Good News for the K4, D9, and P51 ...

[Crumpp]

But that does seem to be the consensus, that the 109 is the better dogfighter,

 

Only by a few loud voices based on a beta FM. These aircraft were equal and competitive dog-fighters in reality. That is reflected well in the game.

 

Just like in 1944, the real performance issue is in the cockpit not the designer.

[Echo38]

These aircraft were equal and competitive dog-fighters in reality.

 

I very much agree with this; however, bear in mind that the average P-51D historically was better than the factory-spec P-51D that we have in the sim, because of power ratings & fuel types and such. "Nerf" the P-51D by modelling it to the lowest performance it ever officially ran seems sure to make it "an underdog" versus the 109 which it was "roughly even with" with the P-51D's historical "buffs." But, I suppose I must reserve judgement on how the two compare in the sim until I have had a chance to fly both, if ever.

[TAGERT]

bear in mind that the average P-51D historically was better than the factory-spec P-51D that we have in the sim, because of power ratings & fuel types and such. "Nerf" the P-51D by modelling it to the lowest performance it ever officially ran seems sure to make it "an underdog" versus the 109 which it was "roughly even with" with the P-51D's historical "buffs

Agreed 100%, it is the P51s worst case scenario vs the 109s best case scenario.. Hopefully the devs will come out with the 150 oct version as some have said they hinted at doing.

[Narushima]

Granted, the even more rare version of the K4 would be the C3 fueled one, but, the standard K4 could still be considered best of best the 109 had to offer.. Both were so near the end of the war and few in numbers that the chances of an allied pilot encountering either one was very slim, where as the chances of a 190 or 109 encountering a 150 oct P-51 were very good. That alone IMHO is reason enough to offer the 150 oct P-51s, assuming the best of the best 190 and 109 reason is not good enough. But, I would still like to find a link as to what the devs reasoning was.

 

I was just correcting you.

 

As for the rarity and all that stuff - it doesn't matter. This is a sim, not real life. The number of aircraft that can be flown here is unlimited, so that point is moot.

 

If you want to play with what ifs, saying the P-51H or whatever would have been deployed if the Dora and K-4 flew in larger number, then the opposing what if is that the Dora was ready to enter full production in mid 1943. Or that the P-51H would have fought the Jumo 213J (2600 HP) equipped Doras. etc etc etc...

 

In the end, it doesn't matter, because the way ED does planes isn't so much dependant on balance, but the availability of documentation.

 

PS: The 150 octane fuel mustangs all had wing racks installed, which reduced their top speed to that of a clean regular fuel mustang. So in the end, the only advantage 150 octane fuel gave them is slightly better climb rate at the expense of engine life.

[Friedrich-4B]

PS: The 150 octane fuel mustangs all had wing racks installed, which reduced their top speed to that of a clean regular fuel mustang. So in the end, the only advantage 150 octane fuel gave them is slightly better climb rate at the expense of engine life.

 

A correction here: the overwhelming majority of operational, real life P-51Ds used the wing racks, regardless of which fuel grade was used.

 

Should people choose to fly ED's P-51Ds without wing racks, 150 Octane fuel will make a difference cf a clean ED P-51D using the standard 100/130 grade fuel.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B

[TAGERT]

I was just correcting you.

As I was you in my reply

 

As for the rarity and all that stuff - it doesn't matter. This is a sim, not real life. The number of aircraft that can be flown here is unlimited, so that point is moot.

That is your opinion and your welcome to it, but I don't agree with it being moot

 

If you want to play with what ifs, saying the P-51H or whatever would have been deployed if the Dora and K-4 flew in larger number, then the opposing what if is that the Dora was ready to enter full production in mid 1943. Or that the P-51H would have fought the Jumo 213J (2600 HP) equipped Doras. etc etc etc...

The P51 with 150 oct is not a 'what if' so not sure where your getting the want to play 'what ifs' from, are you sure your replying to the correct person?

 

In the end, it doesn't matter, because the way ED does planes isn't so much dependant on balance, but the availability of documentation.

Well, hopfully ED can get some of the documentation that other flight sim makers have obtained in light of the fact that they have enough to make other versions of the 109

 

PS: The 150 octane fuel mustangs all had wing racks installed, which reduced their top speed to that of a clean regular fuel mustang. So in the end, the only advantage 150 octane fuel gave them is slightly better climb rate at the expense of engine life.

Assuming that is true, which I doubt, Ill take better ROC, in that it is plenty fast enough for me

[fastfreddie]

Correction: all operational P-51Ds had wing racks installed, not just those using 150 octane.

