Solty

Well I don't care about modern jets but I still don't know if I should buy it realy. Not to mention that I would probably fly alone cause price is so high my friends said they don't want to have any part in this. Flying alone is no fun and especially against K4 and D9 over Normandy. As it is for now only Spit can fly there, unless ED sells G6 conversions and A8 conversions. I fail to find the appeal more and more and number of people will dwindle because most won't be able to pay the price. That's just because its preorder and I think price for NTTR is too high anyway. I will think about it, but currently I think I'll go play other sims for now. Snarky... nothing more. I am not their benefactor, I am a customer. And there are whole games that cost less than what ED wants for a single map without units.

I am wondering whether I should even buy Normandy. I don't like the way ED sells Normandy and units separately. Not to mention that price is very high.

Not really... Try Bf109E3 vs Pzl11c or I15 vs 109F2 or A6M vs F4F. It would be normally non issue as in other games we have many planes of many types and models which gives you enough diversity for many historic matchups. Its different when the only airplanes you meet are only the ones that are last models to be in some quantity. And I do agree we should have been given planes for Normandy. But as long as we get finest planes for Germans and run of the mill variants for Allies there will be opposition to the current balance of power.

Yes it was.G6 was made in so many variants Germans wanted to standardise it and failed with the G14. Ultimately they put new engine, improved aerodynamics a bit and fixed some issues but started doing the same what they did with G6 making many variants. K4 was finally the plane that was suppose to be standard of the 109 models... But that kind off failed as well as G6 and G14 (and all their variants) were also in production up to 1945 and were more common than K4. Not to mention the "Bastard of Earla" Bf109G10 which was made with both DB605DB and AM engines and was another variant of the 109 that stood in way of production standardisation.

Happy to hear. Good luck :3

I'd like to say that if you do not plan making the Corsair anymore (as this thread seems to indicate), maybe switch focus and help flesh out the European theatre from 1944. There are still many planes missing from that front. P38L, Typhoon MkIb, Fw190A8, Hs129, Me410, B25, Mosquito, A20 etc

Server is down. Is something wrong?

You know, in 1v1 duels you start in front of each other with similar speed and altitude and cannot turn away for longer than 20sec or you will get disqualified ;) But if it is a combat environment you have that option of running if you are faster. But DCS's sound system screws most B&Z attacks as your "prey" hears you come from 1km away.

If Mk14 comes and gets 21lb boost, the server host may do the same as they will probably do with the Me262. Let very little planes into the game. For every 8 MkIXs there could be 1 MkXIV.

They are close enough to respond quickly, they have diverse targets and radio tells u if they see any airplanes. It also allows the attacker to come in and out easier as teams have to spread out, which allows for multiple directions of attack and picking the least defended targets.

Yay.

I am sorry but it is not true. If you take away the feuselage fuel tank, how do you want to fly from Iwo Jima to Japan? I mean, they had to fly 8h missions and that would be impossible without the auxilary tank.:smartass: The airplane "is always stalling and falling out of the air" because you do not have a good enough stick. You have two basic choices. 1) Make a stick with exact lenght of the real P-51D and get rudder pedals. 2) Change your curvature to remedy that. I chose the second option and my P-51D can fly on the edge because I can feel the airplane well, due to my axis curvature.

I will say Burning Skies for now is the best server and second to it is ACG. Both are great for WW2. Burning has more detailed and complex missions. ACG server will probably make more complex missions when Normandy arrives, for now its just focused on quick air combat. :) Both are great and FOCUSED on WW2.

That Kurfurst's data shows manual control over the radiator, opening it more than they were by the automated system and I am not sure what it means that the test was "Position error of static vent and brief level speed trials". Wing racks were also present and we don't know which Mustang IV that is. Might be P-51D5 with old P-51B racks and lacking tailfin causing instablility and slowing the plane down. Anyway, YoYo himself has agreed, earlier, on the data supplied in Febuary 2016. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2696329&postcount=25 So the Ohio test is to be taken as the one that DCS Mustang is based on and Mil power 361 mph and WEP 375mph are the ones that were modeled before in DCS.

I got to 602kph with emergency rich and radiator closed manually. But that is extremely risky and doesn't allow any maneuvering at all or engine dies. I think (as Saburo suggested) something might be wrong with cooling which in turn opens the radiator too much which results in more drag and less speed. :)

Yes because we see the best possible K4 in the game. If our K4 was capable of 580 kph at SL with automatic rads, I would not be even trying to fight it. But as it stands the 109K can go 595kph and it makes it faster than the Mustang making the relative performance gap bigger. Mustang is scaled down, 109 is scaled up, and you are refering to the experimental K4 which was going over 600kph with different prop and other adjustments. Not to mention most K4's didn't have wheel covers because they were getting stuck etc. etc. which would make it go slower IRL, but you have the best case scenario anyway.

