P-51 vs Bf-109 dogfight impressions

[gavagai]

Before you point your finger at the MP, remember that our P-51D is slower than it was in 2012. Yoyo knows and is looking into it (soon I hope!).

[Teapot]

Solty, I completely agree that the models probably need tweaking ... however what I'm trying to elaborate is that each DCS module is an in depth study sim for as accurate a representation as possible for a particular aircraft.

 

Viewed from this p.o.v it's totally irrelevant in the scheme of things & at this stage of the DCS developmental time-line that the P-51 is modeled with 43 specs while the German iron is modeled @ 44 and later specs (except in the eyes of WWII enthusiasts!). It simply happens to be the data set that ED/DCS had access to and chose to use at the time.

 

Of course, I'm not privy to ED's plans and creative philosophies, this is all just speculation on my part based on my understanding of what I think ED/DCS is trying to achieve with their stated sandbox sim idea. Wags would probably be the best person to answer this and IMO he has already stated quite succinctly what ED/DCS is aiming for .. subject to change ;).

 

Consider that the SU-27 doesn't match-up with the BF-109 either, yet both planes are modeled. That said, no one is going to seriously match those two planes in any serious scenario. The problem that seems to be happening here (IMO) is that the P-51 is sufficiently close a match-up to the German iron, that we're emotionally inclined to wish that the planes conformed to the exact same era ... but that was never a stated aim as far as I can tell.

 

Considering that the Mustang was a sort of a gift anyway (from recollection it was developed as a side project and we're lucky that it got released) it seems to me that when the Mustang was conceived, the idea of a DCS: WWII sandbox wasn't really in the scope @ the time. However, I feel pretty confident that over time, we'll get our historical match-ups when more 3rd party developers get on board.

 

DCS:WWII will take time ... a plane at a time. Looking forward to VEAO's contributions fwiw.

 

 

@Gavagai ... you beauty, great news!

 

Cheers,

Edited April 13, 2015 by Teapot

[Solty]

There are tests and data about those 1944 settings for P-51D. So I don't see any problems there.

 

Also, sithspawn already said that they will work on it later.

[OutOnTheOP]

Viewed from this p.o.v it's totally irrelevant in the scheme of things & at this stage of the DCS developmental time-line that the P-51 is modeled with 43 specs while the German iron is modeled @ 44 and later specs (except in the eyes of WWII enthusiasts!). It simply happens to be the data set that ED/DCS had access to and chose to use at the time.

 

From that POV, they still screwed up: they modelled a late '44/ early '45 P-51D production block intended for the Pacific theater (you can tell by the twin antenna masts), which historically always operated with (IIRC) 130-grade fuel, and gave it 100 grade. Still an anachronism, whichever way you look at it

[GrapeJam]

Pacific theater Mustangs operated with 115/145 octane fuel at 80"hg.

 

Edit: At least 75"hg officially.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/Grade_115-145_Fuel_17May45.pdf

Edited April 13, 2015 by GrapeJam

[otto]

I wish the mustang gets 150 octane too. I wish there was an official answer :

 

It will be available .... april ,may,june

It will not be available because .....

[NineLine]

I wish the mustang gets 150 octane too. I wish there was an official answer :

 

It will be available .... april ,may,june

It will not be available because .....

 

They wont give you an exact date, but I have stated many times that the options for different fuels will be looked at by ED.

[Solty]

I wish the mustang gets 150 octane too. I wish there was an official answer :

 

It will be available .... april ,may,june

It will not be available because .....

 

That is what we have for now:

The ability to switch fuels is to be looked at in the future as far as I am aware.

 

 

EDIT: Damn. Ninjad by Sithspawn himself :P:pilotfly:

Edited April 13, 2015 by Solty

[Hummingbird]

"My reality" you meant? Because pretty much everybody disagree with you, even in post war test of 190D9(albeit flown at 1750hp, but with much reduced weight of 8500lbs), the D9 was described as having a poor turn radius.

 

No, reality period.

 

A Fw190 Jabo was tested against a P-51C and the results were a similar turn performance, despite the Fw190's lack of power and draggy racks.

[GrapeJam]

No, reality period.

 

A Fw190 Jabo was tested against a P-51C and the results were a similar turn performance, despite the Fw190's lack of power and draggy racks.

 

Sources?

