K-4 is a P51 Killer

[Yob]

One thing that i have found is close the radiators to full close then open for 3-4 seconds elevates the overheating problem.

 

Another thing i have found is that the prop can be battle damaged way more then the mustang, and have hols in it.

 

In my daily dogfight with 8 mustangs i have found that keeping energy up and then droping in on a mustang is a really good tactic to drop in behind shoot MG's do some damage if gun sight is not completely on. The other thing i have found, since the cannon is low/V it is wise to come in close to you see the white on his eyes to quote "sailor"

[DieHard]

Elevator Locks Up: I suspect due to compression at overspeed

 

(re: Message #106)

 

I most certainly am not acting like the 51 is better, but those later model 109s suffer from super high wing loading so their engine thrust had to compensate for the lack of lift from all the extra weight added

 

the P-51 will do a streight up zoom climb far longer than a 109....

 

and i think the reason people keep ripping wings off is because at high speeds, the elevator locks up, and in real life the pilot just wouldn't be strong enough to pull back, but here, that's not a problem.

 

Just did a search for "elevator locks"

 

This post confirms this guy's observation as to the elevator locking up and what I suspect is going on.

 

I have not ripped wings off. 109 is still steerable using elevator trim, but landings are fun.

 

I am sim-flying the 109 in the Open Beta : DoW server and I am wondering if DoW has random failures turned on as this result only has occured using this server?

Edited October 28, 2015 by DieHard

[DieHard]

(re: Message #110)

 

According to this article http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

The full boost of 1.98 was really never used due to engine failure.

 

In the sim how many are running wep for periods longer then a few minutes at a time? I've also read where RL pilots never used the wep in the K-4 as they were told over time you'd blow your engine. It would be nice if we were able to get in the same plane each time (unless you were shot out of the sky) to give us more immersion.

 

I use WEP longer than I should. I have two switches on my stick for On/Off to not overuse it, but I still do.

 

I usually use the same plane more than once. Even getting a repair once or twice does not seem to fix the engine each time. 3rd or 4th rtb out and back after a repair my engine starts sputtering, cannot even taxi.

Edited October 24, 2015 by DieHard

[BSS_Sniper]

I kind of chuckled after reading the title of this thread and looking at the date. The reason I did is because, it is my understanding that the 109 needs a fix to its FM and DM. Things like a 1500 FPM climb over and above what it should be, it soaks up .50 cal like it's a tank, never runs out of coolant, etc.

 

Having said that, is this true? This is the word going around my inner circle and other than observations, I'm not sure where it came from. I do believe someone I know read it here and if so, where?

 

ETA: I found it so nevermind. So again, the thread title made me chuckle because apparently there are some fixes are due and some people think the way the 109 is now is normal. Also, I have the 109 and enjoy it, just want it corrected. Sorry for going slightly off topic.

Edited October 25, 2015 by BSS_Sniper

[Hummingbird]

The climb rate has been corrected AFAIK.

[gavagai]

The climb rate has been corrected AFAIK.

 

Yup. Climb rate, level speed, and turn rate all seem slightly reduced.

[Hummingbird]

Yup. Climb rate, level speed, and turn rate all seem slightly reduced.

 

Could do with a slight lift increase though.

[WildBillKelsoe]

100% ..... I am talking purely from flying against AI where the K-4 molests the P51.

 

I have not managed to get into a MP because I need to learn to fly the planes completely before I attempt MP. I am sure its going to be a lot tougher once I meet real opponents.

Not tougher. A nightmare..

 

Sent from my SM-T231 using Tapatalk

[DieHard]

The P-51 in SP can be killed fairly easily, but that does depend on one's skill level with these birds and how you setup your controllers and your view out of the cockpit.

 

MP is way overrated and I guess is why of all the people that supposedly fly DCSW, very few fly MP. Not everybody is an expert. Just hop in! Learn from your mistakes.

[Zimmerdylan]

Yeah......this 109 vs P51 really confuses the daylights out of me.

I know that there are many opinions (especially on the forums) about the performance differences between the two.

I know that every time I go 1 on 1 with the 109 in a p51 I get either chased into the ground, run out of gas, or just shot down. Everyone attributes this to the AI not having a complex flight model. I can go for that answer most of the time. So last night, I went into the MI and set up head to head between the 109 and Mustang. Both AI. I set up at different altitudes with different loads. Out of 6 rounds, the Mustang didn't win a single fight. In fact, the 109 made pretty short work of it every time. In 5 of the 6, the Mustang never got the chance to fire off a single shot. It spent most of it's time and energy playing defense because the 109 was all over it.