 

Of coarse adding wing racks wouldn't help those in DCS so you don't here them calling to make sure they are a fixed asset or the 2 hours+ flight time home if they cook their engine. The P-51 is more than a challenge for the Dora in its current state and the K-4 is still in beta so even whatever advantages it has will be changing also. I have yet to see a round where the Mustangs get slaughtered online when there are similar numbers or have decent/good Mustang pilots. You would think they were flying P51-A versions with all the talk around here. Servers are probably going to be a mess when the Spit Mk XIV gets here and throwing a P-51 on steroids in won't help.

[Solty]

Of coarse adding wing racks wouldn't help those in DCS so you don't here them calling to make sure they are a fixed asset or the 2 hours+ flight time home if they cook their engine. The P-51 is more than a challenge for the Dora in its current state and the K-4 is still in beta so even whatever advantages it has will be changing also. I have yet to see a round where the Mustangs get slaughtered online when there are similar numbers or have decent/good Mustang pilots. You would think they were flying P51-A versions with all the talk around here. Servers are probably going to be a mess when the Spit Mk XIV gets here and throwing a P-51 on steroids in won't help.

It is not "P-51 on steroids" it is the standard issue fuel since april 1944 way before even D version was introduced (june). You should rather read more before posting such opinions. Most P-51Ds were from 8th AAF and they used as standard 150octane fuel with 72'hg limits. Although there was a permission for 75'hg. Pacific P-51 pilots were reported to fly at 81'hg.

 

There is plenty of documentation about 75'hg mustangs.

 

 

 

It is the K4 that is the steroid 109. Acording to reasearch of one of the forum members(Milo Moari) only 144 K4s were in operational service on the western front by the end of 1944. While there were houndrets of P-51Ds around the globe using 150octane fuel.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Solty

[TAGERT]

It is not "P-51 on steroids" it is the standard issue fuel since april 1944 way before even D version was introduced (june).

Bingo!

[Crumpp]

bear in mind that the average P-51D historically was better than the factory-spec P-51D that we have in the sim,

 

You really think this is true?

[fastfreddie]

It is not "P-51 on steroids" it is the standard issue fuel since april 1944 way before even D version was introduced (june). You should rather read more before posting such opinions. Most P-51Ds were from 8th AAF and they used as standard 150octane fuel with 72'hg limits. Although there was a permission for 75'hg. Pacific P-51 pilots were reported to fly at 81'hg.

 

There is plenty of documentation about 75'hg mustangs.

 

 

 

It is the K4 that is the steroid 109. Acording to reasearch of one of the forum members(Milo Moari) only 144 K4s were in operational service on the western front by the end of 1944. While there were houndrets of P-51Ds around the globe using 150octane fuel.

 

No the point is that there has been whining about the P51 and its fuel since they released info on which Dora (Engine) was going to be in the game. It has gotten very old and ED has already said that they were going to look into it when WWII is done. The same group of guys bring this crap up about every other month and they need to learn to fly with what they have now. We don't always get the perfect version or like the model of the planes they select and NO DCS WWII scenario is going to be 100% historically accurate. Allies won't be enduring flights of hundred's of miles to reach a target, DCS German pilots probably have more flight time than any Dora or K4 pilot ever had, and AA most likely won't be even close to as deadly as it was in real life. Many things in DCS will not be historical but they have given you something as close as possible so learn to fly in it.

[Crumpp]

No the point is that there has been whining about the P51 and its fuel since they released info on which Dora (Engine) was going to be in the game. It has gotten very old and ED has already said that they were going to look into it when WWII is done. The same group of guys bring this crap up about every other month and they need to learn to fly with what they have now. We don't always get the perfect version or like the model of the planes they select and NO DCS WWII scenario is going to be 100% historically accurate. Allies won't be enduring flights of hundred's of miles to reach a target, DCS German pilots probably have more flight time than any Dora or K4 pilot ever had, and AA most likely won't be even close to as deadly as it was in real life. Many things in DCS will not be historical but they have given you something as close as possible so learn to fly in it.

 

:thumbup:

 

Well put, sir!!

[TAGERT]

ED has already said that they were going to look into it when WWII is done.

That is great news!

 

The fact that ED is considering it means ED realize it was a real thing!

 

Which means the ED team is savvy enough to not fall for all the loud squeakie wheel 150 oct nay-sayers noise.

[Friedrich-4B]

Of coarse adding wing racks wouldn't help those in DCS so you don't here them calling to make sure they are a fixed asset or the 2 hours+ flight time home if they cook their engine. The P-51 is more than a challenge for the Dora in its current state and the K-4 is still in beta so even whatever advantages it has will be changing also. I have yet to see a round where the Mustangs get slaughtered online when there are similar numbers or have decent/good Mustang pilots. You would think they were flying P51-A versions with all the talk around here. Servers are probably going to be a mess when the Spit Mk XIV gets here and throwing a P-51 on steroids in won't help.

