Solty

Well I have not thoroughly read the test and it seems it was not the engine but the pump that failed. I am no engineer but I wouldn't use test of a high power DB605 to claim that DB 601A can can achieve the same power. If wiki is to be believed Merlin 65 and 66 are virtually the same engine. And the test mentioned that its nature was severe, and lead to a pump failure, not the engine itself. And that the pump was modified. I do not see the reason for all this hostility. Is there a reason why you are you so against such addition. Especially that we have a January 1945 model of Fw190D9 with gap seal MW50 and Ez42 gun sight which is a highly irregular model. Still, I do not understand why such a heated debate takes place. It was proven countless times that higher boost and octane fuels were used by the USAAF and mainly 8th AAF.

Umm... No? It's just invalid. But there are a few more tests of 75' MAP and Gen. Doolittle's approval of the 150oct fuel and high power settings. :smartass:

Point is that the test is for a different engine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Mustang_Mk.X

More expensive and jets became a thing. So USAF chose to scrap the P47 and keep the cheaper P51D as the in between solution. They had more of them and had lots of spare parts. Those Merlin engines are now overboosted to 3000hp with additional cooling for Reno races. I think they can handle 72'. Btw all engines can fail. BTW, this is a Merlin 65 (special) test. Not Merlin 66 which is standard for P51D.

Well, no. A-10 is closer to a Ju-87 or Hs129 than a Thunderbolt. P-47 was not only a good ground pounder, it was a high altitude fighter capable of long escort flights and one of the fastest planes at altitude with great air to air armament of its time. The highest scoring aces like Francis Gaby Gabreski, were flying the Thundebolt. I would say the Jug accomplished way more than the Hog. Also it is not ugly.:pilotfly:

How is Dora the plane that has a duty to destroy ground targets? Both are interceptors. You would need 190F or G to make such claims. Anyway I like different targets for both sides. Ships are there (I assume) to simulate allied supply convoy, while Germans have a tank motorpool etc. It makes for unique experience. But i think that it is far easier to hit a ship than a tank :)

Second worst after cheating. I suggest some ban for a month or two.

I think P-47 would be a better asset for our game. Way more to do with it and not to mention, most common airplane of the US Army Airforce in europe, while 262 made very little impact.

They are probably going to change that with the DM update, as it would be probably nearly meaningless in the current state. I hope they'll dothe same with .50cal M8 API ammo. Time will tell.

Agreed.

So, why do you play simulators? Maybe you should reconsider playing some better suited games for you. Mission of a simulator is to simulate, if you negate that factor, you negate the purpose of its existance. Also nobody negates the realism of current convergence patterns. They are realistic and done according to the chart above. Just it is not the only convergence pattern that can be categorised as realistic, as there were many configurations. Not to mention that those "expectations" were met by other simulations in the past. You just do not have the experience to judge it properly.

What about the Mustang? Can anyone explain how to change those lua files to get correct results?

It is a useful way to make the armament mounted in wings more powerful at certain distances. If it was irrelevant nobody would have bothered to adjust them at all. But truth is that if you set high dispersion or no convergence at all, you will make the airplane less effective and lengthen time to kill ratio. Is it a pill to become a sniper? No. But it is useful to create comfortable firing pattern for the shooter to maximise the weapon's effectiveness, that is otherwise inferior to a center mounted weapons of the 109 and 190.

Two video proofs. 1. P-51 guncamera footage of the tracerless ammo. This doesn't look like a "shotgun pattern" https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=25m27s https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=20m18s First link seems to be P47 the second P-51. These videos and many others are proofs of different patterns, ammo loadouts. Some airplanes have no tracers, others have every 10th a tracer, other have tracers bunched together and rest tracerless, sometimes both sides simultaneously and sometimes burst per wing. Many pilots had guns harmonised for 250 yards. There is even a video of a Tuskegee pilot saying that many of his friends changed their convergence while he himself didn't bother with it. If Red Tails could change it, others couldn't? Just because something is one book, doest mean the other didn't exist in another.

Exactly.

I would be OK with presets if they include non-shotgun ones.I really dislike how from 6 o'clock my shots seem to fly around the target. Although I think it would make the creation process for ED more teadious and longer. I myself always flew with 250m concentrated fire. Sometimes our current Mustang pattern feels needlessly far out, which makes close range shooting a pain and you want to get as close as possible with HMGs because they rely on kinetic energy.

Awesome, thank you. :)

A very slippery fight against a 109

Very nice energy retention. Fine work in that 190 :)

109 does that all the time. One second you are behind her, then suddenly she's flying perpendicular and you can't pull lead.

Hey Eekz. Could you maybe swap some spitfires for Mustangs? Yesterday me and my friend had a problem joining in, as all Mustangs were taken while 5 Spitfires stood empty.

Germans knew the bombers were coming as soon as they crossed the English Chanel. They would observe them and if they had enough data scramble fighters from many airbases and climb up to a meeting point where they would regroup and hit the bomber formation head on. Most of the fighters attacking the bombers were Fw190A and twin engine 410s. 109s and Dora's would go as top cover. They were countering that sending P-51's ahead of the formation. And if they stumbled on not yet formed Germans they would attack them, dispersing them. Most German pilots did not stay to dogfight, having their experience through the war they would dive away, and that's a mistake when fighting the Mustang.

So should I wait many minutes for unpacking of rockets and fuel truck to come each time I change my loadout? Or wait 10h before my mustang gets repaired and its parts replaced after hitting "request repair" button? No. And DCS already has simplifications like that. It seems my ground crew knows me and switching those convergence settings should be possible just as much as possible it is for them to repair my wingless airplane within 120 seconds after a crashlanding.:pilotfly:

How one can abuse barrel alignment? Its like saying that adding adjustable sights to a rifle would abuse it. There are many accounts of both British, American pilots changing the convergence. It is not amatter of whole airforce doctrine, you just go to your ground crew chief engineer and get it done. He takes your airplane, they do that from time to time because guns desynchronized during flight. He puts your airplane in a hangar with big target and crew adjusts the guns. It is not a matter of Gen. Doolittle's approval. There are some accounts saying that pilots had their gins adjusted at different distances to cover different to have similar effectiveness at a range of distances, sacrificing the punching power that comes from all guns pouting at the same direction, if I am not mistaken it qss on the pacyfic where hitting a target was harder than destroying it. It was not abusable in IL2, Clod, AH, BOS and WT. Why would it be abused here?

Well, it is best when you have close oponents, but if you have a conflict like 1941 IJN vs USN A6M2 vs F4F3 it makes for a very historical matchup, but also heavily favouring the Japanese, at the same time it is interesting and I would love to play the F4F. But I know it is close to real conditions. P-51D vs K4 is also a historically correct matchup, but it feels wrong because unlike the A6M2, the K4 is not the standard 109 for the 1944 period and thus creates unrest.