karlmeyer25

These are great quotes. I remember one that really impressed me. It was in the original 1998 Falcon 4.0 manual in possibly the forward or intro but it had to do with getting the "feel" of an aircraft right in a simulation. The author (who I think was Pete Bonanni) asked Gen Adolf Galland as to why if the FW-190 was considered the superior aircraft so many pilots preferred the BF-109. Galland's response was something like the that once inside the aircraft it was like "wearing a glove." You can imagine Galland pondering the question for a bit while reminiscing in his years spent flying the machine before responding with the deep affection one can only feel after experiencing such insane moments that aerial combat in WWII created. Maybe the crampness and the snugness had a psychological benefit of connecting the pilot with the aircraft and thus feeling more mentally comfortable if not physically. It was a great quote and I loved reading it as a kid. -SLACK P.S. Been playing DCS in VR and honestly, no kidding, you do get a sense of the "feel" of these cockpits like nothing you have ever felt before. Every time I step into a 109 from the P-51D its literally night and day. Truly incredible.

Hmmmm....this is actually a really interesting point. Cliffs of Dover tried to do something similar, albeit their implementation tried to keep you from completing two actions requiring two different hand movements from completing at the same time. The feature was optional and very buggy. But I sorta like the idea that if you're adjusting a trim wheel/tab or manipulating something in the cockpit, in theory you wouldn't be able to use an additional arm for stick input (but what about pilots using their legs to push the stick)? I also wonder about leg obstruction and total available stick distance in the 109. The YouTube video linked by Solty clearly proves that the ergonomics of the 109 more than likely prevented any pilot from achieving the true max distance of the stick in the roll axis. Should that be considered? Not just in the 109 but all aircraft in DCS? A lot to debate, but like you said the most we can hope for are logical and consistent implementations of these issues across all aircraft. -SLACK P.S. Have the slats issue been fixed yet?

On an additional note, once "fenced in" and ready for the fight, I think the 109 additionally offered the pilot the advantage of leaving the throttle set and allowing the pilot to drive with both hands. Hartmann himself recommended this, and I think the 109 with boost let the pilot get away with this. Again, a unique advantage of it. That being said, the extremely limited visibility and difficulty of maintaining visual and gain situational awareness (SA) is such a disadvantage, its near fatal for most novice pilots. There really is no way to model this and I think we have to live with it. -SLACK

Its an interesting point and one that was discussed in your thread in the P-51D forum. But the reality is I think its impossible to model in a simulation the 109s ergonomics that greatly inhibited pilots from leveraging its potential. For example, Track IR gives pilots a MASSIVE advantage that was all but impossible to physically do in the 109 which meant maintaining tally and SA during a fight was a severe hurdle for real world 109 pilots (and fatal for novices). There is no sound way to model this without HUGE controversy that would otherwise deter from a great sim experience. I think that's just a function of computer based simulations (desk top that is). On pilot workload, I think that the 109 has a great advantage over allied counterparts. While landing and take-off required the pilot to do more uncomfortably than a P-51D pilot, the 109 pilot benefited a ton from the automatic pitch control in addition to the MW50 kicking in based on throttle position. Due to the leading edge slats, I don't think any 109 pilot thought about deploying the flaps in combat for any advantage. Thoughts? -SLACK

Has there been any changes with the recent patch? The aircraft still feels different. -SLACK

This is really the key point. Nobody who plays DCS wants a War Thunder experience in MP. That's why there's War Thunder. We want the joy and excitement of flying exacting computer simulations of WWII aircraft, and we want the ability to fly them against each other. ED is doing an excellent job delivering that and I'm grateful for that! It would also be awesome if ED considered the MP realm, and if possible, try to offer balance by focusing on developing aircraft that have a legitimate chance of being as even as possible against each other. I get it that the K-4 is the zenith of 109 production. I'm not asking ED to model crappy alloys, crappy manufacturing, crappy quality control or all the other hurdles Germany faced when trying to deliver these aircraft to its air force. I want to fly that ideal K-4 and fight with it. But can we not get a P-51 at its zenith as well? How about the zenith of Spitfire production? It makes MP that much more enjoyable to know that there is no doubt about the aircraft you fly, you're not being held back by model/machine limitation. My thoughts at least if we're getting a bit off topic. -SLACK

