P-51 outclassed?

[Pilum]

I don't think the 72" should be added to the Pony. Why? For balance!

 

I know balance is a dirty word and if it comes to tweaking the IRL performance for any aircraft in DCS then I'm totally against it. I agree that getting as close to the IRL performance as possible is the goal and this also seems to be DCS view. Kudos to them.

 

However, what I'm for is plane set balance. Here I think DCS have struck just the right balance:

 

You have two aircraft, the B4&MW50 Dora and the 67" Pony for which the IRL performance is pretty close.

 

However, one happens to be better at altitude and the other at low level.

 

The alternative? If you take a 72 " Pony and start checking in the boxes (speed, climb and turnrate etc.) you will find that it will dominate the Dora from sea level to service ceiling.

 

Will this make flying in the DCS fun and interesting? No, at least not for me.

 

I can see the objections coming: "But the Pony did fly with 72"!" This is historically correct! True, but this will make for a very dull experience unless Pony pilots don't like challenges and want Doras served on a platter.

 

So while I'm totally for historically accurate FM and abhor changing FM to balance a sim, I'm totally for balancing the plane set. What I mean is that you have to choose a plane set that is suitably matched: Both the Hurricane and the Me109K4 flew in 1944. Would modelling both make for an interesting matchup in a sim? I rest my case.

 

It is here in this aspect that I think DCS has struck the perfect balance with the B4&MW50 Dora and the 67" Pony. One is slighly better down low, the other up high. No one dominates.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Pilum

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

Yes, it would make the Mustang faster and vastly improve climb rate... but in the end, that would mean that instead of having slightly inferior climb and top speed (IE, slightly inferior energy-fighting resources) and significantly better turning radius and rate (IE, significantly better angle-fighting resources), the Mustang would have slightly superior energy-fighting ability, and still have significantly superior angle-fighting resources. I think the style, tactics, and method of fighting against the Dora wouldn't significantly change. And while more horsepower does matter a lot in an angles fight for sustained turns, I'm not convinced it would really change the dynamic from what we have now.

 

As it stands right now, I already have no fear of taking the on the 1.8 ATA D9; I know I can consistently out-turn it and out-dive it. I agree that the higher-boost Mustangs should be an option in the Mission Editor... but if we don't get them, I'm not all that worried about it; the Dora doesn't overpower the Pony as it stands. ...at least, not from what I've seen.

Edited August 7, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[CaptJodan]

I don't think the 72" should be added to the Pony. Why? For balance!

 

I know balance is a dirty word and if it comes to tweaking the IRL performance for any aircraft in DCS then I'm totally against it. I agree that getting as close to the IRL performance as possible is the goal and this also seems to be DCS view. Kudos to them.

 

However, what I'm for is plane set balance. Here I think DCS have struck just the right balance:

 

You have two aircraft, the B4&MW50 Dora and the 67" Pony for which the IRL performance is pretty close.

 

However, one happens to be better at altitude and the other at low level.

 

The alternative? If you take a 72 " Pony and start checking in the boxes (speed, climb and turnrate etc.) you will find that it will dominate the Dora from sea level to service ceiling.

 

Will this make flying in the DCS fun and interesting? No, at least not for me.

 

I can see the objections coming: "But the Pony did fly with 72"!" This is historically correct! True, but this will make for a very dull experience unless Pony pilots don't like challenges and want Doras served on a platter.

 

So while I'm totally for historically accurate FM and abhor changing FM to balance a sim, I'm totally for balancing the plane set. What I mean is that you have to choose a plane set that is suitably matched: Both the Hurricane and the Me109K4 flew in 1944. Would modelling both make for an interesting matchup in a sim? I rest my case.

 

It is here in this aspect that I think DCS has struck the perfect balance with the B4&MW50 Dora and the 67" Pony. One is slighly better down low, the other up high. No one dominates.

 

I guess the answer there is "don't fly the 72'' P-51". Sounds like it'll be an option to check, and I'm sure if you're a MP player, there will be fights between the 67'' and Dora.

 

I see nothing wrong with including a historically accurate option (emphasis on "option") for pilots to decide to choose or not to choose.

