DCS WW2 fighter comparison

[Narushima]

The D-13 had worse performance than the D-9 at lower altitude. So if a D-13 without MW-50 and worse performance than a D-9 could win against a tempest, what could a D-9 with MW-50 do...

 

EDIT: Also, like I said, no tests were done to make that graph. The guy used old tests for some aircraft and put them together to make a graph based on his opinion.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Narushima

[tempestglen]

Couldn't you just make your own thread and spam posts about the tempest there?

 

 

Since you can post your very late D9/K4 compared with outdated Spit IX and low boost P51P47 and title the thread " DCS WW2 fighter comparison".

 

If there are no 25lbs Mustang, P47M, 11-13 lbs tempest and Spitfire XIV in DCS, I believe the plane set in DCS WWII is absurd. That's my conclusion. Please K4/D9 enjoy your holiday with outdated allied planes.

[Narushima]

Then take it up with whoever is in charge of the project. I didn't decide which plane will be in the game, I only made a couple of charts comparing them.

[gavagai]

That's not an actual source. It's from an article done for a magazine somewhere in the 50s.

 

No actual aircraft were tested to make these graphs, it's all just an opinion piece from a single RAF officer.

 

Yes, that is why it counts as a secondary source and not a primary source, like I said.:smilewink:

[tempestglen]

Then take it up with whoever is in charge of the project. I didn't decide which plane will be in the game, I only made a couple of charts comparing them.

 

Every D9 has a ETC504, and that slow down D9. Should I bring up P51 speed chart without wing rack?

 

 

On 2 May we were transferred to Flensburg. This was my last flight in the Fw 190D-9 during the war, but not my last flight in this wonderful machine. We were interned by the English. Then on 25 June 1945, almost 2 moths after the surrender, our colleges of the Royal Air Force proposed a fly-off between our Dora 9 and one of the Hawker Tempests stationed in Flensburg. The Tempest was just about the best English piston-engined fighter, but having been stationed in the east we had never encountered the type.

The ammunition was removed from my aircraft - of course - and the tanks were filled with just enough fuel for a half-hour flight.

and then up we went. I was assigned an area near Husum and a maximum altitude of 3000 meters. A dogfight was held in this area, I in the Dora 9 and a Canadian pilot in the Royal Air Force Tempest. We flew as in wartime, and after some time I succeeded in outclimbing the Tempest and engaged it in a turning fight from above.

Of course our pilots and ground crews, some of whom were able to observe the spectacle from the ground, were enthusiastic about the outcome. After landing we had an exchange of technical thoughts with the British. Prior to this they hadn't spoken to us much, as there was a ban on fraternization.

This brought my career as a fighter pilot to an end. Even though I and my comrades of JG 51 Mölders only flew the Fw 190D-9 a few times and therefore are unable to offer a more detailed assessment of its qualities.

 

1) Lange, a 70 victories ACE vs a no name canadian pilot's tempest.

2) Did lange say his D9(D13) had no MW50? Did RAF provide 150 fuel to D13?

3) although lange was told not to exceed 3000, who can assure that lange(D13) did not climb to 5000-6000m high?

[Narushima]

Yes, that is why it counts as a secondary source and not a primary source, like I said.:smilewink:

 

Right, got it.

[DB 605]

"The results were that both machines were fairly evenly matched." IN A DOGFIGHT.

 

 

A tempest MKV is as good as Dora in a dogfight, and outperforms Dora in diving/zooming and hit&run, so which one is overall better?

 

You forget that Dora was better in climb & turning. Again, both are better in some areas than other.

[tempestglen]

You forget that Dora was better in climb & turning. Again, both are better in some areas than other.

 

I've read the mock dogfight of D13 vs tempy years ago, and remember finally the D13 outclimb tempy at high altitude.

 

We need more detailed information to exam whether D13 climbed to high altitude more than 3000m. And if so, D9 could not achieve this for its 1-stage superchager.

 

The climb rate of 11lbs tempy and dora are almost equal, and 13lbs tempy maybe a little better but I won't argue for this tiny difference. Don't forget 11lbs sabre engine is 2400HP, 13lbs --2800HP and 9lbs only 2000HP. When you mention tempy please note the boost pressure. Of course Dora is high boost version in my comparation.

