What's with P-51 versus Fw 190 in Dogfights ?

[Kurfürst]

No known operational D9 used C3 fuel, correct, still here's it theoretical performance with C3 fuel:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_D-9_C3.pdf

 

Luftflotte 6 on the Eastern Front, March 1945. Check II./JG 6's D-9s.

 

Edited December 4, 2014 by Kurfürst

[GrapeJam]

Only 1 D9 in the list, that's uh, disappointing.

 

Anyway, now the K4's joined the fray, the P51D doesn't even have the advantage of outurning Germans anymore, it seriously needs it's 150 octane fuel and higher boost limit.

Edited December 5, 2014 by GrapeJam

[Kurfürst]

Only 1 D9 in the list, that's uh, disappointing.

 

One Gruppe, that is one fighter wing with a nominal strenght of ca 68 aircraft (though usually much less in practice). Anyway the point was that some D9 units used C-3, even on the Eastern Front where usually they supplied B4. That may also not necessarily mean there was a more powerful variant of the Jumo 213 in them, but where there is smoke..

 

Anyway, now the K4's joined the fray, the P51D doesn't even have the advantage of outurning Germans anymore, it seriously needs it's 150 octane fuel and higher boost limit.

 

It may well be if would have a 8th AAF P-51D (15th AAF didnt get the 150 grade), but in the end the powers that be decided that the our prop jobs will get the lower boosted versions - we have the lower power K-4, the lower powered 51 and we will probably get the lower powered Mk.IX Spitty. You have to adjust the tactics accordingly - besides, I am not convinced that 72" boost would help the P--51D very much against the K-4. You would just have the same power (ca 1800 HP) in a much heavier aircraft and it would just open Pandora's box for everyone to ask for the "boosted" variant. And that would mean 2000 HP in the case of the K-4... given how much of a beast it is already with 'just' 1850 HP, you probably don't want that to happen.

 

You better be off with a wingman.

[tintifaxl]

You better be off with a wingman.

 

Amen to that. Much more important than any fuel/boost/hp nitpicking.

[mondo]

would just open Pandora's box for everyone to ask for the "boosted" variant.

 

Ubi.com il2 forum, circa 2004/5 all over again :(.

 

It may not have been viable but going with a cut off date would solve this. I.e. say what was being used in June 1944 or January 1945 (or any given date) and give an example of the most used variant at that date. It' kills off all discussion off allot of discussion about this sort of thing, but legitimately.

[GrapeJam]

It may well be if would have a 8th AAF P-51D (15th AAF didnt get the 150 grade), but in the end the powers that be decided that the our prop jobs will get the lower boosted versions - we have the lower power K-4, the lower powered 51 and we will probably get the lower powered Mk.IX Spitty. You have to adjust the tactics accordingly - besides, I am not convinced that 72" boost would help the P--51D very much against the K-4. You would just have the same power (ca 1800 HP) in a much heavier aircraft and it would just open Pandora's box for everyone to ask for the "boosted" variant. And that would mean 2000 HP in the case of the K-4... given how much of a beast it is already with 'just' 1850 HP, you probably don't want that to happen.

 

You better be off with a wingman.

 

Well 15th mostly operated in Italy area, and AFAIK their P51s weren't primarily the D version.

 

For the D9 and K4 the B4 + MW 50 setup was the standard with C3 units being the exception, while for the P51D 150 octane fuel at 75"hg boost was the standard, with 67"hg being the exception. Hell, I don't think I've read about a post D-Day P51D running at 67"hg, it's alway 70"hg at worst.

 

And it seems that the P51D also doesn't have G suit modeled.

Edited December 5, 2014 by GrapeJam

[Talisman_VR]

One Gruppe, that is one fighter wing with a nominal strenght of ca 68 aircraft (though usually much less in practice). Anyway the point was that some D9 units used C-3, even on the Eastern Front where usually they supplied B4. That may also not necessarily mean there was a more powerful variant of the Jumo 213 in them, but where there is smoke..

 

 

 

It may well be if would have a 8th AAF P-51D (15th AAF didnt get the 150 grade), but in the end the powers that be decided that the our prop jobs will get the lower boosted versions - we have the lower power K-4, the lower powered 51 and we will probably get the lower powered Mk.IX Spitty. You have to adjust the tactics accordingly - besides, I am not convinced that 72" boost would help the P--51D very much against the K-4. You would just have the same power (ca 1800 HP) in a much heavier aircraft and it would just open Pandora's box for everyone to ask for the "boosted" variant. And that would mean 2000 HP in the case of the K-4... given how much of a beast it is already with 'just' 1850 HP, you probably don't want that to happen.

 

You better be off with a wingman.

 

When you say "we will probably get the lower powered Mk.IX Spitty", I hope you are wrong.