[Kwiatek]

I see it other way. Dora actually overperformed P-51 at low to medium alt in speed and climb a lot cause it has MW-50 high power rating. Also it is very good dogfighter is someone is able to used it. So D-9 could dominate P-51 at low to medium alts with easy using just speed, dive and climb.

 

Disable MW50 in D-9 and it would be more in pair with P-51.

 

Thats why P-51 need 75 inch boost to be competetive fighter for these late version of D-9.

[fastfreddie]

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

 

To be honest it is pretty easy to get to that 12-16k range in the FW190. Spotting has seemed to improve since the 1.29 patch also.

 

I don't see what everyone is whining about yet. Have P51s been getting slaughtered in the Human P51 v Human FW190 servers yet? I'm no Erich Hartmann but in the battles with Ai it can be very competitive to get a clean shot. I can't imagine what people are going to be complaining about when the Spit or Bearcat arrive.

[NineLine]

I guess the answer there is "don't fly the 72'' P-51". Sounds like it'll be an option to check, and I'm sure if you're a MP player, there will be fights between the 67'' and Dora.

 

I see nothing wrong with including a historically accurate option (emphasis on "option") for pilots to decide to choose or not to choose.

 

I hope if or when the fuel is done it will be able to be done as a resource, so mission builders could limit the good stuff, and if a mission went long enough you would have to start filling up with the lower grade stuff... if that makes sense.

[Pandacat]

Even with 72 or 75 boost, I wouldn't say P51 can dominate D9 from deck all the way up to 30k. MW50 is basically an engine that drinks regular fule but feels like high octane. Also, WEP is useless at low alt for pony, so with or without that extra boost, it won't make any difference. Also, someone earlier compared 72 or 75 boost due to high octane fuel with Jump E engine and Ta152. That's just a lame comparison, worse than oranges against apples. 72 or 75 comes from high quality fuel. The basic plane and engine are the same. In addition, did Jump E and Ta152 ever get produced in sufficient quantity to supply to the frontline units? I believe the sim/game should focus on those historical planes that actually were standardized, supplied to front line units in sufficent numbers and fought in actual battles instead of some late war wonder weapons that look great on paper but were actually plagued numerous uncorrected development faults. If you want Ta152, then how about bringing in P51H? This debate can go back and forth on and on.

[CaptJodan]

I hope if or when the fuel is done it will be able to be done as a resource, so mission builders could limit the good stuff, and if a mission went long enough you would have to start filling up with the lower grade stuff... if that makes sense.

 

Absolutely. While I don't MP at all, I can understand why many people making missions would want to limit certain parameters like fuel quality as time goes on to ensure accurate or "balanced" engagements. I'm a big believer in options.

 

Pilum's suggestion just makes no sense to me, though. We'll eventually get the Me-262. There's not going to be much "balance" between the 262 and a P-51, but historically those two aircraft went up against each other. If one wants a truly balanced fight, where pilot is pitted against pilot, you face off in the same aircraft. Otherwise, each aircraft will have advantages and disadvantages that any pilot has to face, and it's intrinsically not balanced.

[Der_Fred]

This whole story has been hammered out before.. years ago. :-)

[MiloMorai]

Which is exactly why the P-51 doesn't need a boost, the P-51 pilots just need to learn to stay high :P

 

So you are happy with a mid 1944 P-51 and a very late war (1945) Dora?

 

There will be all kinds of tears from Dora pilots that the P-51s won't come down and fight.:poster_oops:

[outlawal2]

Bottom line is that MP servers can limit or provide pretty much anything they want so give them as many possible options as you can.. And let the mission builders worry about balance with their mission building tools...

[Narushima]

Bottom line is that MP servers can limit or provide pretty much anything they want so give them as many possible options as you can.. And let the mission builders worry about balance with their mission building tools...

 

Yup. Exactly. Also, C3 fuel (and the corresponding boost increase) as an option for the German planes would be nice.

[pingo]

Vent on a server tonight for 45min. I can not say I was directly surprised by what I saw. Normally 11 on red team in FW and 5-6 on blue in P-51s. Should we take it as an early warning of what we have in store? If you were to guess why more and more will start to fly FW because because, who wants to act as a target practice/object for zoom and boom pilots.

