P-51 outclassed?

[Pandacat]

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?

 

Dude, don't get me wrong here. I am on your side here. My point is some people are afraid 75 boost of pony will upset the balance, but the reality is totally opposite of that. I am not understating the performance of 75 boost. However, I do have doubt on how much WEP can help you at low alt. Probably you are right that the manual is incorrect on that. Also, I am not a big fan of balancing. All I want, like many of you, is historical accuracy. Not only plane performance but also the logistics aspect of the warring nations. What I don't want to see is a few late war machines that had never been produced in sufficient quantities got thrown in online battle as if they were always built in large flocks. Also, I wasn't critisizing the comparison between performance of 75 boost and performance of Jump E and Ta152. What I do have issue with is the arguement that "hey now you have 75 boost, can I get Jump E or Ta152" because 75 boost is just a fuel change (that is not something extra) but bringing on Jump E and Ta152 IS asking for something extra.

[Pilum]

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.

 

Well I'm totally with you on the authenticity part and I have read quite a bit about the time period as well and again, if you are looking for authenticity then you should fly against the Me109G6 because that was the ride most LW pilots had at hand at the time. I have not had a chance to think about what kind of boost would be appropriate for the P-47 but it may well be as you say that in this case a high boost version is needed to "balance" the sim experience. However, that being said I fail to see the P-47 being better than the Dora in all aspects because of increased boost because the Dora will at least turn better and probably climb better as well. The Dora should also be better down low but due to the turbo supercharger the P-47 will be better at altitude and also dive better. Again, there is some kind of balance here. However, give the Pony 75" boost and the B4 Dora is doomed because it has nada in the toolbox: It will be slower, turns worse, not dive as well and have poorer climb.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Pilum

[gavagai]

Any 109 will be more challenging for P-51 pilots right now because almost all of the P-51 victories are being won by out-turning the 190D-9. The 190 is only going to become more than a moderate threat with the adoption of real cooperative tactics, and then it will be a menace.

 

Pilum, the P-47D will probably out-turn the 190D-9. Against an early series Anton it would be much closer. Some will call me out on this prediction, but I stand by it. Just wait and see...

Edited August 8, 2014 by gavagai

[USARStarkey]

Well I'm totally with you on the authenticity part and I have read quite a bit about the time period as well and again, if you are looking for authenticity then you should fly against the Me109G6 because that was the ride most LW pilots had at hand at the time. I have not had a chance to think about what kind of boost would be appropriate for the P-47 but it may well be as you say that in this case a high boost version is needed to "balance" the sim experience. However, that being said I fail to see the P-47 being better than the Dora in all aspects because of increased boost because the Dora will at least turn better and probably climb better as well. The Dora should also be better down low but due to the turbo supercharger the P-47 will be better at altitude and also dive better. Again, there is some kind of balance here. However, give the Pony 75" boost and the B4 Dora is doomed because it has nada in the toolbox: It will be slower, turns worse, not dive as well and have poorer climb.

 

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.

[OutOnTheOP]

Nope no high horse and not sure how my intellect was brought into this but recommend you don't go there... ;) Just tired of the same ole crap being spewed over and over...

 

And I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that your last line states exactly what we have been saying about this subject the whole time.. The mission builders can setup the missions to achieve balance..

 

Thanks for going full circle, contradicting your own argument and saying exactly what we have been saying all along..

 

So let's dispense with the "I need this feature now or it won't be fair" routine...

 

Fly the plane

 

First, yes, you are high-horsing like mad. Your post was one big insinuation that anyone that made an argument that the P-51 should have higher boost is just a whiner who can't win and/or wants every advantage. You fail to even acknowledge that there is sound historical reasoning to have 75" boost available as an option (yes, an OPTION, so the Mission builder can choose whether to go for historical accuracy or game balance).

 

Then you used a historically inaccurate statement about "using what you have on hand" which does not actually support your argument, considering that historically, the Mustangs that faced FW190D9s had 100/150 octane and 75" boost available.