Surely we can expect to get a later version of the higher powered Mk.IX Spitty that is more of a time line match with the historical appearance of substantial numbers of 109 K-4 and 190 Dora aircraft on the front line. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the the Spit Mk.IX was a 1942 aircraft. With the arrival of the Spit Mk.IX it will be good for the LW opposition to finally get cannon armament too, but not if the aircraft is 1942 spec, LOL.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[MiloMorai]

Luftflotte 6 on the Eastern Front, March 1945. Check II./JG 6's D-9s.

 

March 1945

 

How is that relevant to 1944?

 

2000hp K-4 is a 1945 a/c and only showed up (debatable) in the last few weeks of the war in Europe.

Edited December 5, 2014 by MiloMorai

[Bullfrog_]

it would just open Pandora's box for everyone to ask for the "boosted" variant.

 

The Dora opened Pandora's box since it's the one that is boosted, also the P-51 with 150 isn't "boosted" by 1945.. it's standard.

[Hadwell]

When you say "we will probably get the lower powered Mk.IX Spitty", I hope you are wrong.

Surely we can expect to get a later version of the higher powered Mk.IX Spitty that is more of a time line match with the historical appearance of substantial numbers of 109 K-4 and 190 Dora aircraft on the front line. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the the Spit Mk.IX was a 1942 aircraft. With the arrival of the Spit Mk.IX it will be good for the LW opposition to finally get cannon armament too, but not if the aircraft is 1942 spec, LOL.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

yes, except that the spitfire in general had a newer design.

 

its development started long after the 109's and by the time the K models came around, the 109 was far past its prime.

 

arguably the 109 was obsolete by 1942, with the G2 model being the peak of its prime, the G6 being roughly being the point where it was equal with allied fighters, and G10+ couldn't quite keep up with the allied technology anymore, upgrading the engine did help, but the airframe itself was just too limited.

[saburo_cz]

the P-51 with 150 isn't "boosted" by 1945.. it's standard.

 

It was NOT standard, 100/150 grade fuel was used as a standard for P-51 (and P-38/47) only from 8th AF.

P-51 and others USAAF fighters from units in Europe, Italy... used only 100/130 grade fuel.

[GrapeJam]

It was NOT standard, 100/150 grade fuel was used as a standard for P-51 (and P-38/47) only from 8th AF.

P-51 and others USAAF fighters from units in Europe, Italy... used only 100/130 grade fuel.

Yeah, in the same way that MW50 on D9 was not "standard" since there were still other units that lacked it.

 

Hell the D9 itself was not standard.

[Crumpp]

It was NOT standard, 100/150 grade fuel was used as a standard for P-51 (and P-38/47) only from 8th AF.

P-51 and others USAAF fighters from units in Europe, Italy... used only 100/130 grade fuel.

 

 

I do not think it was ever a standard specified fuel for the 8th AF Fighter Groups. It was a special project the entire war.

 

An application for specification has been found but the USAAF never issued a permanent specification number for the fuel.

 

The Production Division was directed on 28 March 1944, under the authority of the Commmanding General, Army Air Forces, to modify all P-38, P-47 and P-51 airplanes in the United Kingdom for the use of Grade 150 fuel, with the necessary modification kits to be shipped to the European Theater of Operations within 30 days. 23 It was decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom. 24

 

It was used at 72" and not 75" tested at Wright Patterson.

 

Technical Operations, Eighth Air Force issued a 4 April 1945 memorandum in which 100/150 grade fuel experience in the Eighth Air Force was summarized. It is reproduced in full below:

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

Basically the war ended before it could be a specified fuel and higher octane piston fuels took its place for a moment before Jet-A became standard.

 

Even the post war high octane fuels suffered greatly in the maintenance department as a technological barrier was reached at ~100/140 grade fuel even with post war piston engine monsters.

 

You can clearly read the Special Project Number stenciled on the side of this 8th USAAF FG Mustang.

[MiloMorai]

Yes Crumpp your denial is well know.

 

"It was decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom."

 

If it is the only fuel available, would that not make it the standard fuel?

Edited December 6, 2014 by MiloMorai

[MachDriver]

The reason why we went to the higher fuel grade one it is better for the engine two it was a simple upgrade all they had to do was change the fuel mixture valve and three it was one advantage we had over the axis.The axis never really had High Octane gas most of the war the germans had 87 octane until Mid 44 when the C-3 Synthetic 100 Octane gas.And for the record the Mustang in game is the D-25na not the D-20na the D-25 was the only Mustang that had Zero Zero rocket pylons until after the war then the D-30's were carrying them and Grape Jam is right this type of mustang should have had 67hg in low blower setting and 75 hg in high blower setting at 12,000ft it is a 22 lb mustang.

Edited December 6, 2014 by MachDriver

[MiloMorai]

Actually MachDriver, C3 was available in 1940, tho in low quantities. Some Bf109s and 110s were using it in the later part of the BoB.