My problem is that every time I watch any pilot who has flown against the 109 in a P51 talk about it, they say it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLjYGLlklo Check right at 9 minutes in to about 12 minutes.

 

Start at 14 minutes and 24:30

 

Both of these videos tell you the same thing I see in every video. The P51 was a superior fighter. In some videos they say that they were pretty evenly matched but none of them say that the 109 was superior. I just don't understand why the 109 is so much better in DCS.

I know that this is an old argument. But everything I'm seeing and reading is telling me a complete different story than this version of both planes.

I know that some of you can kill the AI 109 pretty easily. Possibly because you have learned it's habits in DCS. It kind of seems that ED favors the 109 itself. Call me crazy, but the 109 kills the P51 in DCS.

I took my lousy flying out of the equation and the 109 still beats the P51 down pretty easily.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Zimmerdylan

[NineLine]

Problem is the scenarios you are putting the aircraft in. WWII wasn't a series of 1 vs 1 head to head fights. The P-51s out numbered the 109s in WWII, not to mention the 109s were tasked with shooting down bombers more so than dog fighting. Not to mention German pilot quality by 44-45...

 

It ends up making the P-51 look pretty dang good, but in reality it might have skewed the facts a little. Try setting up some transport aircrafts as faux bombers up high, now task the 109s to attack those... then come along and start picking off 109s, make sure to add superior numbers for the P-51... now you have closer to what you read in history ;)

 

 

Yeah......this 109 vs P51 really confuses the daylights out of me.

I know that there are many opinions (especially on the forums) about the performance differences between the two.

I know that every time I go 1 on 1 with the 109 in a p51 I get either chased into the ground, run out of gas, or just shot down. Everyone attributes this to the AI not having a complex flight model. I can go for that answer most of the time. So last night, I went into the MI and set up head to head between the 109 and Mustang. Both AI. I set up at different altitudes with different loads. Out of 6 rounds, the Mustang didn't win a single fight. In fact, the 109 made pretty short work of it every time. In 5 of the 6, the Mustang never got the chance to fire off a single shot. It spent most of it's time and energy playing defense because the 109 was all over it.

My problem is that every time I watch any pilot who has flown against the 109 in a P51 talk about it, they say it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLjYGLlklo Check right at 9 minutes in to about 12 minutes.

 

Start at 14 minutes and 24:30

 

Both of these videos tell you the same thing I see in every video. The P51 was a superior fighter. In some videos they say that they were pretty evenly matched but none of them say that the 109 was superior. I just don't understand why the 109 is so much better in DCS.

I know that this is an old argument. But everything I'm seeing and reading is telling me a complete different story than this version of both planes.

I know that some of you can kill the AI 109 pretty easily. Possibly because you have learned it's habits in DCS. It kind of seems that ED favors the 109 itself. Call me crazy, but the 109 kills the P51 in DCS.

I took my lousy flying out of the equation and the 109 still beats the P51 down pretty easily.

[Rogue Trooper]

Once the spitfire becomes a reality you will understand better how two knife fighters developed in comparison to the P-51 and what the P-51s role was.

 

The P51 is a superb fighter but the Spitfire and 109 were bred for pure dogfighting. These two fighters were hewn and matured from the same stuff through sheer attrition.

When the P-51 was in development, the RAF did not require an aircraft they already had, The P-51s purpose was a superb fighter with range.

[Nerd1000]

Problem is the scenarios you are putting the aircraft in. WWII wasn't a series of 1 vs 1 head to head fights. The P-51s out numbered the 109s in WWII, not to mention the 109s were tasked with shooting down bombers more so than dog fighting. Not to mention German pilot quality by 44-45...

 

It ends up making the P-51 look pretty dang good, but in reality it might have skewed the facts a little. Try setting up some transport aircrafts as faux bombers up high, now task the 109s to attack those... then come along and start picking off 109s, make sure to add superior numbers for the P-51... now you have closer to what you read in history ;)

 

Its also worth noting that the 109K is the most capable version of the 109. If the duel was P-51D vs one of the less capable 'bread and butter' 109s like the G-6 or G-14 that were common at the time when the Mustang was introduced then the outcome might be different.

[Bullfrog_]

Problem is the scenarios you are putting the aircraft in. WWII wasn't a series of 1 vs 1 head to head fights. The P-51s out numbered the 109s in WWII, not to mention the 109s were tasked with shooting down bombers more so than dog fighting. Not to mention German pilot quality by 44-45...

