Echo38

Rather than mean-spiritedly throwing a -rep message at me, calling me stupid for suggesting that drag is as important as mass, and then dropping a "no it isn't" in this thread, perhaps you could instead elucidate? I'm not an expert on aerodynamics (although I rather doubt that you are, either), so it's possible that I'm wrong when I say that the % of drag decrease can offset the % of mass increase. But you're going to need to explain how I'm wrong, rather than simply sneering "you're wrong." That really isn't how correct a misimpression, nor how to conduct an intellectual debate. What's your motivation for this hostility, anyway? It's almost as if you're emotionally invested in trying to prove that no change is needed to the aircraft matchup, rather than being objective about whether or not an improvement is needed. I'm guessing you mostly fly 109, yes?

[exasperated sigh] Firstly, the tail warning radar is virtually useless in a multiplayer dogfight. A P-51D block with TWR isn't automatically better than a P-51D block without TWR. (Indeed, a lot of real P-51 pilots didn't even use the TWR, because they considered it unhelpful, even during the long cruises where it was supposed to shine.) Secondly, the year of a block's actual introduction is irrelevant if it's using a horsepower rating from 1943 or 1944, rather than one more appropriate to 1945. Now, the bubbletop canopy is a fair point, because that's a large advantage in a fighter (although not so much during the dogfight itself). So, an amendment to my statement: we have a better-than-average example of a 1945 Messerschmitt 109 and a worse-than-average example of a 1945 P-51. The two fighters in the sim may be technically contemporaries, but the matchup is not representative of the average P-51 versus the average 109, particularly during the year being depicted. The lowest-utilized WEP rating for the P-51 is the reason (WEP rating is colossally more important than minor details like TWR). Make sense now? As for the rest of your post: I didn't watch the videos, because you just posted three videos with a "there" and didn't explain what I was supposed to be watching them for or what they point they were supposed to address / be relevant to. Sorry.

Why would anyone ever sell a working 109?? o O

I agree with this, actually. As I mentioned earlier, "Obviously, Eagle Dynamics being such a small team, the ideal solution is highly unlikely to be a feasible one. But, the thread is about the possibility (such as it is) of other 109 models, hence the discussion on which model/variant would be the best to add, if one were going to be added." In other words: I'd prefer a P-38 to an Me 109G, but if there were going to be more models of 109 added, a G-6 would be the one I'd prefer. That isn't a problem. A simulator is a tool, not a bludgeon. As I wrote elsewhere, "It's a high-fidelity simulator; it's not a simulator's job to artificially dictate user behavior, to force them to conform to real-life recommended operating procedures. The simulator's job is to simulate the tools as they are in reality, and let the users decide what to do with those tools within the simulation (and let them see what happens when they use the simulated tools in a manner contrary to the recommended operating procedures--e.g. engine failure due to fuel starvation, or being wildly out of trim because of unwise adjustments in the hangar)." Yes. Here's what I wrote on that, in another thread (which, ironically, was also about comparing models of 109):

That isn't how previous WWII games have portrayed them. Again, that doesn't mean they're right; I know they were wrong on a great many things. However, it has yet to be definitively established that this was one of them. In all past WWII sim-games portraying P-51, 109G-6, and 109K, the P-51 was considerably more capable of defending itself versus the G-6 (regardless of block) than against the K-4, even at lower altitudes (e.g. five to ten thousand feet). Several people in this thread have suggested that this is inaccurate, but haven't posted any proof of it. I asked for some, and am told that I'm "making too much of an issue out of it." Not a good sign. Until proven otherwise, I must assume that my tentative understanding (that the P-51D has a much better chance versus an early G-6, or even a later G-6, than it does versus the K-4) is correct.

Out of ... ? 100 / y * 0.0812 = x% x requires y to be solved. The mass increase appears to be 2–3%. No idea what the drag difference is, 'coz you posted only half of the equation. In order to be better than the K-4 in any area of flight, the drag increase would have to be smaller than ~2.5% Remember, drag doesn't merely affect top speed. Like mass, drag also affects climb, acceleration, turn, and diving.

I would murder an entire litter of beautiful kittens if it meant getting an Eagle Dynamics P-38. (Hopefully, E.D. won't demand such a price for it; I like kittens.)

He is overstating it a bit; we don't have literally the finest 109 that ever flew. However, his core point remains valid: we have a better-than-average example of a 109 and a worse-than-average example of a P-51. Not exactly fair, especially when the result tends to be the 109 mopping the floor with the P-51 in multiplayer. And before people start up with the old "LOL fair doesn't matter as long as it's historical" thing again, let me point out once more that it isn't historically representative, either. This worse-than-average P-51 facing a better-than-average 109 was not the standard historical scenario. Indeed, the opposite was more likely, due to the German late-war logistical difficulties. Wait, what? The K was the apex of 109s. Even the higher-end G-6s weren't as good. The 109K's only serious flaws were the rear visibility (problematic in combat) and the landing gear (problematic for takeoffs & landings). The G-6 had those same flaws and more, such as a draggier airframe and non-retractable tailwheel. The only thing that the G-6 did better than the K-4, as a fighter, was firepower. The 20mm was better at taking down fighters, while the 30mm was better at taking down bombers. So, even here, "superior" only counts if you mean "as a fighter" rather than "as an interceptor."

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've been saying? That isn't a rhetorical question; I really would like to know. It is not an "either or" situation. You can choose two historical birds (commonly-used ones, even), which are as close of a balanced match for each other as is possible. Even were this not self-evident, it has also been explained multiple times, by several people, within the last few pages of this thread. You're setting up a strawman, when you state or imply that seeking good competitive balance means disregarding (or lowering in priority) the historical accuracy of the matchup. Little could be farther than the truth.

I had the pleasant opportunity to sit in a real 109 once. Well, Buchon, anyway. Same cockpit. Fit me like a glove, and I'm not a big guy by any stretch of the imagination. It was really quite comfortable for me, compared with fighters with bigger cockpits such as the P-47 and P-39 (which I also got to try on). As far as I'm concerned, the 109's only major flaw as a fighter was the rear visibility. Absolutely terrible.

Why are you suggesting that I suggested anything that is not historical?

Many thanks!

Surely the decrease in drag wasn't smaller than the increase in mass. I find it difficult to believe that, out of the large hodgepodge of 109 variants between the G-6 and the K, none of them were "in between" in terms of low-altitude performance. I'm not one to mistake prior flight sim/games for resources (they were often wrong, aside from being a "quaternary resource"), but there's always been at least one such "in betweener" 109 portrayed in those, and I do know that there was a wide range of capabilities and qualities amongst those G variants. I'm not a 109 expert, unfortunately. I devoted nearly all of my research to the P-38, and that was many years ago. I no longer have the time/energy for researching warbirds, beyond the shallowest of levels (idle Wikipedia stuff). You, Kurfurst, are a 109 expert. I don't always agree with your assessments, as you sometimes appear to let your emotions get in the way of the facts that you know. But, despite occasional loss of objectivity, you know more about the 109 than anyone I know of, and I respect that. And so I ask you again a question which you've dodged in the past. What models/blocks/variants do you think would make the best competitive match for P-51D versus Messershmitt 109? As in: with money on the line, and equal training in each aircraft, you'd feel equally comfortable in either aircraft, in a standardized adversarial arrangement under normal multiplayer conditions. Historically, there were enough blocks, variants, & configurations that I'm certain there was a better overlap than 67" P-51D versus 109K. What are your thoughts on this?

I also said "roughly even competitive match." If it's a "monster like the K-4," then it isn't a good fit for the 67" Mustang, since the K-4 generally eats the 67" P-51 for lunch at normal multiplayer altitudes. Yes, we lack the common 72" rating, but I was talking about a competitive match for the (also common) 67" P-51. If we had 72", there wouldn't be a great need for a G-6 (from a competitive standpoint), because a 72" P-51D should be about up to the job of facing the K-4. Since we have a 67" P-51, some sort of intermediate-level G-6 (not a crappy standard G-6, but not a powerhouse variant, either) would be a good match for it, meeting both critera (a common historical opponent, and also an even competitive match). Merely adding the 72" rating could solve the competitive problem, but then what's the point of having a 67" P-51, too, if there's no good competitive match for it? It'd stay in the hangar forever. Who's gonna take out a 67" P-51 versus a 109K, when there's a 72" option available? (Particularly since a 109K should still be a better dogfighter than even the 72" one.) So, yes, the most practical solution would be to add the 72" rating, which would (presumably) take less development work than adding a 109G, but the ideal solution would be to both add the 72" (for P-51 vs 109K) and also add a 109G-6 (for 67" P-51 vs. 109G). Again, a not powerhouse-variant, but not the mediocre standard G-6, either. Obviously, Eagle Dynamics being such a small team, the ideal solution is highly unlikely to be a feasible one. But, the thread is about the possibility (such as it is) of other 109 models, hence the discussion on which model/variant would be the best to add, if one were going to be added. Namely: one which is both a common historical opponent of the 67" P-51D, and also a good competitive match for it (neither dominating nor being dominated in a dogfight at normal multiplayer altitudes, which means <10,000 feet).

The idea is to get a commonly-utilized variant that's a roughly even competitive match for the 67" P-51D at normal multiplayer altitudes, not another mismatch like the K-4. Sounds like your variant would be a poor fit.

Heh-heh! I was thinking something similar when I read that exchange, only my thoughts contained more sex-charged language. : ) I don't normally go for bigger gals, but just can't help myself when it comes to the Thunderbolt.

"G-6 late"? That's some old IL-2 jargon right there. : D "Late G-6" is a less perplexing way of shorthanding "a late-block G-6." Jus' sayin'. But, yes, I agree. Some sort of later G-6 would be ideal, I think. Something with more power than the average G-6 (so that it doesn't get eaten for lunch), but something that isn't as much of a monster as the K-4.

Heh-heh. Well, at least it isn't the Osprey.

You know, I can honestly say, that's the first time I've ever heard a joke with two consecutive punchlines. : )

Super cool!

We'll know in two weeks. (Be sure.)

Ha! Hadn't heard that one. I like it. As a bird man myself, I'm inclined to believe (serious) stories about exceptional individual parrots who can actually understand what they're saying, on a basic level (e.g. "dinner," "hello," "goodbye," and names).

I'm not a huge fan of History Channel's "Dogfights" series, myself. I can appreciate what they're trying to do, and I'll admit there isn't exactly a plethora of similar examples. However, "Dogfights" gets too much aerophysics stuff wrong for me to view it without irritation. Actual dogfighting is complicated enough that people often get the wrong idea about it without misleading imagery being added to the mix. While I don't speak for the community as a whole, of course, I know my opinion on this isn't particularly unusual amongst hardcore aviation folks. Seen more than a few share my eye-rolls at the poor choreography, one-sidedness, etc. Still, I don't mean to discourage you from posting links to fighter videos. Just, not everyone likes the same kind of videos, even on the same subject. "Whatever pulls your prop," you know. : ) Unrelated note: I wonder why the video in that link isn't properly labelled? It's clearly from "Dogfights," but neither History Channel nor "Dogfights" shows up anywhere in the description text or title. Indeed, even the end credits have been mostly cut from the frame. It's as if whoever uploaded that is trying to obfuscate the source. Weird.

Huh?

Heavy slip, perhaps?