 

The Fw190As with the BMW801D engines required C3 fuel and they were around from 1942.

[Crumpp]

.The axis never really had High Octane gas most of the war

 

The British scratched their heads as they realized the German fuels were far better than the German engines required.

 

German engines did not require such high lean mixture ratings due to the use of direct fuel injection fuel metering but they still never got their fuel quite to 100 Octane lean mixture rating.

 

The German synthetic fuel was "unbalanced" compared to natural petroleum fuels. The lean mixture ratings never improved much over ~97 but the rich mixture of the C-3 was pretty high after the Germans got their hydrogenation plants up and running.

 

According to this report C3 in our Aviation fuel terms it ran ~95/125 in 1941 to ~97/162 in early 1943.

 

The table list's >125 for the rich mixture but the text notes they were finding rich mixture ratings up to 125% of Allied 100/130 grade.

 

Simple math = 1.25 * 130 octane = 162 octane

 

I cannot prove it yet but I suspect the Germans ran into similar issues with reaching a point of diminishing returns for performance vs reliability found in high octane fuels. There is a reason why Drag racing fuel is not found at the Quick Stop. The engine required to utilize the fuels potential is neither cheap nor reliable enough for everyday use.

 

I got another source that quotes C3 fuel averaged ~96/140 octane somewhere in my collection. Given the performance vs reliability issues, that seems about a good compromise point.

 

The fact they never got the lean mixture rating to 100 also goes a long way towards explaining the difficulty the Germans had with developing high altitude engines. The high rich mixture rating also helps to explain their good low altitude performance.

[Snarf]

The load limits given are a figure the aircraft must meet, most aircraft are able to go well beyond the load limits stated. For instance airliners with a limit of 3.5 G have often not failed till 5 to 5.5 G.

[EliteKatze]

FW 190 D9 is lighter by like 200kg and has 2100 hp peak power while the p51d has got an allison with about 1650hp, even from that aspect the fw 190 should have the edge everywhere, better turn time due to higher angle of attack, wing's slightly higher resistanec is compensated by the higher performance and efficiency of the dora engine

[Zimmerdylan]

I don't get it. I think there has been some Drastic Mis-Modeling of the Dora's Performance OR that of the P-51.

 

In all accounts of Statistics (available throughout the internet), the P-51 could outperform the Dora on just about Every Account with exception of Climb Rate (speaking of latter war models).

 

While the P-51 is At LEAST 50 mph faster (70mph faster at 28,000 ft), and shot down practically every Dora near the end of WW2, I'm finding that the DCS P-51 is drastically Slower and WAY easier to critically damage .. with one or two bullets than the Fw 190,, ever after the latter has been shot to shit and parts flying off of it.

 

It is SUPER Frustrating to me and to many other people.

I think this is something that seriously needs to be looked at by the software designers. Otherwise there is little sense in anyone flying the P-51 in head-to-head battles in DCS World online.

 

PS> If you need any of those statistics and can't find them ... you aren't looking.

 

 

 

LOL.......:megalol: You just performed CPR on a horse that has been beaten to death, propped back up, beaten to death again, revived, fed and recovered, only to be beaten to death about a hundred more times. :music_whistling:

These guys just loooove to argue about this. :argue:

[HeadHunter52]

LOL.......:megalol: You just performed CPR on a horse that has been beaten to death, propped back up, beaten to death again, revived, fed and recovered, only to be beaten to death about a hundred more times. :music_whistling:

These guys just loooove to argue about this. :argue:

 

Dude, that post was from 2014.

[Zimmerdylan]

Yes....and read the date on the last post before mine. That's exactly what I was getting at.

[Chief1942]

Popcorn! Please. I would suggest that for those that simply love to nit pick every "reality" aspect of every module ED gives us, that they come to appreciate that this is a SIMULATION. It is NOT the real deal and never will it be nor can it be. As for me, I accept the limitations that ED was constrained by and simply adjust to the reality that what they provide us is what it is. Ultimately it is about the enjoyment that comes from these great offerings. Except for the very lucky few who are actually able and do fly the "real deal", to the rest of us this is as close (real) as it is ever going to get. YMMV! Thanks as always ED.

[Kev2go]

except that the 67 HG stang we got was before dcs ww2 and Normandy were really a thing

 

If i recal hearing that they were indeed planning to rework our P51D and give us a ETO appropriate version with 75 HG and 150 octane fuel.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[horseback]

except that the 67 HG stang we got was before dcs ww2 and Normandy were really a thing

 

If i recal hearing that they were indeed planning to rework our P51D and give us a ETO appropriate version with 75 HG and 150 octane fuel.

 

I want a pair of Spitfire rearview mirrors mounted above my windshield!

 

That would be the epitome of ETO authenticity...

 

cheers

 

horseback