 

AFAIK the only "Mustangs on Steroids" are the highly modified Reno Racers using special fuels - by comparison those with 150 Octane fuel are more like Mustangs on multi vitamins - or maybe Red Bull?

[USARStarkey]

I was just correcting you.

 

As for the rarity and all that stuff - it doesn't matter. This is a sim, not real life. The number of aircraft that can be flown here is unlimited, so that point is moot.

 

If you want to play with what ifs, saying the P-51H or whatever would have been deployed if the Dora and K-4 flew in larger number, then the opposing what if is that the Dora was ready to enter full production in mid 1943. Or that the P-51H would have fought the Jumo 213J (2600 HP) equipped Doras. etc etc etc...

 

In the end, it doesn't matter, because the way ED does planes isn't so much dependant on balance, but the availability of documentation.

 

PS: The 150 octane fuel mustangs all had wing racks installed, which reduced their top speed to that of a clean regular fuel mustang. So in the end, the only advantage 150 octane fuel gave them is slightly better climb rate at the expense of engine life.

 

No. You are wrong here regarding the racks. For one, P-51s dont come with racks simply because they have 150 grade fuel. Second, the racks on the D model and B/C are different. The ones on the D model took at most 4mph off top speed, the ones on the B took off more. Did you even realize the racks were different? Thirdly, the the 12mph figure stated in the tests you apparently scantily read is an estimate, not flight tested speed losses. The reason for this is that the amount of speed lost due to the racks is heavily dependent on drag due to weight. The speed loss quoted is from the assumption of a very heavy pony, not one at combat weight. You will notice that on both the B and D models there are tests with and without wing racks with nearly the same speeds given. Lastly, the P-51D WITH racks topped out at 375mph at SL at 67inches. A 75inch pony would be as fast, if not slightly faster than a Dora or K4 on the deck and at every other altitude.

 

 

And rarity does matter, if just so happens your content with this setup. If the only German plane done was the 262, or the only American one the F4U-4 simply due to document availability, I doubt anyone here would be happy.

Edited February 28, 2015 by USARStarkey

[Echo38]

You really think this is true?

 

Crumpp, you generally make well-reasoned and informative posts, so I expect better from you. Don't play games with me, please. You know, as well as I do, that a P-51D running 72" is much better than a P-51D running 67", all else equal. It does not take an aerodynamics expert to immediately understand this—and IIRC, you are an aerodynamics expert. I can only assume that you're letting your love of the German fighters (which I share) cloud your objectivity. Don't.

 

The norm for U.S. fighters in the last year or so of the war was to run the higher boost pressures. Even when the higher fuel grade wasn't available, higher than factory boost pressures were often used. It wore the engines out faster and increased risk of engine failure, particularly when the ideal fuel wasn't available, but the increased performance often meant the difference between life and death in combat, so they did it. I feel sure that you already know this, because you've done at least as much research as I have. I've seen scans of wartime documents authorizing these horsepower ratings for combat, and I'd be surprised if you haven't, too.

 

So, the 67" P-51 that we have in the game is essentially the worst P-51D that ever saw combat. (Not literally, as a badly patched-up one near the end of its useful combat life could be significantly worse; I mean, rather, that our WEP rating is the lowest of the ones authorized & applied to P-51Ds for combat missions.) The average combat P-51D was set for a WEP of somewhere around 70–72", hence my statement: the average historical P-51D was better than the factory-spec P-51D that we have in the sim, because the former had a significantly higher horsepower rating.

 

So in the end, the only advantage 150 octane fuel gave them is slightly better climb rate at the expense of engine life.

 

Even if (and, as others have pointed out, this is a point of debate) the added speed from the extra horsepower were entirely cancelled out by the added drag of the racks, you must note that more horsepower doesn't only mean better climb rate; it also means better acceleration and sustained turning ability, as well as lower stall speeds. Drag from wing racks may offset (and even more than offset, depending on how much of each) the extra horsepower for top speed, but not the maneuverability (climb, sustained turn, and acceleration)—not when we're talking about this large of a horsepower increase. If the added power + added drag cancelled each other out for top speed, but still resulted in a climb rate increase, then it must have also resulted in an acceleration & sustained turn increase. Top speed is a lot easier to cancel out with drag than the other factors, because drag is much greater at top speed than it is at best climb speed, best turn speed, and near the 1G stall speeds.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Echo38

[Echo38]

There has been for many years a worrisome problem in the flight sim community: some people become so attached to an aircraft (or a nationality), that they begin to believe that "their" airplane (or their nation's aircraft) was "the best," and they begin to go about reinforcing that belief by any means necessary. I've seen it cause some of these people to completely lose objectivity, to the point where they'll argue themselves into knots and deny anything which suggests that their bird was anything but the best. This happens on "both sides;" I've seen fans of German aircraft do it, and I've seen fans of US aircraft do it, and so on.