 

Unless you meant this:

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=gztLnfyj0nIC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=fw+190+a+vs+p51+turning+little+to+choose+from&source=bl&ots=JB_dLnAdbk&sig=ZwIR3RDSzQbcG_nlD2LNlHsn264&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7MpVeakIcz68QWl6oHoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fw%20190%20a%20vs%20p51%20turning%20little%20to%20choose%20from&f=false

Then I got you this:

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=ccVUI85IcFoC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=march+1944+air+fighting+development+unit+report&source=bl&ots=lXI6ijLPOp&sig=lC9-Iu4Ehx4mmlcsBJYbgR2idVE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FLUpVfa5I8vv8gXtzYD4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=march%201944%20air%20fighting%20development%20unit%20report&f=false

 

And the question is how "slight"?

[Chief1942]

Well said!

 

Solty, I completely agree that the models probably need tweaking ... however what I'm trying to elaborate is that each DCS module is an in depth study sim for as accurate a representation as possible for a particular aircraft.

 

Viewed from this p.o.v it's totally irrelevant in the scheme of things & at this stage of the DCS developmental time-line that the P-51 is modeled with 43 specs while the German iron is modeled @ 44 and later specs (except in the eyes of WWII enthusiasts!). It simply happens to be the data set that ED/DCS had access to and chose to use at the time.

 

Of course, I'm not privy to ED's plans and creative philosophies, this is all just speculation on my part based on my understanding of what I think ED/DCS is trying to achieve with their stated sandbox sim idea. Wags would probably be the best person to answer this and IMO he has already stated quite succinctly what ED/DCS is aiming for .. subject to change ;).

 

Consider that the SU-27 doesn't match-up with the BF-109 either, yet both planes are modeled. That said, no one is going to seriously match those two planes in any serious scenario. The problem that seems to be happening here (IMO) is that the P-51 is sufficiently close a match-up to the German iron, that we're emotionally inclined to wish that the planes conformed to the exact same era ... but that was never a stated aim as far as I can tell.

 

Considering that the Mustang was a sort of a gift anyway (from recollection it was developed as a side project and we're lucky that it got released) it seems to me that when the Mustang was conceived, the idea of a DCS: WWII sandbox wasn't really in the scope @ the time. However, I feel pretty confident that over time, we'll get our historical match-ups when more 3rd party developers get on board.

 

DCS:WWII will take time ... a plane at a time. Looking forward to VEAO's contributions fwiw.

 

 

@Gavagai ... you beauty, great news!

 

Cheers,

 

Not sure it will have the least impact on the debates taking place around the different performance aspects of many of ED's modules, but I do think you very well explained the "why" of many of those differences. Even individual aircraft that came off the same assembly line were frequently as different as the people who flew them.

[Hummingbird]

Sources?

 

Unless you meant this:

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=gztLnfyj0nIC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=fw+190+a+vs+p51+turning+little+to+choose+from&source=bl&ots=JB_dLnAdbk&sig=ZwIR3RDSzQbcG_nlD2LNlHsn264&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i7MpVeakIcz68QWl6oHoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fw%20190%20a%20vs%20p51%20turning%20little%20to%20choose%20from&f=false

Then I got you this:

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=ccVUI85IcFoC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=march+1944+air+fighting+development+unit+report&source=bl&ots=lXI6ijLPOp&sig=lC9-Iu4Ehx4mmlcsBJYbgR2idVE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FLUpVfa5I8vv8gXtzYD4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=march%201944%20air%20fighting%20development%20unit%20report&f=false

 

And the question is how "slight"?

 

The source is the report that both books are qouting, and it specifically says that there isn't much to choose.

 

Now taking into account that the British never tested their captured aircraft to the limit (as pr. the very same source), I'd say that pretty much proves the point.

 

But nomatter, you'll see it once these two birds fly together again.

[Hummingbird]

Yes, yes, Hummingbird, we know, you think it should have laser death rays and fly at 0.5 c. We get it. Never mind that you ignore major factors like, oh, I dunno, drag.

 

Oh really? Do you know what one of the deciding factors of drag are? Let me help you = SIZE.

 

The fact remains that historical evidence and firsthand reports from both sides *and* modern airshow pilots indicates that the P-51D will indeed out-turn the Bf109 at high speeds.

 

Completely false, nowhere is this mentioned. What is mentioned is that at high speeds the 109's control forces become sufficiently high as to limit its maneuverability, that's it.

 

Modern pilots all agree that the 109 is leaps & bounds ahead of the P-51 in terms of turning.

 

Sorry you don't have a magical win machine. Deal with it.

 

A magical win machine is what P-51 fanboys always seem to believe they ought to have.

[NineLine]

Don't let this discussion degrade into something where the word 'fanboy' needs to be used, or it will end here.

