-51D vs. 109K remains unaffected. It's more true at some fuel states, but still true at all fuel states. Hence my utter confusion at what your point is, and how any such point could possibly be relevant to the discussion you were aiming it at.

What on the goddess' earthy earth does that have to do with what we were talking about? [perplexed as heck]

Pseudo-science? You can't say, "It's got 3% more mass and 3% less drag; it must be less maneuverable, since it has more mass!" That ignores the very significant effect that drag has on climb, acceleration, and turn. It's true that drag isn't as linear of a problem as mass, since drag is more of a problem at high airspeed than at low airspeed, but the best climb speeds and best turn speeds for these birds are still high enough for drag to be a big player. You can't just assume that the airplane with a little bit more mass is less maneuverable than the airplane with a little bit more drag, the way you (pl) are, which is what I was originally objecting to. Given my understanding of how mass and drag affect performance, I would hypothesize that the fighter with 3% more mass and 3% less frontal drag is going to be the better fighter, even when prioritizing kills as highly as survival. It's going to be similar enough in maneuverability that it's going to be almost unheard of for it to make the difference in a maneuvering fight, while being faster enough to decidedly make the difference in a long-term chase. (Only the very best pilots are going to be able to notice, or even utilize, that difference in maneuverability, while almost any pilot can notice and utilize that difference in speed.)