 

It ends up making the P-51 look pretty dang good, but in reality it might have skewed the facts a little. Try setting up some transport aircrafts as faux bombers up high, now task the 109s to attack those... then come along and start picking off 109s, make sure to add superior numbers for the P-51... now you have closer to what you read in history ;)

 

 

This isn't exactly right, even German aces like Gunther Rall will tell you that the # advantage worked in their favor in regards to air to air combat. Germans had a target rich environment while the Allies had for the most part empty skies which contributed to how easy it was to find and shoot down allied aircraft.

 

Furthermore, IIRC 109s were prioritized on protecting 190s, which would do the large chunk of bomber interceptions. Not that 109s didn't do interceptions.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Bullfrog_

[NineLine]

This isn't exactly right, even German aces like Gunther Rall will tell you that the # advantage worked in their favor in regards to air to air combat. Germans had a target rich environment while the Allies had for the most part empty skies which contributed to how easy it was to find and shoot down allied aircraft.

 

Furthermore, 109s were prioritized on protecting 190s, which would do the large chunk of bomber interceptions. Not that 109s didn't do interceptions.

 

Well, that also goes to show, it depends on which pilot you ask too ;)

[MiloMorai]

I think some are under the misconception that those 1000 American bombers had 800 fighters as escort all the time.

[NineLine]

I think some are under the misconception that those 1000 American bombers had 800 fighters as escort all the time.

 

Who said that?

[Solty]

I think some are under the misconception that those 1000 American bombers had 800 fighters as escort all the time.

 

I agree. I have read that escort fighters were on many occasions outnumbered 2:1 and worst was10:1. Germans had the ability to regroup forces before attacking, as allied bombers were seen on radars and were easy to intercept. And those escorts, even p51, had to fly zig-zaging over bombers and had to be replaced by other fighter groups at certain points of the mission.

[NineLine]

I agree. I have read that escort fighters were on many occasions outnumbered 2:1 and worst was10:1. Germans had the ability to regroup forces before attacking, as allied bombers were seen on radars and were easy to intercept. And those escorts, even p51, had to fly zig-zaging over bombers and had to be replaced by other fighter groups at certain points of the mission.

 

Even at 2:1 when the Germans were focused on the bombers.... not to mention those bombers were firing as well... it makes a big difference compared to a 1v1 fight...

[Screamadelica]

All this talk of 109s and 190s and bomber formation intercepts and escort fighters coming down to save them....DCS WW2 is going to be just totally awesome!

Edited November 17, 2015 by Screamadelica

[Aginor]

I think it does boil down to pilot quality, especially during the later years 44-45 when the K-4 and the other modern German planes were used.

It was like shooting fish in a barrel for the Mustang pilots because most of the Germans just didn't have enough hours in a 109. Overheating their engines, losing SA, making BFM mistakes. Not a chance.

Also group tactics: Later German pilots weren't properly schooled in that. Allies mostly were. The strength in numbers is worth nothing if you can't properly fight in a group.

[Hummingbird]

I think it does boil down to pilot quality, especially during the later years 44-45 when the K-4 and the other modern German planes were used.

It was like shooting fish in a barrel for the Mustang pilots because most of the Germans just didn't have enough hours in a 109. Overheating their engines, losing SA, making BFM mistakes. Not a chance.

Also group tactics: Later German pilots weren't properly schooled in that. Allies mostly were. The strength in numbers is worth nothing if you can't properly fight in a group.

 

100% correct, it's disturbing how people so often overlook this fact, esp. as operator skill/experience is and always has been by far the biggest factor to how well any type of equipment performs.

 

In short it didn't matter that the Germans had better aircraft cause they simply lacked skilled pilots to operate them. In the end they were sending up young inexperienced pilots with nothing but cockpit training and less than an hours flight time. These pilots were basically gunfodder.

[Kurfürst]

Not that 109s didn't do interceptions.

 

The debacles Schweinfurt and Ploesti comes to mind... 109s were heavily involved at Schweinfurt, might have shot down most of the USAAF losses that day, and Ploesti was practically a clean 109 job , with no 190s involved at all.

 

The picture that 190s only went for the bombers, and 109s provided only close cover is largely a myth stemming from old aviation books. Yes it happened but it was far from a rule.

[Zimmerdylan]

Even at 2:1 when the Germans were focused on the bombers.... not to mention those bombers were firing as well... it makes a big difference compared to a 1v1 fight...