[GrapeJam]

The source is the report that both books are qouting, and it specifically says that there isn't much to choose.

 

Now taking into account that the British never tested their captured aircraft to the limit (as pr. the very same source), I'd say that pretty much proves the point.

 

But nomatter, you'll see it once these two birds fly together again.

 

So all and all, it's all your speculation, without hard numbers.

 

Meanwhile, all of their FW 190As they've captured have stall speed much higher than the P51D even at full load, I'm questioning this "little to choose from" area.

 

Also it's funny you take 1 report as truth while dismiss the other that doesn't suit your view.

Edited April 13, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Hummingbird]

So all and all, it's all your speculation, without hard numbers.

 

Meanwhile, all of their FW 190As they've captured have stall speed much higher than the P51D even at full load, I'm questioning this "little to choose from" area.

 

Also it's funny you take 1 report as truth while dismiss the other that doesn't suit your view.

 

Nope, its based on hard facts/numbers.

 

Measured IAS stall speeds from a RAF test is not hard figures, esp. since most of their 190's suffered from aileron adjustment issues leading to premature stalls, something they didn't have the necessary equipment or type experience to properly deal with.

[GrapeJam]

Nope, its based on hard facts/numbers.

 

Source? You claim alot of thing as hard fact/numbers, yet haven't shown much.

 

Measured IAS stall speeds from a RAF test is not hard figures, esp. since most of their 190's suffered from aileron adjustment issues leading to premature stalls, something they didn't have the necessary equipment or type experience to properly deal with.

So this brings up the question, if the RAF 190 were suffering premature stalls leading to higher stall speed, then how could they turn with a P51B (with a 90mph stall speed IAS power off)? Hmn? Still there was the A-3 in good condition.

 

And how did you know it was the Jabo version that was tested anyway? There was one test with the Jabo done by the US Navy against the F4U and F6F, don't mistake it with that.

Edited April 13, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Snarf]

The 109 they show is actually a Spanish one with a Merlin engine.

[[DBS]TH0R]

But nomatter, you'll see it once these two birds fly together again.

 

So you keep mentioning that in several threads now. What exactly are you referring to?

[ArkRoyal]

Nope, its based on hard facts/numbers.

 

Measured IAS stall speeds from a RAF test is not hard figures, esp. since most of their 190's suffered from aileron adjustment issues leading to premature stalls, something they didn't have the necessary equipment or type experience to properly deal with.

 

The aileron adjustment issues were noted in the American reports, not RAF. Your getting your reports confused.

[Snarf]

Most German pilots from the time of the K model were barely able to fly with as little as 18 hours flying time before combat. In any machine that was a death sentence and good pilots could wring a lot out of a 109. So I think historical comparisons and especially those quoting Octane ratings for fuel are somewhat meaningless, all the more so since the Octane ratings aren't actually Octane ratings but performance numbers :)

[OutOnTheOP]

Most German pilots from the time of the K model were barely able to fly with as little as 18 hours flying time before combat. In any machine that was a death sentence and good pilots could wring a lot out of a 109. So I think historical comparisons and especially those quoting Octane ratings for fuel are somewhat meaningless, all the more so since the Octane ratings aren't actually Octane ratings but performance numbers :)

 

Well, you're welcome to delete your Kurfurst module after 18 hours, if you like.

 

In the meantime, some of us would just like to at least see the proper engine ratings for the Mustang, since all those factors that you have so kindly pointed out (and more, besides, such as German fuel shortages and shoddy last-ditch construction) are not represented in the simulation.

[Teapot]

... snipped some snide verbiage ;) ...

In the meantime, some of us would just like to at least see the proper engine ratings for the Mustang ...

 

Hang on a bit ... the thread title is *P-51 vs Bf-109 dogfight impressions*, the analysis of which can include a wide plethora of factors! There ... you made me say *plethora*... dangnabbit.

 

Snarf is absolutely on topic, whereas you've introduced a narrowing and reshaping of the topic :smartass:.

[OutOnTheOP]

Hardly; I agree that there are plenty of factors that probably should be included, but I suspect that automatically de-installing DCS when the virtual pilot has had too much practice, or has burned through all the fuel the third reich had available, would not go over well with the player base.

 

Good luck even getting German players to agree to play under allied numerical superiority.

 

Right now we can't even get the fight to happen at typical combat altitudes >.<

[Ultra]

Lol these threads are good... and funny. :lol:

The banter gets a little snippy, but I always learn a lot.

(Teapot you changed your avatar, nice)