Solty

Orly? The angle for both Fw190D and P-51D is almost identical.

Yep its only up and down. But still the Fw190 seat doesn't look all that amazing. Its just a regular seat. Nothing fancy. It looks actually like an less comfy P-51 seat. Maybe the MkIII suit was used on few ocassions, but what about MKII? Also, how is it that K4 and D9 can fight underdog Spit and P-51 and people still want to lower the fighting chances for the allies?:huh:

But Brits used Franks Flying Suit Mark II which is also a G-Suit present since 1940.

Parachute in on your bum, not the back.

Judging from the position on the ilustration the P-51's seat seems to match the 5.5G ilustration if not beeing a bit more angled. If we add anti G suit we get up to 7G of resistance, just at the actual needed G force for Max P-51D performance as the plane was rated for 7G with standard combat load.

Crump... There is no way in the world that on average, P-51/47 pilot from 1944 is going to be less resistant to G forces than Bf109 or 190 pilot. A quote about G suit used in the Mustang " An air pressure outlet connection on the left side of the pilot's seat provides for attachment of the air pressure intake tube of the anti-G suit. Air pressure for the inflation of the anti G-suit bladders is supplied from the exhaust side of the engine-driven vacuum pump and is regulated by a Type M-2 valve, which also regulates pressure to the drop tanks. If drop tanks are installed on the airplane, the acceleration force (G-load) required to actuate the M-2 valve should be approximately 3 to 3.5 G because of the approximately 5 psi pressure exerted in the tanks. If drop tanks are not installed, the valve should open at 2 G. After the valve opens, pressure is passed through a regulator valve into the suit in proportion to the G-force imposed. For every 1 G acceleration force, a corresponding one psi pressure is exerted in the anti-G suit" Mustang Flight Handbook. Spitfire pilots would use Franks Flying Suit Mark II,which was developed 1940, equiped later on. https://books.google.pl/books?id=_6hymYAgC6MC&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=anti-g+suit+ww2&source=bl&ots=Nx3aRWFHYw&sig=DKOfF6_TYqq4NRoDh1TH4XzO9CQ&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0CGAQ6AEwC2oVChMIoqum7ZaPyAIVAf1yCh32kwNr#v=onepage&q=anti-g%20suit%20ww2&f=false States: "A conventional anti G-Suit increases ROR and GOR tolerances by approximately 1 to 1.5G." So, if an average person is capable of taking 4.5G, a trained fighter pilot can take 5G. That is giving 5.5/6G and 6/6.5G respectively. 109 cockpit is at an angle, but I've read a while ago that just over 5G was the max that the pilot could take. That would probably mean in aproximation that 5.5G for the fit pilot and 5.0 for an averge person giving 0.5G increase. You have also remember that in 109 you are at speeds that high G occures you have to constantly fight with the stick and rudder because controls are very heavy. Now imagine pulling on that stick in that small cramped cockpit with both hands with all your might while G forces press you hard. Its just impossible that the 109 pilot would, from default, have a single advantage in that case. 5.0G pilot+3.0 from the modern suit + 1.0 or 1.5 from the F16 seat at 30deg=9.0+G possible if pilot can keep his breathing techniques. It would be a good option, but I don't see need for it realy. As our fighting is not going to take place before November 1944 and thats 6 months after D-Day. We have Fw190D9 and Bf109K4 which are both from around November or late November/December time period. There is no way that both those planes were flying before D-Day(June 1944). If Germans get older planes, I am ok with limiting US pilots to flight without G suit, but for now it seems pointless to develop such option to a plane that won't fight in such environment.

Let me leave that little anegdotal evidence here.

To me systems can be simplified, but FM has to be top notch. And give it a good enough DM to make things flow. Ballistics should be taken into consideration as well. In a combat flight sim two things are vital. Flight and combat.

P-39? Did I miss something? I never saw an Aircobra on the list of planes ...:huh:

Ummm... will the server be up and public? I can only see one server that is on password.

Hmmm, I am not fond of that realy. So people who have lower skill level and loose airplanes would make other users loose ability to play the game? What if somebody joined a mission and lost 3x A-10s and there are no more A-10s but he has still some F15s and he is still playing... but other people that have only A-10 as a module are now depraved of gameplay because of somebody poorly handling airplanes during a mission? I find that disturbing It would work well with a premade event. But in a normal MP brawl? That has a potential to segregate people after their skill level and bring hostilities between players that want to fly a particullar airplane but it was wasted by a bunch of "noobs":book:

You can always quit the game and wait a week for it, and come back to the game after that.@OP

I am more interested in the second plane, that I would love to see some aircraft from Pacific theatre like A6M Zero or F4U Corsair :3 Zero would be ideal enemy for the P40F Though :)

Well, you said that even older 109 could catch the Mustang... which is not realy true, or maybe I misread that. Anyway... Yes, self-sealing helps prevent fire, but when they (fuel fumes) catch fire then there is no stoping it except for some extrodinary luck. But there are many videos of 109s and 190s burning, with fire coming from those tanks, not so many guncams from axis side, but I am sure that they had simillar results. For example here: https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=25m40s we have Fw190A that got hit into its feuselage tank, and whole feuselage seems to be on fire. https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=21m23s here from the same video you have a Bf109 hit into feuselage and engine on fire. And this one is the best one yet, its from a British video, a direct hit into the fueslage tank of a German plane (its small so I presume 109) results in big bang :3 I mean I saw more from IRL, but in DCS I have never seen a single fuel tank on fire. I realise what I say, and I am sure of what I've said. I have killed many 190s with a quick attack and burst that made a 190's wing fly off, or kill the pilot. While I can only rip off 109's wings via methodical sustained long bursts and I have never killed a 109's pilot. Wing damage on 109 seems to go like this: 1. Bullet holes 2. White smoke and more holes 3. Black smoke 4. White smoke again 5. Wing destroyed