Sadly I'm traveling for work so I can't log into play this week, but it seems this is the week Blue has a slightly better odds to compete against Red. I'm SUPER interested to see what ED says regarding this issue and how they plan to "fix" it. -SLACK

I've also noticed the MW-50 isn't keeping the engine as cool as it used to, and also it feels like the aircraft doesn't recover E as fast as it used to. Have you noticed that too? It's still pretty dominant though. I so far have still managed to win every aerial engagement....but I have to admit, its a bit harder and I don't feel as invincible as I used to. -SLACK

Hey DarkRaiders, glad to see I wasn't crazy. I followed what you wrote on all the other threads. I might add in a curve as well into my 109 settings. Does the handling now feel more like Il-2 BoS/BoM's 109 FM's? There seems to be quite a bit of pitch over control in their implementations of the 109. Food for thought and I'm going to check out your videos to see how you're handling it! -SLACK

...some significant changes to the way the K-4 handles? I just took it out on the 4v4 and 8v8 single player missions and wow, the aircraft nearly seemed totally different. No where near as dominant as it felt just last night! Am I the only one? Is this more "correct?" -SLACK

Interesting stats. Eekz is there any way you can provide some data on red vs blue in terms of who's getting ground kills and meeting the scenario's objectives? Also interesting the extreme lopsidedness of Red vs Blue air to air kills...but makes sense given how much more superior the 109 is to the Mustang. Thank you very much for this awesome server eekz...the best one by far in MP. -SLACK

Kurfurst, maybe this has been answered, and I'm sure it probably belongs in another thread, but I'd love your assessment of the K-4/G-14 to the Spitfire Mk IX or XIV. -SLACK

I think the better point is how few G-6's (and more than likely non-boosted G-6s) were present in front line service in 1 January 1945. But the airwar in spring and summer in 1944 is truly were the "fighter grave yard" of the Luftwaffe was created and combat the most savage. I'd be curious about the machine types most likely to see combat then, and if the Luftwaffe's 109s held any advantage (or the degree of advantage) the current K-4 vs P-51D has. I think the point of all this, in this forum and in the P-51D, is not that the late model Luftwaffe planes were superior, I think beyond doubt that debate is settled. The point is, can there be an Axis vs Allies aircraft match-up that is a bit more even than what we currently have to deal with? Especially in light of the awesome WWII environments we're going to be enjoying in DCS. One of the biggest reasons I think the WWII servers remain so sparsely populated has nothing to do with the quality of the sim, but more so to do with the lopsided odds presented. Nobody wants to spend the time learning either of the great modules to be presented with 3 to 1 matchups with red aircraft overwhelming superior to blue in the type of play on MP. -SLACK

This is an excellent point. It does seem to explain why "experten" were able to truly runaway with their tallies which makes sense if they were lucky enough to learn the 109 sufficiently that they overcame the aircraft's soft shortcomings to master its hard advantages. Still, in the confines of the simulation world, these soft advantages are of no consolation when facing off against such lopsided performance stats. It's a bitter pill to swallow for Blue pilots who don't want to face off against 3 or 4 to 1 match ups since everyone prefers to fly the 109 and enjoy its hard advantages magnified in the sim at no cost to the planes soft disadvantages. -SLACK

I'd love to see, based on numbers of units fielded and unit orders of battle, what the probability was of a BF-106G-6 encounter vice G-14, G-10 or K-4 From August of 1944 onwards in the ETO. That would really help me crystallize the arguments of which model were more prevalent and more likely to see combat against allied pilots. Sadly, while an interesting historical debate, none of this changes the current and very lopsided encounter we have in DCS. -SLACK