 

I will make the claim that into the second day of the Release of the FW a trend can clearly be seen. How long will it take before we will se FW pilots hunting AI`s in P-51`s - 3 weeks or 4 weeks :)

 

The only thing that can be observed from LuftW pilots is a struggle to retain its superiority in the air, but at the same time forget that there is a price to pay: D

[Narushima]

Oh yes, it's a trend all right.

 

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Dora was released yesterday and people actually want to try it out against human opponents. Nope, must be that's it's so OP.

 

...:doh:

[fjacobsen]

I´m not 100% sure that it´s a bug, but I have yet to see the engine fail due to overheat on the FW-190 D9.

 

Full throttle, no MW-50 (so no cooling effect from that) at 3300 RPM.

Keeping airspeed around 200-300 km/h.

This way I could fly for 35 mins without any engine failure.

 

The P-51D fails after some 3 mins at full power and low speed.

 

The only way I can make it kind of quit, is by flying with negative G's, then it will get fuel starvation.

 

FinnJ

Edited August 7, 2014 by fjacobsen

[pingo]

Oh yes, it's a trend all right.

 

I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Dora was released yesterday and people actually want to try it out against human opponents. Nope, must be that's it's so OP.

 

...:doh:

 

Let`s just admire this beautiful facepalm as it is and see what will happen in the near future :music_whistling:

 

 

Op D9? No I dont think so. I like flying it. The real P-51 it had as an opponent is probably far in the future or not desirable :D

[USARStarkey]

Even with 72 or 75 boost, I wouldn't say P51 can dominate D9 from deck all the way up to 30k. MW50 is basically an engine that drinks regular fule but feels like high octane. Also, WEP is useless at low alt for pony, so with or without that extra boost, it won't make any difference. Also, someone earlier compared 72 or 75 boost due to high octane fuel with Jump E engine and Ta152. That's just a lame comparison, worse than oranges against apples. 72 or 75 comes from high quality fuel. The basic plane and engine are the same. In addition, did Jump E and Ta152 ever get produced in sufficient quantity to supply to the frontline units? I believe the sim/game should focus on those historical planes that actually were standardized, supplied to front line units in sufficent numbers and fought in actual battles instead of some late war wonder weapons that look great on paper but were actually plagued numerous uncorrected development faults. If you want Ta152, then how about bringing in P51H? This debate can go back and forth on and on.

 

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?

Edited August 7, 2014 by USARStarkey

[Sabredog]

You have to remember that the P-51 is primarily a high altitude, long range bomber escort. This is where it excels. If you want better climb performance, take less fuel. The Mustang holds a whole lot more than the Dora and in a short range, low altitude fight you won't need it. The Dora is a monster low down and was improved to counter higher altitude threats like the P-51, but it's at its best at low and medium altitudes.

 

I don't feel the aircraft need balancing at all. They both have their advantages and disadvantages just as the real aircraft did. Sound tactics in either aircraft should be enough to triumph over the other at the end of the day.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

You have to remember that the P-51 is primarily a high altitude, long range bomber escort. This is where it excels. If you want better climb performance, take less fuel. The Mustang holds a whole lot more than the Dora and in a short range, low altitude fight you won't need it. The Dora is a monster low down and was improved to counter higher altitude threats like the P-51, but it's at its best at low and medium altitudes.

 

I don't feel the aircraft need balancing at all. They both have their advantages and disadvantages just as the real aircraft did. Sound tactics in either aircraft should be enough to triumph over the other at the end of the day.

 

 

yeah, it seems to me, that they are both a pretty even match...depending on how you fly each aircraft on its own...what ive been observing the last two days on our server was p51s down on deck, while ive seen many doras trying to outturn the p51s....people have to learn to fly their aircraft of choice to its advantages before complaining....

 

how accurate the 190s performance is simulated, i cant say.all i can say is, that i didnt have much of a problem flying against it in a p51, and i also was successfull in the 190 itself...i tried to fly to my rules and it seemed to work out.

[skarden]

Yep, I think Sabre hit in on the head, both aircraft are so good that it purely comes down to how well the pilot flies the plane that'll determine who comes out on top.