 

This mock fight, IMO the German TOP ACE, lange, with 150 grade fuel (=C3+MW50) could reach highest boost(1.8-1.98ata) and outclimb tempy at high altitude(5000m?) and with this energy advantage,lange come down to tempy and dogfight, the result is "same dogfight performance". If D13 could turn and climb obviously better, how could it be for a 70 victories ACE?

 

Major Götz had flown Yellow 10 operationally right up to the last days of the war. By May, the remnants of JG 26 had found themselves flying armed reconnaissance missions from Schleswig airfield near the Danish border. By the end of hostilities, Major Götz had surrendered Yellow 10 to the RAF at Flensburg Airfield.

 

While at Flensburg, the British had over painted the German insignia and replaced them with small white stars. They had also assigned the code; USA 14 to the aircraft. The USA numbers were allotted by RAF intelligence teams to aircraft earmarked for American evaluation. The British were also interested in evaluating this advanced aircraft while they still had it in their possession and conducted at least two mock dogfights against the Hawker Tempest, with the help of two POW pilots. The results were that both machines were fairly evenly matched.

 

From Flensburg, Yellow 10 was ferried to Glize-Rijen airbase in Holland and then to Cherbourg, where it was assigned the code; FE-118 and loaded aboard the HMS Reaper to be transported to the U.S. along with many other examples of Luftwaffe aircraft. Leaving Cherbourg on 19th of July 1945, the Reaper arrived at New York Harbor twelve days later and off loaded its cargo onto barges to be transported to Ford Field in Newark NJ for storage and eventual transport to Freeman Field at Seymour, Indiana.

Dora has somewhat advantage over 9lbs tempy in dogfight and roughly same as 11-13lbs tempy(probably in that mock). That's the conclusion of both sides in that mock.

 

 

However, if you put a bf109g6as/g10 and p51d in this scenario(low altitude, 1v1 from same energy), the 109 will probably outclimb-BnZ p51d. P51d has little chance given that both pilots skill are equal.

 

If you put a 25lbs Spitfire IX and Dora in this circustance, I believe Spit always outclimb BnZ Dora in same way.

 

Real air combat is far from 1v1, low altitude. The P51Dvs 109, Dora vs Spit IX and Tempy vs 190, F6F vs zero are of hit&run, BnZ, drag and clean. In such way, those winners in 1v1 dogfight feel quite disadvantageous. And history proved this tactic.

 

 

Once again, I WILL test Spitfire IX and P51D dive acceleration when Spit available, if I could NOT reproduce the famous Johnson P47C vs RAF Instrcutor's Spit IX story at low altitude(P47C beat Spit with "extend and pitch back" tactic), the dive/zoom FM of DCS definitely has flaw in it.

 

Let's wait and see.

Edited June 30, 2014 by tempestglen

[USARStarkey]

YOUR ALL WRONG. THIS IS THE BEST WW2 FIGHTER!

[otto]

Examples are......

 

If i make my own aircraft performance site and try to compare 2 planes:

-I post, publish everything i can find about these planes.And let the reader make his own conclusions. Be impartial.

 

What does Williams do ?

1.About the 1.98 ata : "1.98 ata boost with MW was tested but seems not to have made it into service " And posts only data that supports his claim.

 

Why isn't the data i posted about the 1.98 K-4 on his site ?

 

2.Williams, is using the data stated in 'Leistungen 8-109 K4 und K-6 mit DB 605 ASCM/DCM. Oberammergau, den 11.12.44 and 1.19.45, prepeared by Messerschmitt AG,

 

- williams says "Bf 109 K the curves needed to be treated with reserve." Why when the original document states :

 

-Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.(The given performance are surely going to be reached with well built serial aircraft.)

 

He tries to influence the reader and this is not what an impartial man does.

 

Also post "ww2 pilot testimony" that begins with :

 

The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything.

 

Is this objective or biased ?

 

3. There should be just as many pilot testimony on allied and axis side. Not 100 allied and 2 axis.

 

He makes tons of intentional of accidental mistakes in translating german documents. Look on Kurfurst site.

Edited July 1, 2014 by otto

[USARStarkey]

If i make my own aircraft performance site and try to compare 2 planes:

-I post, publish everything i can find about these planes.And let the reader make his own conclusions. Be impartial.

 

What does Williams do ?

1.About the 1.98 ata : "1.98 ata boost with MW was tested but seems not to have made it into service " And posts only data that supports his claim.

 

Why isn't the data i posted about the 1.98 K-4 on his site ?