No, 109 doesn't dive faster IRL than a P-51 but yes you need to commit against K4 to gain separation. Both P-51D and Fw190D should outdive the 109 easily, even the K4. 109 picks up speed ok up to 500kph(probably K4 can accelerate better than G6/G14 due to improved aerodymics), but P-51 can accelerate way faster after that mark. Earlier 109(G14) would be slower than P-51D even with the current 67'hg even in a level flight, not to mention dive. But P-51D is underperforming in lvl flight and that was acknowlaged by YoYo himself. K4 though is faster than P-51D with current power setting and fuel and thats why I am still waiting for 44-1 fuel :D (from what I know, it should be added along the way :3) It should give the P-51 those 5mph more of speed than K4 at most altitudes. About weapons... I feel that the game has DM based on HP of those different parts, and 109 wings feel way tougher than Fw190 for some reason. Also 6x.50cals is a good aramment and you can see how fast they can deal with fighter aircraft. Sure it depends on how you hit, but fuel tanks in DCS just don't burn and 109 wings seem to be more tough than 190 or P-51 (I judge that after many many kills and most of them against 109 were by killing its engine in MP and making them burn in SP)

We have been told that the 109 is going to get patched with 1.5 and Climb Rate currently is 31m/s(at SL) and will be changed to 26m/s(at SL) and it doesn't have rudder forces giving it roll rate equal to FW190, which is also going to be fixed. I agree with you that the 109 is too resistant. And I am not talking only about AI. You see AI has different DM and it doesn't suffer from coolant, oil loss etc. It is only beat by ripping its wing off and/or making it burn like a candle. But, 109 seems to be realy resistant compared to other two planes. From what I've seen. I have never killed a 109 pilot in the cockpit. It is impossible to me. Also, they take a lot of pounding on different control surfaces and fuel tank and nothing happens. Only the engine wants to die sometimes if you hit it into radiators or just prop govenor dies. It is realy wierd as the most sturdy and armoured Fw190D takes a beating pretty well, but still is way easier to shoot down than Bf109K4... If we look at the construction of both we would see that Fw190 was theoretically capable of taking more damage into its wings, but both planes should be burning if a well placed API hits the fuel tank and its gases... but I haven't seen fuel tanks burning on P-51 either, so I guess the DM doesn't have it modeled at all.

Exactly so that means that if Tornado is first, then well... we would get multi-crew aircraft without proper AI... I don't think Letherneck would roll with that. But hey, I like tornado. Would be cool to see a fighter for UK :P

Well... the main reason I don't think its Tornado is that the plane is a two-seater. We still don't have fully two-seat airplane and I think they wanted to make special AI for F14 (Jester?)... I wouldn't say that Tornado fits.

When I added my list in the Chizh thread, I actually took most common US, German and Commonwealth tanks, vehicles, AAA etc. I think there is wierd misconception about some units beeing more relevant than they actually were. For example M4 Sherman is getting a lot of flack from people around the world, for beeing flamable as it used gassoline as fuel... I mean realy? Every German tank used gassoline. Most British tanks used Gassoline... but it is Sherman that is "flammable" just because people assume that... Also, its armour is called "paper" because its half of the thickness of a Tiger meanwhile most German tanks were PzIII and PzIV. And standard mid-production M4 Sherman has at its hull 51mm of armour Standard Panzer IV G has 80mm. That seems like big gap right? Just take the Hull armour and check those angles. As PzIV armour is at near 90' its armour is near 80mm thick. M4 51mm is at 56' angle, and that gives it a 91mm thickness... who is paper like now(FYI Tiger hull front is 100mm)? :P Also Sherman's turret is around 76mm thick front and 51mm thick at sides. Pz IV turret is 50mm front and 30mm sides :P Anyway. I am all for standard equipment, but some icons like Tiger I should be added, because they are fun to hunt down with planes :P I don't like prototypes but I agree that all units that are relevant should be used.

Yea, I understand, just wanted to check if anybody knows something. Thx

I just wonder... Was there a statement on current tracers? Right now they are barely visible for the shooter while from a perspective they are normal... will we get some update there with new graphical engine?

Surely size does matter though, as we have so many constructions and different designs, so one must be more efficient than the other. Otherwise we could have microscopic rudders and get the same results:P Also, I didn't say it proves anything. Try not to venture into the land of overinterpretation.:pilotfly:

Didn't know where to post it, as all threads about rudder are closed now... I was looking for data about rudder authority and thought lets see how they look together. So, a quick comparisson of 109 and P-51 rudders :P Its not K4 so add few centimeters more. But the difference in how big they are is just astonishing :P

Try out TF-51D. Just remember that the TF version has no guns, ammo, additional fuel tank in the feuselage. So it is going to be way lighter, thus TF-51 will perform a bit better in maneuvering than P-51D. But hey it is free and you can check if that's what you like. P-51D is easiest when it comes to takeoff and landings and it is a pleasant machine in the air. K4 is still in beta and realy lacks some features (supposedly 1.5 should fix most/all of it). For no it is overperforming in certain areas. Fw190D9 is a great airplane, very much a Fw190. Great roll rate, poor sustained turn and quite fast. Both German planes are way harder to take off and land but require less engine managment than P-51... your choice realy.

Awesome to hear :D