In what way WEP seems to be perfect? Remember about the conditions, it should reach 375 mph with automatic rads and run mixture (test done in Ohio 1945). Even worst case scenario shows 368mph (which is not a test but rather a performance calculation from 1946.) What Kurfurst refered to was a P-51B with V-1650-3, which is an older engine based on Merlin 63, that was significantly worse at low altitude. Real life plane flew (test done in Ohio 1945) 375mph. Our P-51D does below that at WEP (Flight 1 364 mph). Also, those are NEW TESTS. I have attached the old thread for reference as the issue was realy resolved in 2016. But it seems to be back. Why did I post my old 2016 post? For reference, as it shows (even though my flying was imperfect) that I was able to get to 369 mph and now the Mustang goes up to 364 mph with the same settings and better flight regimes. And keep in the back of your head that IRL it was able to go 375mph (during a flight test)with wing racks attached. Again, I have posted it here, and not made a full bug report, because others may prove me wrong. If you want, make your own test. :) Just make sure you do not dive or climb too much because it will skew the test significantly ;) If your results will be different, fine, share them. Just remember to trim the airplane and watch your digital data closely. Ctrl+Y and watch for TS (True Airspeed).:pilotfly: PS. It might seem like minmal difference (and it is, in terms of math), but it is big in terms of combat environment. If the Mustang on auto settings would be going 603 kph, it is faster than the K4. If P-51 does 586 kph, it is slower than the K4. Our K4 (suposedly) can go 595kph with automatic radiators, and it is the best case scenario for 1.8ata 109K in this config. There are many other sources that show it to go 580 kph. But K4 gets the best possible performance. So why can't the Mustang fly at its best possible performance? So however you might see it as nitpicking over a little relative difference in terms of math, in reality it makes a difference between "life and death" on our virtual playground. :)

I just like how real life data bothers you.:smartass: I did another test just find out. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today I flew with: Flight 1 Radiator: automatic; WEP 67', 3000 RPM; Mixture: run; 9760 lb (4427 kg); SL; Result: 586 kph or 364 mph Flight 2 Radiator: manual (closed); WEP 67', 3000 RPM; Mixture: run; 9760 lb(4427 kg); SL; Result: 595 kph 369 mph (engine died) Flight 3 Radiator: manual (closed); WEP 67', 3000 RPM; Mixture: emergency rich; 9760 lb (4427 kg); SL; Result: 602 kph 374 mph Flight 4 Radiator: manual (closed); Military Power 61', 3000 RPM; Mixture: run; 9760 lb (4427 kg); SL; Result: 573 kph 356 mph Conditions: 15°C; 760 mm Hg; no wind YoYo's Chart for 61' MAP: WW2 test: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D_15342_Level.jpg Conclusions: P-51D doesn't meet the data supplied. I want to note, that few patches ago I was able to get to 595mph with automatic radiator and mixture set on run back in January 2016. So the performance deteriorated again. (My setup changed so I was able to get much more accurate test. I had the plane trimmed and operated it via trim and ball was cenetered and wings level.) https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2697020&postcount=34 Keep in mind my earlier testing was less optimal than today, that is why YoYo refuted my claim back then (justifiably). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It doesn't meet the 61' curve at SL from YoYo, which seems to show about 363-365 mph (I am not sure its pretty compressed, but 370 would be in the middle of that square...) Again, this is real life data, which means its 100% historically correct. I am not asking for miracles, just attention to detail. I know every plane is different and one can be better quality than the other, but lets at least keep the acknowladged data. As I see it Mustang is slower than a year ago (again). I ask all other P-51D players to test it themselves and give feedback. I might start a BUG report thread...

Forgive me if I am wrong... But people working on 3D models might not be the same as those working on the bug fixing. Although I am sure they are focused on remaking AI models and making new sruff for Normandy.

Let's put all 109K4s without MW50 on the server and let's see how they will do. Right? I mean if 1on1 skill is so important and performance is so irrelevant, as david claims, 109s would still dominate right? :)

I agree the cooling system in DCS is quite innefective and inefficient. To achieve (on deck) 601kph or roughly 374mph one has to close the radiator manually(and risk quick failure), while our Mustang is based on data that shows 375mph with automatic radiator controls and wing racks under wings. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D_15342_Level.jpg

I am all for ju88. I have proposed it at least once myself. Extremely versatile platform. From tactical bomber, dive bomber and torpedo bomber to a night fighter, not to mention iconic, along side He111, bomber of the Luftwaffe. And I would say allies need a ground pounder too. B25/Mosquito/A20.

We have P-51D-30 from 1945 Pacific theater with radar and better radio and beacon equipment. Not P-51H.

Poor F-35. I remember when, ironically, F/A-18 Hornet was going through the same. When people called it a bad airplane design and that F/A-14 is just better at everything and Tomcat pilots protesting etc. It is funny to see it inverted on its head because I've not seen any pilot complain about the F-35 but all the politicians and civies seem to be quite mad saying the plane is a poor fighter and bomber

Thx eekz :)