I was flying the dora online yesterday on the Dogs of War server ( great server by the way guys! ) and when I was on their was more Mustangs then Dora's but the advantage was going going back and forth constantly.

 

I saw a P-51 come near our base while I was climbing up to my cruising alt and thought I could get in behind him all sneaky like until he saw me and started turning, I figured I could just turn with him and bring him down to ground level and deal with him but no, trying to turn with the mustang is NOT a good idea if I hadn't been able to drag him back over the base and let the AA deal with him I would have been toast, as it was my beautiful plane got pretty messed up as it was because of my silliness, but when I strictly stuck to boom and zoom and kept my energy adv. and the tables turn quiet quickly.

 

I think these two planes are a fantastic match up, ya just gotta make sure ya fly your plane to its strengths and not get sucked into flying to your opponents.

[Krupi]

Yep, I think Sabre hit in on the head, both aircraft are so good that it purely comes down to how well the pilot flies the plane that'll determine who comes out on top.

I was flying the dora online yesterday on the Dogs of War server ( great server by the way guys! ) and when I was on their was more Mustangs then Dora's but the advantage was going going back and forth constantly.

 

I saw a P-51 come near our base while I was climbing up to my cruising alt and thought I could get in behind him all sneaky like until he saw me and started turning, I figured I could just turn with him and bring him down to ground level and deal with him but no, trying to turn with the mustang is NOT a good idea if I hadn't been able to drag him back over the base and let the AA deal with him I would have been toast, as it was my beautiful plane got pretty messed up as it was because of my silliness, but when I strictly stuck to boom and zoom and kept my energy adv. and the tables turn quiet quickly.

 

I think these two planes are a fantastic match up, ya just gotta make sure ya fly your plane to its strengths and not get sucked into flying to your opponents.

 

Agreed, but sometimes that is hard to implement :cry: I get target fixated and will not give up.

 

I need to take a leaf out of Hartmann's book and only engage when I have a clear advantage.

[NineLine]

Actually it could have a huge impact on any future dynamic campaigns (if and when we get one) as well... for single players of course, the resource manager is good for both MP and SP.

 

Absolutely. While I don't MP at all, I can understand why many people making missions would want to limit certain parameters like fuel quality as time goes on to ensure accurate or "balanced" engagements. I'm a big believer in options.

 

Pilum's suggestion just makes no sense to me, though. We'll eventually get the Me-262. There's not going to be much "balance" between the 262 and a P-51, but historically those two aircraft went up against each other. If one wants a truly balanced fight, where pilot is pitted against pilot, you face off in the same aircraft. Otherwise, each aircraft will have advantages and disadvantages that any pilot has to face, and it's intrinsically not balanced.

[rubblebeam]

Vent on a server tonight for 45min. I can not say I was directly surprised by what I saw. Normally 11 on red team in FW and 5-6 on blue in P-51s. Should we take it as an early warning of what we have in store? If you were to guess why more and more will start to fly FW because because, who wants to act as a target practice/object for zoom and boom pilots.

 

I will make the claim that into the second day of the Release of the FW a trend can clearly be seen. How long will it take before we will se FW pilots hunting AI`s in P-51`s - 3 weeks or 4 weeks :)

 

The only thing that can be observed from LuftW pilots is a struggle to retain its superiority in the air, but at the same time forget that there is a price to pay: D

Same thing is happening in Battle of Stalingrad ever since the release of their 190.

[fastfreddie]

Vent on a server tonight for 45min. I can not say I was directly surprised by what I saw. Normally 11 on red team in FW and 5-6 on blue in P-51s. Should we take it as an early warning of what we have in store? If you were to guess why more and more will start to fly FW because because, who wants to act as a target practice/object for zoom and boom pilots.

 

I will make the claim that into the second day of the Release of the FW a trend can clearly be seen. How long will it take before we will se FW pilots hunting AI`s in P-51`s - 3 weeks or 4 weeks :)

 

I think its so lopsided when you were on because is a "new" plane. When I got on it had more P51 pilots on there than FW190s. I've got more respect for the P51 now because I've flown something different against it for the first time and see its capabilities.

[USARStarkey]

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