 

 

Yes. From all that I have seen and heard, the German fighters were not at all inclined to engage the American escorts. They would come in from above the bombers and the escorts who were flying above the bombers because they were aware of this tactic. They would come in clusters and dive right through the escort formations and get as many shots in at the bombers before the escorts would attack them, and they would beat it out of there as quickly as possible, avoiding engagement. This is possibly part of the reason for my confusion. The German pilots even knew that the odds were stacked against them.

In the early parts of the war, the American pilots were instructed to stick close to the bombers no matter what. They were not to give chase. The Germans were well aware of this. And indeed the success of the bombing raids was limited. It wasn't until the Americans were instructed to chase the German fighters and kill them at all costs that the bombings became more effective, and the losses started dropping. The Americans were chipping away the German's air power.

I've seen quite a few interviews with American Aces where these (brave, insane, arrogant, probably all of this) American pilots would say that there were 5 American planes in a gaggle of 30 German planes and inflicted heavy losses at a cost of 0 Americans shot down. Although I am positive that much of this had to do with the superior training and moral of the allied pilots (there is no doubt there), the plane itself had to have had a something going for it over and above the German planes.

I'm, going to take some time to set up the scenario that you suggested. I'm interested to see what the end result would be.

I'm still truly not understanding exactly why the 109 out performs the Mustang in DCS. Please keep in mind that I'm not by any means undermining ED or the sim. I'm just curious as to the reasoning of the difference. Thus far, many of the cases where I've been frustrated by something in DCS, I found that it was due to my own lack of knowledge, or that there was a reason ED put whatever it was there. I'm fairly certain that this may also be the case. I'm just looking for other input from more experienced fliers than myself. For all intents and purposes, I'm just a weekend warrior, and like many other casual DCS pilots, I struggle with things like power management, Aerodynamic properties, and combat tactics. So I'm not at all surprised that the AI planes can run me ragged like they do. But the AI p51 doesn't seem to stand a chance at all against the German AI. I at least can survive the fight, and about 25% of the time, get a kill.

[NineLine]

I just don't want anyone to think there is some sort of dev bias towards one fighter or another... Yo-Yo is very clinical with his research and approach to a FM.

 

The AI is not a good judge of performance either, the AI flies perfectly, its similar to the T90 vs M1A1 issue people have talked about in the Sim, the AI uses all its benefits to the fullest... generally no mistakes are made and if the 109 has any advantage, it can easily use that to its fullest.

 

 

 

Yes. From all that I have seen and heard, the German fighters were not at all inclined to engage the American escorts. They would come in from above the bombers and the escorts who were flying above the bombers because they were aware of this tactic. They would come in clusters and dive right through the escort formations and get as many shots in at the bombers before the escorts would attack them, and they would beat it out of there as quickly as possible, avoiding engagement. This is possibly part of the reason for my confusion. The German pilots even knew that the odds were stacked against them.

In the early parts of the war, the American pilots were instructed to stick close to the bombers no matter what. They were not to give chase. The Germans were well aware of this. And indeed the success of the bombing raids was limited. It wasn't until the Americans were instructed to chase the German fighters and kill them at all costs that the bombings became more effective, and the losses started dropping. The Americans were chipping away the German's air power.

I've seen quite a few interviews with American Aces where these (brave, insane, arrogant, probably all of this) American pilots would say that there were 5 American planes in a gaggle of 30 German planes and inflicted heavy losses at a cost of 0 Americans shot down. Although I am positive that much of this had to do with the superior training and moral of the allied pilots (there is no doubt there), the plane itself had to have had a something going for it over and above the German planes.

I'm, going to take some time to set up the scenario that you suggested. I'm interested to see what the end result would be.

I'm still truly not understanding exactly why the 109 out performs the Mustang in DCS. Please keep in mind that I'm not by any means undermining ED or the sim. I'm just curious as to the reasoning of the difference. Thus far, many of the cases where I've been frustrated by something in DCS, I found that it was due to my own lack of knowledge, or that there was a reason ED put whatever it was there. I'm fairly certain that this may also be the case. I'm just looking for other input from more experienced fliers than myself. For all intents and purposes, I'm just a weekend warrior, and like many other casual DCS pilots, I struggle with things like power management, Aerodynamic properties, and combat tactics. So I'm not at all surprised that the AI planes can run me ragged like they do. But the AI p51 doesn't seem to stand a chance at all against the German AI. I at least can survive the fight, and about 25% of the time, get a kill.