This is a very interesting note. I've had experience with a few sims in the past, but it has always seemed to me that the BF-109 was a subpar plane compared with the FW-190 models and the allied air planes. DCS has been a real shocker to me to see just how dominant the BF-109 can be, if indeed its modeling (and the P-51D's) is correct, which I'm not saying they're not (I'm not an aerospace engineer). The air to air dominance of the 109 in DCS is indisputable. I've been flying both the K-4 and the P-51D a ton, and the difference in both platforms is jaw dropping, especially if you come from other sims where the P-51 is the king platform. I honestly don't think a significant change to the damage modeling is going to make that much of a difference but we'll see. I honestly think a Spitfire XIV is the best bet to even the odds for Blue in the airquake. The last thing I'll note is a point made by Integrals in another thread. The performance of the 109 in DCS leads one to question just why the Luftwaffe lost so handedly even with novice pilots. Of course facing 8-1 odds even in the BF-109 K-4 is a practical death sentence, but it goes to show that the allies would've been in for a real struggle even in late '44 the Luftwaffe were able to field more fighters and pilots. I find it odd though that in the memoirs of some allied pilots (I'm reading Robin Olds Fighter Pilot right now) it didn't seem allied pilots feared the 109s at all, and only cursory noted the threat posed by 190s. Its even more of a technical achievement that BF-109 remained so competitive for being a decade old platform. -SLACK

Very interesting...TIL. -SLACK

These are fascinating posts. Many thanks for the details, charts and data provided. -SLACK

Great post. The current match up in DCS is just way too lopsided. DCS would benefit from more evenly matched aircraft or just fair modeling. Its true beyond a doubt that the DCS P-51's engine burns out vastly faster than the K-4's in the airquake. This has got to be a mistake.

So true.

It certainly doesn't feel like this in game. Having flown both now for a bit, the 109 feels a lot better in a dog fight. While not as responsive as the P-51D, the aircraft seems to rocket out of a turn while in boost, it hardly ever stalls on sudden AOA changes, and since most 1v1's end up slow, the P-51D's only option is to exit the fight before falling under 250 mph. I have never loss an aerial battle in a 109, especially when the fight gets below 250. Also, even in a fast turn, the P-51D pilot seems to black out A LOT more than the 109 pilot, which blows my mind if DCS is trying to model a G-suit on the player as well. The P-51D is legendary for sure, but in DCS the aircraft is a chore to fight in unless something is wrong with the modeling. I love the P-51's gun sight, and superb visibility, but I'd take an airframe that responds better to hard AOA changes and can out climb the opponent any day. It just sucks there is such a lopsided Blue vs Red situation now on MP that for fun I have to fly the P-51 to see any action. It could be the 109 K-4 modeling is "nerfed" for lack of a better term. Integrals made the point that if even if the Germans put novices in the cockpit of these things it stands to reason that if they operated in the real world like they do in DCS then the Luftwaffe would've stood a better chance. -SLACK

Lots of good stuff in this post, thanks Solty. What is your current opinion of the DCS modeled match up of the DCS K-4 and the 51D? I'd also appreciate any tips you, or others may have for winning 109 engagements. -SLACK

I agree, that's basically what I've picked up from this. Sorta dis-heartening. I will say this has made me feel a lot less better about my PvP kills in the 109. Flying the P-51D is really hard, and since its a chore to fight the airplane in addition to your opponent, I'm not sure it makes you that much better of a BFM'er. I'm dying to know, and maybe its impossible to answer since there are probably no real life P-51D pilots on this forum....but did the airplane really depart that quickly when making rapid AOA changes in a dogfight? It seems regardless of my speed, if I try to turn in hard the plane buffets and immediately departs. Sucks and it blows my mind that this plane could be considered such a legendary "dogfighter." -SLACK

Ehhh...I'm not so sure. If you're flying against a solid human opponent in the 109 and you do everything correct in the P-51D, I still see a 1v1 getting low and slow as every maneuver and counter-maneuver trades energy. Typically, its harder to recover potential energy as the fight drags on even if you keep trading potential for kinetic and vice versa. As its been discussed at length before, the 109 exceeds at recovering energy much better than the P-51D, and with the MW-50 on, the high RPM's don't seem to do anywhere near the damage that they do on the P-51D. I get it though that if you're low and engaged by a solid 109 pilot, you're as good as dead no matter what you do in the P-51D. I'm learning that the hard way. -SLACK

The above discussion exceeds my limited historical knowledge but I find it very fascinating. While I consider Kurfurst vastly more knowledgeable than me on all things Messerschmitt, did he possibly mean the G-10 not G-14? I thought the G-10 also used the same DB-605 as the K-4 but was in fact slightly lighter. From my own sim experience I find the P-51D lacking in the power department too. I do believe if 72" helps the P-51D in the airquake then I'm all for it. To the Wikipedia I suppose....