 

2.Williams, is using the data stated in 'Leistungen 8-109 K4 und K-6 mit DB 605 ASCM/DCM. Oberammergau, den 11.12.44 and 1.19.45, prepeared by Messerschmitt AG,

 

- williams says "Bf 109 K the curves needed to be treated with reserve." Why when the original document states :

 

-Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.(The given performance are surely going to be reached with well built serial aircraft.)

 

He tries to influence the reader and this is not what an impartial man does.

 

Also post "ww2 pilot testimony" that begins with :

 

The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything.

 

Is this objective or biased ?

 

3. There should be just as many pilot testimony on allied and axis side. Not 100 allied and 2 axis.

 

He makes tons of intentional of accidental mistakes in translating german documents. Look on Kurfurst site.

 

Kurfurst's cite is rubbish, based on the very metrics you just posited.

[Friedrich-4B]

If i make my own aircraft performance site and try to compare 2 planes:

-I post, publish everything i can find about these planes.And let the reader make his own conclusions. Be impartial.

 

What does Williams do ?

1.About the 1.98 ata : "1.98 ata boost with MW was tested but seems not to have made it into service " And posts only data that supports his claim.

 

Why isn't the data i posted about the 1.98 K-4 on his site ?

 

While otto claimsthat Mike Williams doesn't post the same info he posts, has otto actually bothered contacting him with this information, rather than flailing the guy publicly? Is otto expecting Mike to post something that he might not even know about?

 

Unfortunately one of the main reasons Mike cannot be bothered altering some of his earlier material is because of the sometimes vicious private and public attacks he has experienced over several years from some of the more fanatical Luftwhiners; why should Mike bother buckling to such people, knowing that even if he were to go to the trouble of revising the material, the same people will continue with the same crap? This post from otto is just another example of the trash thrown at Mike.

 

2.Williams, is using the data stated in 'Leistungen 8-109 K4 und K-6 mit DB 605 ASCM/DCM. Oberammergau, den 11.12.44 and 1.19.45, prepeared by Messerschmitt AG,

 

- williams says "Bf 109 K the curves needed to be treated with reserve." Why when the original document states :

 

-Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.(The given performance are surely going to be reached with well built serial aircraft.)

 

Take a look at the "curves" some time and note that they are stepped: The hydraulic supercharger of the DB 605 provided a stepless power delivery, something the most avid Luftwaffe fan should know; the power curves are theoretically supposed to reflect that stepless delivery - otherwise Mike Williams doesn't quibble about the stated performance figures, so perhaps he could make his point more clearly.

 

He tries to influence the reader and this is not what an impartial man does.

 

And otto is trying to influence people by attacking someone who isn't even a member of this forum; someone I'll bet otto has never bothered contacting.

 

Also post "ww2 pilot testimony" that begins with :

 

The Spitfire XIV was the most marvellous aeroplane at that time and I consider it to have been the best operational fighter of them all as it could out-climb virtually anything.

 

Is this objective or biased?

 

Wow! Now quoting a positive opinion from a veteran is somehow wrong, yet such testimonies appear in just about any book, magazine article or website otto might care to name; since when did otto start censoring what is or is not acceptable on a privately run website?

 

3. There should be just as many pilot testimony on allied and axis side. Not 100 allied and 2 axis.

 

How about otto specify which testimonies he'd like to see on Mike's site and when and where they should be published. Would otto like more books on -say - the Spitfire to do the same, just to balance things out?

 

He makes tons of intentional of accidental mistakes in translating german documents. Look on Kurfurst site.

 

Take a look at his latest material, because he has a German friend who is helping out with translation.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-0022-dive.html

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Dive.pdf

 

I guess otto never offered to help Mike out with the translations, but has been all too ready to imply that he was making deliberate errors.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Friedrich-4/B

[MiloMorai]

What do you have that supports 1.98ata operational use? It should be noted that Kurfurst does not accept stenciling that says 100 octane (BoB) and 150 octane on Allied a/c. A C3 decal on a K-4 does not mean it was a 1.98ata K-4.

 

-Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.(The given performance are surely going to be reached with well built serial aircraft.)

Considering what an operational pilot said said about the K-4s he picked up, they were NOT well built.

[NineLine]

I would like to get all of you into a pub some time, I'll buy the first round... then you can have at it, face to face... I will record it for YouTube....

[USARStarkey]

I would like to get all of you into a pub some time, I'll buy the first round... then you can have at it, face to face... I will record it for YouTube....