 

Oh, and there's absolutely no contradiction in my post, whatsoever. Mission builders will balance the mission as best as they can- WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM. If the Me262 is available, they can choose to include or exclude it from their missions. However, they CANNOT choose to include the 75" boost Mustang, if it is not available in the game, now can they?

Edited August 8, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[USARStarkey]

First, yes, you are high-horsing like mad. Your post was one big insinuation that anyone that made an argument that the P-51 should have higher boost is just a whiner who can't win and/or wants every advantage. You fail to even acknowledge that there is sound historical reasoning to have 75" boost available as an option (yes, an OPTION, so the Mission builder can choose whether to go for historical accuracy or game balance).

 

Then you used a historically inaccurate statement about "using what you have on hand" which does not actually support your argument, considering that historically, the Mustangs that faced FW190D9s had 100/150 octane and 75" boost available.

 

Oh, and there's absolutely no contradiction in my post, whatsoever. Mission builders will balance the mission as best as they can- WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM. If the Me262 is available, they can choose to include or exclude it from their missions. However, they CANNOT choose to include the 75" boost Mustang, if it is not available in the game, now can they?

 

Curiously enough, I wonder if any mission designers will have a daring to put 190s without MW50 in missions, since they didn't originally come with MW50 boost, even after its introduction there were still many doras flying with the 1900PS update.

[Foul Ole Ron]

I like to fly both sides and definitely think that there should be an option for at least 72" boost in the Mustang. It would have been the more common match-up for the period. I don't think we need to worry about balance or the Dora being suddenly outmatched in all areas with 72" boost. Anyway we're ultimately heading towards the scenario where there should be 109s and 190s operating together performing their own roles.

[tempestglen]

And then someone will ask for the Dora 11 with the Jump 213E or the Ta 152 etc... ; )

 

Then we bring up P51H.:lol:

[MiloMorai]

Then we bring up P51H.:lol:

 

And Spiteful. :)

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

Any 109 will be more challenging for P-51 pilots right now because almost all of the P-51 victories are being won by out-turning the 190D-9. The 190 is only going to become more than a moderate threat with the adoption of real cooperative tactics, and then it will be a menace.

 

Pilum, the P-47D will probably out-turn the 190D-9. Against an early series Anton it would be much closer. Some will call me out on this prediction, but I stand by it. Just wait and see...

 

 

yes, as much as i am looking forward that my absolute favorite, the k4 arrives, i think i better avoid the forums for a while then...

[[DBS]TH0R]

Not sure if it was mentioned here but the Dora has huge advantage over Pony in engine management. You don't need to constantly watch the gauges and can keep your eyes at your opponent.

 

As for the FM, they are closely matched IMHO.

[Sabredog]

I guess from a historical accuracy point of view, the P-51 was using 72' of boost with 44-1 fuel from June 1944 while the earliest FW 190 D9's (without MW50) didn't come into service until August of the same year.

[saburo_cz]

After several hours on-line playing against piloted Doras I can not say that Pony is outclassed.

 

Both have their better and worst characteristics (and pilot should to know them, if not he will be killed and does not matter what plane he has).

[pingo]

This story repeats it self again. Last time it was about 100% oct fuel for the spit and hurri in cliffs. Not to forget all the " learn to fly", "it cant be that hard" or the best of them all "hey I have no problems against the 109 in both the spit or hurri". And then in the evening jumping into the cockpit of my bf109E3 and fly together these very same 109 pilots, who didn`t have any problems against the 109.

 

Jesus crist you will kill the WW2 multiplayer community and the servers with your unhistorical support.

Edited August 9, 2014 by pingo

[pingo]

After several hours on-line playing against piloted Doras I can not say that Pony is outclassed.

 

Both have their better and worst characteristics (and pilot should to know them, if not he will be killed and does not matter what plane he has).

 

How about you put some proove to the table, now! Dude.

 

"After several hours", :megalol: How many hours are you talking about? Ace :P

 

Jesus crist were have the world gone.

[Furious]

Chill Pingo. I know this WW2 debate is the most tedious one ever to grace the internet, and I for one am quite sad to see it resurface. Different planes, different developers, all in one simulator... revisiting the octane debate, the 50cal efficiency, the which version against which version... it's been round the block a few times, always won by people who shout the loudest...

