P-51 outclassed?

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

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:

 

the bold part +1000!:thumbup:

[Foul Ole Ron]

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

 

And P-51s started using 72" boost from June '44. So what's the issue with the two planes meeting on the terms that they would have during that period?

[Krupi]

I didn't say anything about the P-51, that is not for me to decide.

 

It was available so I have nothing to add, its up to ED to select and not because of whiners.

[DB 605]

I didn't say anything about the P-51, that is not for me to decide.

 

It was available so I have nothing to add, its up to ED to select and not because of whiners.

 

+1

 

I'm pretty sure 72" boost pony will come when DCS WW2 is released. And i personally have no problem with that or even 75" 'stang. My favourite, 109 will be underdog anyway in some ways, that's just part of fun.

[Krupi]

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:

 

Ah good point, the EZ is a unusual choice...

 

And yes agreed!

[cliffy229]

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:

 

He is absolutely right, I get shot down in both planes constantly as there are some really good pilots on the DOW server.

[MiloMorai]

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

 

Is that so?

 

27 D-9 were built with this gun sight, 20 in February, and 7 in March 1945, according to JaPo's "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D camouflage and markings".

 

Approx. 4% of D-9 production used the EZ42.

[USARStarkey]

As a personnel note, I don't even consider the P-51 as it is in game as out classed. For me is this is solely about authenticity.

[FlyNate]

I feel its up to the pilot and the knowledge of the capabilities (strong points and weaknesses) of both aircraft. What I mean is, two pilots of identical skill and knowledge are a match. The knowledge of both sides' aircraft is important. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your aircraft is useless if you don't know the same about the aircraft you're fighting.

 

"A good pilot in a bad airplane will always beat a bad pilot in a good airplane. It's about knowledge, and overall, discipline." --Pierre Spray

 

It's up to the pilots, not the planes. In WW2, ME262s were flamed by 51s, even though they had the upper hand going into the fight...

Edited August 9, 2014 by FlyNate

[USARStarkey]

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

 

As Milo pointed out, some of the aircraft characteristics are 1945 era. However, nothing that is modeled is August 1944, if you are referring to other planes in DCS WW2 that is. Both the 109K and the 190D entered service after august, the 109 in Oct, and the 190 in Sept. The 190 with MW50 didn't appear till October.

 

As for the MW50 system in the Dora, it was only issued in minuscule numbers in 1944:

 

"The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.

 

[...]In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers.

 

By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *"

[Esac_mirmidon]

We have the Ka-50 and only 12 were ever built, and only 4 saw combat in Chechnya.

 

Nobody is complaining about having the Akula in DCS.

 

Why i must not have a Dora with MW-50? Because they were only a bunch of them? Because it´s not exactly 1944?

 

Please let us enjoy the modules we have.

[gavagai]

Is that so?

 

27 D-9 were built with this gun sight, 20 in February, and 7 in March 1945, according to JaPo's "Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D camouflage and markings".

 

Approx. 4% of D-9 production used the EZ42.

 

It's clearly an Allied conspiracy because I can hardly hit a thing with the EZ42. In fact, I think I would do better with a simple reflector gunsight.:doh:

[MiloMorai]

 

"The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent.

 

And, III./JG54 had lost 73 Doras (enemy action (44)/non-enemy action (29)) by year end.

[MiloMorai]

It's clearly an Allied conspiracy because I can hardly hit a thing with the EZ42. In fact, I think I would do better with a simple reflector gunsight.:doh:

 

Many pilots, on both sides, didn't like the new gyro gun sights. They changed their minds when they had more experience with them, so keep at it.

[NineLine]

It's clearly an Allied conspiracy because I can hardly hit a thing with the EZ42. In fact, I think I would do better with a simple reflector gunsight.:doh:

 

It is tough to get the hang of at first....

[Flagrum]

Can someone please explain the differences of the EZ42 and "simpe reflector sights", their respective advantages and disadvantages? Why is one superior to the other?

 

Hrm, or perhaps better, point me to some sources where I can learn more about their general working principles first .... :o)

[Kurfürst]

Can't wait for October. :)

[NineLine]

Can't wait for October. :)

 

You and me both... I love anything 109 and Spit... although a bigger fan of the earlier ones... I am not complaining :)

[MiloMorai]

Can't wait for October. :)

 

70 years later, to the month, won't make any difference.:devil_2:

[gavagai]

Many pilots, on both sides, didn't like the new gyro gun sights. They changed their minds when they had more experience with them, so keep at it.

 

I use the K-14 in the P-51 very well. The ironically named "EZ" gunsight is an unmitigated disaster. There is no option for a fixed aiming point by which to judge the gyrations of the lead-computing reticle.

 

If we get the same sorry excuse for a gunsight in the 109K-4 I will be very disappointed.:mad:

[cliffy229]

I use the K-14 in the P-51 very well. The ironically named "EZ" gunsight is an unmitigated disaster. There is no option for a fixed aiming point by which to judge the gyrations of the lead-computing reticle.

 

If we get the same sorry excuse for a gunsight in the 109K-4 I will be very disappointed.:mad:

 

 

Set the range to 0 and the reticle wont move anymore, you are just left with a big crosshair to aim with.

[fastfreddie]

I have more problems aiming with the 190 because of its design more than anything. Engine cowls and the cockpit design have limited views of the target from certain angles. Just something I'll have to learn to deal with but it is very hard to properly aim when you come down on someone and they start to pull up because they disappear where you have to aim to score hits. I don't think the window bar thing would solve this either because the sight sits to low and the Dora has a very long nose.

[OutOnTheOP]

We have the Ka-50 and only 12 were ever built, and only 4 saw combat in Chechnya.

 

Nobody is complaining about having the Akula in DCS.

 

Why i must not have a Dora with MW-50? Because they were only a bunch of them? Because it´s not exactly 1944?

 

Please let us enjoy the modules we have.

 

Plenty of people have commented on the rarity of the KA50 and therefore it's weirdness as a selection for simulation. But there's a good reason it came to be: there's no instructor-in-the-left-seat check ride in a single-seat helo, so the Russians ordered a professional-grade simulation

 

No one COMPLAINS about it, because unlike the FW190D9, it's not a module that's used in direct competition with some allegedly contemporary model. It just does it's thing, and it doesn't matter if it's a newer or older version.

 

More akin would be the "we need the newest version of the Su27" crowd or the "gimme an F-15 with AESA" folks, and there's plenty of that in the FC community.

[OutOnTheOP]

Set the range to 0 and the reticle wont move anymore, you are just left with a big crosshair to aim with.

 

I think he means he'd like both a fixed reference AND the floating reticule simultaneously. I can see where he's coming from, I too like to have the fixed gun cross (with the circle blanked) on the Mustang; it helps you judge whether the K14 looks like it's computing things right (and also helps me determine whether I have the same slip angle as the target!)

[gavagai]

I think he means he'd like both a fixed reference AND the floating reticule simultaneously. I can see where he's coming from, I too like to have the fixed gun cross (with the circle blanked) on the Mustang; it helps you judge whether the K14 looks like it's computing things right (and also helps me determine whether I have the same slip angle as the target!)

 

Exactly. I always set up the K-14 with the fixed dot in place in addition to the floating reticle. That way I can estimate the path my bullets will take toward the target, and so even if my range is off a bit I have a good chance of landing hits.

 

For now I might just try the zero range though. A fixed point is preferable to no frame of reference at all.