 

If were gonna have at it, I'm using a P-51.

[gavagai]

Regarding the WWII Aircraft Performance website, I think what rubs some people the wrong way is that the opinions slide in alongside the objective data. Psychologically, that kind of "product placement" causes more authority than the opinions would have on their own. It's a clever slight of hand that makes people look bad when they complain but cannot put their finger on a good reason for their angst.

 

 

There is good research in these articles, but what is included does strike me a selective. For example, 99% of the combat reports are from British pilots. I don't know why that is so and I'm not going to attack Mr. Williams' character for it, suffice it to say that if you presented me with any historical survey that only included combat reports from one side I would not call it objective.

 

The article by T.S. Wade (fourth one in the drop down menu) is little more than post-war vainglory. It should be clearly marked as being editorial content and not up to the same standard as other sources at the website.

[USARStarkey]

If were talking spitfire, you wont have to look hard for German pilots regarding the spitfire as a doom machine. I'm a P-51 person, and even I admit that the Spitfire was the best dogfighter made during the war PERIOD. Mr. Williams uses the Spitfire anecdotes within the limits of what they can be used for. There is plenty of German documentation noted in those articles, including comments by German pilots or commanders about their situation.

There is nothing wrong with that website. It contains a wider assortment of documents from many different nations on many different aircraft, and it is constantly updated....unlike some 109 sites I've seen.

[Friedrich-4B]

Regarding the WWII Aircraft Performance website, I think what rubs some people the wrong way is that the opinions slide in alongside the objective data. Psychologically, that kind of "product placement" causes more authority than the opinions would have on their own. It's a clever slight of hand that makes people look bad when they complain but cannot put their finger on a good reason for their angst.

 

Fair enough comment; from that perspective Mike Williams could have done with an editor to help separate opinions from objective data: calling it a "clever slight of hand" is somewhat unjust because that was not the intention.

 

That said, it does not excuse the flood of hate filled bile and personal attacks that Mike Williams and Neil Stirling have put up with right through to the present, some eight years after writing the articles, to the extent that Mr Williams and Mr Stirling have lost all interest in modifying the relevant articles, or compiling new ones. That's four articles amongst how much other interesting material and data?

 

 

There is good research in these articles, but what is included does strike me a selective. For example, 99% of the combat reports are from British pilots. I don't know why that is so and I'm not going to attack Mr. Williams' character for it, suffice it to say that if you presented me with any historical survey that only included combat reports from one side I would not call it objective.

 

That would depend on what access one has to the relevant information; while Mike Williams can get British combat reports via Neil Stirling, accessing similar German documents is an extremely expensive exercise for someone who is based in the 'States, particularly when one needs to know what combat reports to select to provide some balance. On top of that, there is the time required to translate them properly. As noted, Mike Williams now has at least one friend in Germany who has helped provide material and accurately translate the same.

 

At the very least Mr Williams has made an effort - at considerable expense - to present objective data on a wide variety of Allied and Axis aircraft, so why he continues to be the subject to blanket claims of bias and being referred to as a "clown" because of some older articles is a mystery.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Friedrich-4/B

[tempestglen]

Take a look at his latest material, because he has a German friend who is helping out with translation.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-0022-dive.html

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Dive.pdf

 

I guess otto never offered to help Mike out with the translations, but has been all too ready to imply that he was making deliberate errors.

 

 

Very good Diving data for fw190!

[gavagai]

At the very least Mr Williams has made an effort - at considerable expense - to present objective data on a wide variety of Allied and Axis aircraft, so why he continues to be the subject to blanket claims of bias and being referred to as a "clown" because of some older articles is a mystery.

 

People take this stuff very seriously and personally, and one perceived misdeed can outweigh a hundred good deeds if there is suspicion of bias. Yeah, it's a bit silly, but that is how human psychology works.:smilewink:

[Grim_Smiles]

I would like to get all of you into a pub some time, I'll buy the first round... then you can have at it, face to face... I will record it for YouTube....

 

 

[JtD]

Why isn't the data i posted about the 1.98 K-4 on his site ?

Snippets from secondary sources are not "data", in particular when they boil down to "it seemed that they solved the problem because they had big plans with that thing". Even if we accept the secondary sources all they show is that by the end of March 1.98 ata weren't in use but there were plans to use it with several squadrons. Alongside with all the Ta 152's and the jets that never got into service.

 

Anyway, feel free to make your own website with whatever content you think is worth publishing. There's nothing keeping you from it, just like Mike and Neil started from nothing, you'll just have to do it. And if your site ends up only half as good as theirs, lots of people will be happy having another excellent source on the web.

[Isegrim]

 

:lol:

[Kurfürst]

Snippets from secondary sources are not "data", in particular when they boil down to "it seemed that they solved the problem because they had big plans with that thing". Even if we accept the secondary sources all they show is that by the end of March 1.98 ata weren't in use but there were plans to use it with several squadrons. Alongside with all the Ta 152's and the jets that never got into service.

 

I wonder if that same strict sense of what constitutes evidence and what not also applies to Allied aircraft performance, because apparently it does not and some like to have double standards.

 

For example, a single petrol browser with the number "100" on it supposed to prove that 1000+ fighters at the time were running on 100 octane fuel and being highly boosted; in contrast, a dozen reports of 100 octane fuel found in tanks and 100 octane stencils on aircraft does not even prove the aircraft is actually has 100 octane in its tanks, if we are to believe some of the usual suspects.:music_whistling:

 

But lets apply the same strict of evidence to the late war boosts used by Spitfires, shall we?

 

At the best what we've got is evidence for two Mark IX Squadrons (that's two dozen aircraft for you) experimenting with +25 lbs boost but without any evidence of ever employing it in combat in the spring-summer of 1944. (fun fact - hundreds of equivalent G-14s were used for combat operations at the same time).

 

We also have evidence of plans (as you like to call it) from November 1944 to use it with several squadrons.

 

If we allow for "secondary sources" a single Wing (126 Wing) was actually "experimenting" the prescribed fuel type a few months before the war, but no evidence of using it in conjunction with higher boost modifications. (At the same time in we have evidence of a German Wing "experimenting" with the higher boost modifications in February 1945.)

 

Funny thing about these articles, this "secondary source" mentioning the engine failures and fuel supply problems is, for some obscure reason, omitted from the said article. ;)

 

For Mark XIVs, we have evidence of +21 lbs boost some brief use against the V-1 campaign and at best that by late March 1945, a handful of XIVs in a storage depot were converted to said boost. Nothing on actual combat use though.

 

Even at that point what if we allow for all the circumstantial evidence we have no "data" on the performance for the Mk XIV at +21 lbs boost - the "data" displayed is not from a primary source, not even a secondary source, but Mike William's own estimate.

 

Apparently his own estimates are judged to be good enough to be used for a comparison , while the performance calculations prepared by Messerschmitt's engineers and noted to be "certainly reached with well built serial production aircraft are dismissed as "simplistic estimates". These latter obviously failed to meet the high quality standard which random speed and climb numbers pulled out from Mike's backside easily satisfied, on the other hand. Besides the fact that the numbers that are shown are not even for the K-4 variant, but the curves for the K-6 heavy fighter. Another honest mistake probably.

 

There is no particular reason to beating that dead horse anyway. Mike lost that argument some eight years ago and in frustration of seeing the evidence he pulled off any and all 1.98 ata figures from his site. :megalol:

 

The reason the articles even manage to generate some debate nowadays is not because of their "research" quality (IMO they hardly constitute more than a random collection of factoids randomly lumped together in who's plane is the "bestest" argument style). What generates interest and controversy is the pitifully biased representation, that has been always a trademark of that site and which has resulted in a lasting reputation for lack of credibility in the aviation community.

[NineLine]

I've always wondered something, seeing these long winded debates, throwing facts and opinion at one another... what is the end game here? What is everyone hope to accomplish here? Are you trying to prove that your favorite aircraft is better than someone elses favorite aircraft? I dont get why you guys are trying so hard.

 

I think, what is cool about DCS is that you have a unbiased FM, Yo-Yo, from all I can tell, builds them by the numbers, based on more info than you can find on the interwebs... so what you end up with is the most realistic way to compare these fighters. I've already seen it in testing the 190, seeing the differences in it compared to the P-51...

 

Anyways, I have never seen an end to these discussion, just a lot of frustration, that leads to anger and such, you guys all like the same things... figured you could find more common ground. Sites on the internet do their best to collect what info is available... but its an expensive hobby for sure... not sure slamming any site for making an effort is worth your time.

 

Anyways, my two cents... if you want to prove your favorite fighter is better than mine, lets set up a time to settle it on a server somewhere... ;)