Balance should never enter the debate, it's simply too subjective. It should be based on what was there at the time. A 44 mustang against a 45 dora seems odd to me, but is there actually any chance whatsoever of seeing a higher boost 'stang in the game? So we have what we have...:huh:

[OutOnTheOP]

Chill Pingo. I know this WW2 debate is the most tedious one ever to grace the internet, and I for one am quite sad to see it resurface. Different planes, different developers, all in one simulator... revisiting the octane debate, the 50cal efficiency, the which version against which version... it's been round the block a few times, always won by people who shout the loudest...

Balance should never enter the debate, it's simply too subjective. It should be based on what was there at the time. A 44 mustang against a 45 dora seems odd to me, but is there actually any chance whatsoever of seeing a higher boost 'stang in the game? So we have what we have...:huh:

 

If no one ASKS for one, then no, there WOULDN'T be any chance of seeing it.

 

I don't anyone (except maybe Luftwaffe players that are shouting the loudest that the Mustang should never, ever get higher boost, and that anyone asking for it are wimps and cheaters) wants to see the old IL2 "German and Russian planes outperform everything else in every aspect" song and dance again, though. We want historically accurate performance, as shown on the testing data sheets, issue documents, and supply and maintenance records.

 

And just because you've seen the argument before, does not make it less valid. It just means that people still see issues.

 

As for the .50 cal thing, I'm leaning more toward it being an AI issue: the AI Mustangs seem to soak up a fair bit of 20mm, too.

[pingo]

I dont know Furious if we will ever se an option for 75 boost in the game only ED knows.

 

What I feel though is this community should not have any problems agreeing on an options for 75 boots. It saddens me what I se on this very forum the cheap tricks used.

 

I will newer forget those nights i climbed into my 109E3 cockpit jumped onto TS during the 100% oct debate and discover alot of those people, who posted that they did not have any problems df the 109 and at the same time question the correct historical aspect of it all didn`t fly the spit or hurri, they were 109 pilots - that rocked my boat.

 

Fool me once I can accept that. The 2nd time I will be more on my alert. 3rd time there is just one to blame and that`s my self.

 

I dont want to se the same happen here. I want the community to grov - more WW2 servers and online pilots.

 

Im not angry Im disappointed by the comment i se from some members and will classify it as absolutely rubbish because it has nothing to do with historical correctness.

Edited August 9, 2014 by pingo

[tintifaxl]

20mm M-Gsch. 20hits

 

Should bring down two B-17s.

[[DBS]TH0R]

Should bring down two B-17s.

 

I guess that largely depends on where they land.

[tempestglen]

I suggest DCS developers model both 67" and 75" P51D, so everyone will be happy.

 

Why not RAF Mustang IV? 80" inch ?

[WinterH]

Let there be Tie Interceptor and X-Wing for both sides, so everyone can be happy :P

[Krupi]

Chill Pingo. I know this WW2 debate is the most tedious one ever to grace the internet, and I for one am quite sad to see it resurface. Different planes, different developers, all in one simulator... revisiting the octane debate, the 50cal efficiency, the which version against which version... it's been round the block a few times, always won by people who shout the loudest...

Balance should never enter the debate, it's simply too subjective. It should be based on what was there at the time. A 44 mustang against a 45 dora seems odd to me, but is there actually any chance whatsoever of seeing a higher boost 'stang in the game? So we have what we have...:huh:

 

It is not a 45, everything modelled was available in August 44.

[Krupi]

The P-51 is so out classed no one wants to fly it anymore... oh 5 P-51 vs 2 Dora... :doh:

 

 

:smilewink:

[Robo.]

It is not a 45, everything modelled was available in August 44.

 

D-9s with EZ42 were available before February 1945? :huh:

 

Also, momentary amount of pilots on DoW does not reflect anything but momentary amount of pilots on DoW ;) I see both sides flying and numbers increasing so that's cool.

 

I personally find both aircraft nicely matched at the moment, with the pilot being the decisive factor. And I do hope that whoever is in charge will not make any decisions based on complaints on this forums. :smilewink: