GrapeJam

Well actually, the 18m/s figure was with C3 injection, boosted to 2000hp. d to 2000hp, so yeah, 2250hp , with cleaner aerodynamics from inline engine, the 22m/s figure is completely reasonable. And the Spitfire XIV can't be said to have worse aerodynamic seeing as they have similar speed at SL with similar power.

Yeah, how many K4 and D9 were fitted with MW50 system and EZ 42 by the end of 1944 compared to those who weren't? Using your logic, K4 and D9 with MW50 and fitted with EZ42 as they are in game are not right. And those components should be removed.

And what strenght is that? You can't use it's weight to BnZ because the LOD is 2km max, you can't use it's high altitude performance because nobody fight at 8km. What else can it use?

Yeah, 1 fighter unit, the remaining P47s in the 8th airforce inventory were ground attack units. And the 8th airforce only had 150 octane fuel in their inventory by the end of 1944, I wonder what fuel they were using,hmn....... The 9th airforce operated in italy, while P47s were rampaging throughout Europe, away from the range of p47 from italy, I wonder whose p47 those were....

It's not a matter of "Monitor size" and "Graphic setting", I have a 22 inches monitor and maxed setting and prop planes still disappear past 2km.

Yo, Kurfurst, I like your knowledge about the 109 so I'mma let you finish..... But you certainly look like you're out of your depth when it come to actual aerial combat.

Oh and Hartmann fought P51 running on 150 octane fuel. ;)

That we're not supposed to just take your words for it?

So you're saying that the 109 should almost have the same roll rate as the 190 at 500-620km/h? Ok. I personally don't think 3000 meters altitude would make a significant difference. If you don't mind I'd like to see your source, preferably more than once.

how many people have stick that have FFB strong enough to hinder your average nerd from pulling insta 8 g at 800 kph?

You have a better idea of implementing stick force for players don't have long stick costing 500$? It's the first step in the right direction, and will be tuned, it's a far better option that having "optional stick force"(which we all know that nobody will use), deal.with.it ;)

To DavidRed, because the 109 before with no stiffening was more realistic, yep. ;) Just think that you're just using one hand on the stick, after all, for a plane that requires 2 hands for aggressive maneuvers past 500km/h, your other hand shouldn't even be able to use the throttle and other stuffs ;) Anyway, plane is more realistic now, just be a better pilot. ;)

So what makes your report more valid than his?

Look, assuming there's a superhuman pilot behind the stick, there's still this question: could the control surfaces endure that kind of force?

Is that so? http://www.eaf51.org/newweb/Documenti/Storia/Flying_%20109_ENG.pdf Funny even WT(or every other flight sim) was able to model this effect very well, while DCS can't?

1st. Boost tab like Flettner tab helped alleviating the stick force heaviness at high speed, but it did not it entirely eliminate the stick force like the way the K4 in game is currently behaving. 2nd. Boost tab actually make your roll rate at low speed lower than without boost tab? Does the K4 in game roll slower than it should without boost tab? I don't think so.

The fact that the K4 can pull a lot G at high speed with ease seems nothing wrong to you?

Oh good for you, experten! Doesn't change the fact that P51D(with twin poles tail radar) limited at 67"hg pretty did not exist in the ETO, and even with 100/130 octane fuel, the MP was raised to 70"hg, and the vast majority of USAAF that engaged the Luftwaffe was the 8th air force who used 150 octane fuel running at 75"hg, P51D limited to 67"hg fighting BF 109 K4 and D9 was proportionally even less common than K4 and D9 without MW50. And I'd not be surprised if you'd be whine and moan if your precious K4 and D9 did not have MW50. So easy to be on your high horse when your planes are already overperforming even better than the best possible setting the Luftwaffee could have during WW2.

BF 109 G6(/AS) versus P51D running at 70"hg is historical and balanced matchup.

Yeah, what date was it?

Better, eh? http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html Practically the same, eh? http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_PBLeistungen/Leistungen_g14u4_am-asm.html How much speed do you think the gondolas shaved off the G14? 50km/h?

Yeah, were the 9th Air force actually equipped with the version of the Mustang that we currently have in game? And like I've asked, were the D9 and the K4 actually equipped with the EZ 42 sight (in any significant number) in 1944?

A little bit OT: Yeah, you probably wanna read a little bit on planes performance if you still assume that German planes were superior. The P51D with 150 octane fuel matched the best late war German propeller fighters in performance, while still had at least 3 times more endurance. And if you wanna dig deeper, there were the P51F and G, which were the actual contemporary of the D9 and K4, and would make the best late war German propeller fighters feel.....inadequate ;) And the shortage of higher rate fuel were substituted with MW 50, and late war C3 fuel had higher octane rating than Allies 150 octane fuel at rich mixture.

Yeah, how many K4 and D9 were fitted with Gyro gun sights in 1944? In fact, were combat operational K4s and D9s even fitted with gyro gunsight at all?

Here's the problem, the P51D (as in game, at current power setting) is forced to fight plane that it historically never fought, by the time the K4 and the D9 was operational, the whole 8th air force's already switched to 150 octane fuel running 75"hg. Hell, even with 100/130 octane fuel, the P51D was permitted to run at 70"hg.