USARStarkey

Oh my. I have never stated that the P-51 was the greatest fighter ever built, or that there are no fighters capable of opposing it on even terms. These days you cannot say thing positive about the Mustang without being accused of bias or irrational nationalism. The spitfire for one, is a better fighter in every aspect except for range(51 is faster than certain models, but slower than others) The K4 will be less of a monster than you think. For one, its oft quoted top speed of 454 comes from a estimate assuming a experimental propeller. The real top speed was about 441. Your comment about the P-51s top speed is complete nonsense. There are tons and tons and tons of tests that show 440+ top speeds for B and D mustangs with less than optimum wings. The P-51D could do 442 with the wing racks on for instance. Furthermore, any imperfections in specific air frames, or improper polishing or maintenance of the air-frame would also have affected every other ww2 fighter in the same fashion.

Your correct about the G-6, but I think a non-AS G-14 would be better match. There is little difference, aside from the MW50 being standard. Then again, that might be viewed as a big difference. Without 150-grade fuel, the thunderbolt will lose most some of its high alt advantage to the 109K. It will probably still turn better over 20k, but without 150Grade it will only be faster at altitudes over 28k.

The soviet tests are complete nonsense. The P-51 in the test was a very early P-51A that had a weak 1150bhp engine, it was equivalent to a XP-51 in american designation. It is not comparable in any way to a P-51B or D, or even the later A model which had a more powerful engine. It was also not in very good condition. The P-51 in game has a 20 second turn at 9550lbs. It can manage 19 seconds at 25% fuel. The A model 190 was about Equal to the mustang sub 20,000feet. Above that height the mustang was superior. The D was not quite as agile as the A, but was much faster and climbed about twice as well.

Ok so I think I am missing something here. So Im climbing up past 14 k in between the blower shift. Usually in MP, I get the shift at 16k. Did several test and each time in had to go up to 17,700ft to get the blower to shift. Then I started tinkering around, and weirdly enough I got it to shift a 16k and slightly under 16 about 3-4 times. I thought It might have to do with my airspeed being higher, so I did some tests where I was going 150kts or less, I and I was still able to get the shift at 16k. Other times I had to go to 17.7. No weather conditions changes. What gives?

Having a balanced fight is only part of the fun of a sim. Part of the fun, at least for me, is a feel for authenticity. If you spend time reading about the general situation during wartime, I want a sim that reflects that. Albeit I wouldn't insist on German planes being subject to sabotage etc, but it is somewhat immersion breaking to have to face down the pinnacle of German fighter development with a non-equivalent American or British plane. The P-51 hardly has it the worst. The Spit IX makes zero sense in the context of the other planes in this game. The P-47 is going to be a downright pain in the ass without 150grade, and it might very well still be without it. I find it almost laughably contradictory how much is being said about the pilot being at fault, yet when we want higher boosts or etc to make the scenario more realistic, suddenly the balance is off.

Honestly this back and for about skill vs plane is ridiculous. Both sides are trying to push their dichotic on the other side using increasingly dichotomic arguments. Fact is both have truth to them. To a certain extent blaming your plane for every time you die is silly, but it is equally silly to insist that plane performance doesn't matter, or shouldn't. By that logic, I may as well strap into a sopwith camel and call it a day.

Yes the spotting in DCS is nonsense. Supposedly this will be fixed by edge.

All the debate Aside, would anyone be interesting a High Altitude start server, maybe even with tu95 b-17s?

Panda, you should look at the charts I posted. WEP is hardly useless for the pony, what the manual says is a load crap and completely contradictory to all the flight testing, as well as in game. a 75" or 72" Pony is a massive difference over a 67" one. Were talking a increase from 3600ft/min to 41-4300fpm, which means parity, or near parity with the Dora. It would mean a even tighter turn, since you went from 1720bhp to near over 1900BHP without adding so much as a ounce of weight. It also means about a 10mph increase in down low top speed. So far as the comparison is concerned, they are relatively equivalent. The Allies used higher octane fuels to increase boost in order to remain competitive against Germans adding MW50 to many improved aircraft marks. Sure, we could keep adding stuff all day long, but if were trying to be historical, the number of aircraft built tends to be a issue. Personally, I think a A-8 190, and G-14 with MW50 would have been better picks to keep things representative. But, since were doing the ultra late war thing, it makes sense to give the P-51 and other planes the boost settings they would have had in order to go up against these end war German birds. Honestly, the addition of 150 grade fuel makes things more balanced overall in my opinion. This means that the 109, 51, and 190 would all have climb rates of 4000-4400fpm. They would all have top speeds of 430-440ish(109K and 51 being the fastest) Both sides having parity in the energy fight doesn't mean it automatically becomes a turn fight-51 wins. It means that if a 190 makes a mistake, it might be in bigger trouble. Anyhow, all of this could be controlled by the mission editor. Add the fuel, and let the mission maker decide if its a good idea. This works better than removing the MW50 from German planes, as they go from good to bad if you do that, whereas the mustang goes from good to less good. The modifications required to the P-51 to use the 150 grade fuel were: modify manifold pressure regulator, modify supercharger volute drain valve, install new type induction center manifold extension gland seals, use of Lodge RS5/5 or KLG RC5/3 spark plugs, installation of bulged exhaust stacks, and reset supercharger aneroid switch. Is it really that hard to do this in game?

To sith: you know what I meant. The bomber escort wasn't the only thing going on by the time the Dora entered service. Time period reflected is ultra late 44 and 51s had 75in as of mid 44. The Dora we have has 1.8 ata mw50 boost which wasn't introduced with the initial models. I'm fine with having a late war Dora with a late Dora boost, but the pony should have its corresponding improvements as well. same goes for the thunderbolt and the spit. Just telling everyone to stay high or die is just deflecting discussion about an obvious case of disproportionate boost mods. Not to mention I can't stay high right now since nobody is up there and you can't see a thing

Also, right now you can't do it very we'll for two reasons: non- edge visibility makes it far too hard to spot people below you. Second, people are generally too lazy to climb, and there are no servers with 15k air starts or something. Thirdly(yeah I know not 2) no one is operating in stacks, which is partially due to it being too hard to keep track of planes farther away that 1km. Or below you

But I thought we were going for historical authenticity over balance? :)

Even without the bombers, he who has the advantage up high has the overall advantage in most cases. This is because you can always start up high and dive on opponents who are low. The Every nation in the war was on the receiving end of this at some point. The Japanese got mauled as a result of this. The p-47 was a success only because of it, and the Russians would have gotten hit a lot worse had they not outnumbered the Germans so much. Using boom and zoom from alto Russian planes didn't like , some 190 and 109 groups racked up greater than 20 to 1 kdr's. Now I know your thinking, but wait can't I just fly too low and force them to come down to fight? No. Not in organized many vs many fights. Fighters often flew in high medium and low cover for this reason. The bulk stays at med and high and some go low to bnz while the upper covers prevent. Co alt or voicing threats from being a problem.

I have done some combat over 20k. Starting at around 17-18K, the climb advantage of the 190 seems to go away, or at least be greatly lessened. over 22k, the Mustang becomes alot faster, and just walks away at 30k. Turn goes from being a slight advantage on the deck to being a enormous one. None of this is from testing, just my experience in a few dogfights.

It would make a huge difference. A Mustang at 72-inches is a plane that can climb right with the 190, and the 190s 5mph speed advantage down low also goes away. As far as Temps go: "Climbs were made to thirty thousand feet at the standard, and at the test war emergency ratings. Climbs at seventy-five inches Hg. required about one minute less than was required when climbing at sixty seven inches Hg. All engine temperatures were normal during climb at the increased power." Power improvement over the 1720bhp produced at 67"

Im not getting hung up on the visual aspects. When I say fire, I mean the effects of fire, which doesnt happen at all except in the conditions I mentioned. Everyone knows the visual isnt in sync. There are things that just arent happening at all. This has nothing to do with the visuals man, which I am not hung up on. I am quite capable of telling the difference between something that isnt happening and a disconnect between visual and non-visual. This is why I am far from the only person saying this.

You misunderstand me here. Things like fire are not just visual, that would cause other damage that might bring down the plane, especially with how DCS treats fire damage. I'm not referring to the bullet holes vs actual damage problem at all. Right now, if you shoot up a plane, unless you head the pilot, engine, or annihilate the fuselage to cause a wing to fall off or tail (which takes too many rounds btw) nothing happens except meaningless gizmo damage, like having my compass shot out. Fuel or ammo or air frame does not catch fire until after you have killed something else important like a wing, control mechanisms are never damaged, and a bazillion other things that can happen when someone pumps 50-60 bullets though a plane.

The thing is though, its not inconclusive when you have quite a few people aside from myself mentioning this issue with gun potency. Sure, sometimes stuff falls off like you said, but it is quite rare statistically. Not only do we have my testing(which is ongoing) but others are reinforcing this, and most of it is not about the AI. Even if you take 60 hits to a plane and keep going, there should be alot of damage. Fire, smoke, pieces flying off, etc. Not basically flying the same with a little listing to the side. Control cables arent ever cut, nor are the mechanisms they operate though damaged. This is a cumulative issue, not causes by one thing. its Z * Y *V = G

Thanks for the comparison.

No-one is disputing the cannons aren't much more powerful. In fact, there a bit where we mention the issue seems to also be affecting the cannons.

what is max boost on 190 as modeled?

I think it's pretty obvious, emoticon and all, that he was making a joke regarding the 262 bit.

G-6AS as made in tiny numbers (like 600) and the G-14/AS didnt come out until September 44 and was only a quarter of G-14 productions. They are both either too little or too late, and therefore have no place in a general comparison to the spit 9

So the engine gap seal was a feature not installed on production D-9s. It was declined due to rubber shortages. The 420+ figure quotes for the D-9 assumes the seal was installed. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html Read above if your interested. http://imgur.com/jy5vBGW above includes the seal. below is from flight trials without the seal. http://imgur.com/3fY9z9K "Lutz Naudet placed these performance trials in context: Now lets come to the interpretation as to why both Wk.-Nr. 001 & 002 generally fall short of calculated values. The first problem with all flight trials of Wk.-Nr. 001 & 002 is that they were done with the initial batch of production engines, which have well documented problems with supercharger performance. Those first production engines produced 60-100PS less than the book values used for performance calculations. The second problem is the engine gap. The drag data for the D9 most likely comes from scale models; those models will not have the engine gap as they are "carved out of one piece of wood". The scale model, therefore, has a smoother surface than the real airplane. The speed increase in the tests, where the gap was sealed, support this assumption. Nevertheless, the tests are representative of performance for operational Fw 190 D9s. As best as can be determined, the engine gap seal was never introduced into serial production due to rubber shortages. It should be noted however, that operational planes with a good surface finish and an engine running to book values will perform better than both Wk.-Nr. 001 & 002. This is supported by the few speed runs with the JUMO 213A tested on the bench. Now lets examine the “Erhöhte Notleistung” and “MW50” speed runs. When looking at the results, we must keep in mind that Wk.-Nr. 002 was specially rigged for those runs to enable the testing of both settings in one airplane. Wk.-Nr. 002 engine installation was therefore not in a standard production condition when carrying out those speed runs. Standard production planes had either “Erhöhte Notleistung” or “MW-50” available, not both. The surface finish and other equipment of Wk.-Nr. 002 during this test is the equivalent of a standard production plane. Report #2 focuses on the speed increase through “Erhöhte Notleistung” and “MW-50” compared to Take-Off/Emergency rating. Report #3 examines in detail the speed increase from sealing the engine gap, but the tests were only carried out up to 3,6km. The bottom line for those reports is that they provide us with a good overview of how the “Erhöhte Notleistung” or “MW50” boosted performance, but only up to ~3,6km. The speeds attained, without engine sealing, between SL and 3,6km can be considered representative for operational aircraft."

Im not claiming the 51 to be overall superior either. I consider them very evenly matched exchanging advantages depending on alt.