 

In some extreme cases, people are even intentionally dishonest because of their vested interest, as competitive gamers, in convincing the developers of flight sim/games that "their" aircraft was better (and/or its primary opponents were worse) than actually was the case. They want to win in the multiplayer sim/game, so they urge the developers to make their airplane better relative to the opposition, knowingly using false statements & putting a spin on facts, and fight tooth & nail any honest attempt at determining how things actually were, unless it happens to match their preconceived ideas (which it rarely does).

 

Don't be one of those people, folks. We don't need that here, in DCS. Leave that for the lesser games which aren't about having the most faithful possible recreation of these magnificent aircraft. We should, instead, be urging the developers to continually improve the accuracy of the simulation (as high as it already is, there's always room for more), and when an aircraft is to be introduced which was an opponent of our favorite aircraft, we should be hoping for the model and/or historical configuration (e.g. horsepower rating) which is the most fair & even and/or historically-representative match for our favorite aircraft, not hoping (because of a selfish desire to win more in multiplayer battles) for a configuration in which the opponent aircraft is inferior to our own. The latter mindset, I dare say, is unsportsmanlike & intellectually dishonest; it is unbecoming of anyone who loves WWII fighters, and has no place in DCS.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Echo38

[Crumpp]

Crumpp, you generally make well-reasoned and informative posts, so I expect better from you. Don't play games with me, please. You know, as well as I do, that a P-51D running 72" is much better than a P-51D running 67", all else equal. It does not take an aerodynamics expert to immediately understand this—and IIRC, you are an aerodynamics expert. I can only assume that you're letting your love of the German fighters (which I share) cloud your objectivity. Don't.

 

The norm for U.S. fighters in the last year or so of the war was to run the higher boost pressures. Even when the higher fuel grade wasn't available, higher than factory boost pressures were often used. It wore the engines out faster and increased risk of engine failure, particularly when the ideal fuel wasn't available, but the increased performance often meant the difference between life and death in combat, so they did it. I feel sure that you already know this, because you've done at least as much research as I have. I've seen scans of wartime documents authorizing these horsepower ratings for combat, and I'd be surprised if you haven't, too.

 

So, the 67" P-51 that we have in the game is essentially the worst P-51D that ever saw combat. (Not literally, as a badly patched-up one near the end of its useful combat life could be significantly worse; I mean, rather, that our WEP rating is the lowest of the ones authorized & applied to P-51Ds for combat missions.) The average P-51D ran somewhere around 70–72", hence my statement: the average historical P-51D was better than the factory-spec P-51D that we have in the sim, because the former had a significantly higher horsepower rating.

 

Ok, I thought you were claiming that the P-51 was faster than factory specs on average. :doh: Sorry man, I should have known better coming from you.

 

 

But let's discussthe fact there were two other USAAF's in the ETO. Neither used 100/150 Octane at any time. Both participated heavily in the ETO air war and were the lead tactical elements for the USAAF in the ETO.

 

The 8th USAAF was the lead strategic daylight bombing element.

 

As for the wing racks, it is just a fact that the lack of range was a significant issue in the Allies ability to prosecute the air war.

 

Even tactical missions such as Rodeo's, bombing, and strafing required extended range due target distance or loiter time required.

 

Here is the USAAF numbered history on the development of the long range fighter. It specifically addresses the drop tank issue and is a pretty good read!

[Echo38]

As for the wing racks, it is just a fact that the lack of range was a significant issue in the Allies ability to prosecute the air war.

 

This is true, particularly regarding bomber escort missions. I wouldn't be surprised if many P-51D's never had their bomb racks removed at any point. However, not every mission was a long-range escort mission, particularly toward the end, when the Allies had territory in France close to the target areas. And the P-51D had a very high internal fuel load (the longest internal range of any mass-produced single-engine fighter of the war, I believe, and longer than the P-38's as well). So my question is, does anyone have solid information on whether or not the bomb racks were added & removed based on mission profile? How big of a job was the adding/removal thereof, anyway?

 

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out later; perhaps they contain an answer to my question.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Echo38

[USARStarkey]

This is true, particularly regarding bomber escort missions. I wouldn't be surprised if many P-51D's never had their bomb racks removed at any point. However, not every mission was a long-range escort mission, particularly toward the end, when the Allies had territory in France close to the target areas. And the P-51D had a very high internal fuel load (the longest internal range of any mass-produced single-engine fighter of the war, I believe, and longer than the P-38's as well). So my question is, does anyone have solid information on whether or not the bomb racks were added & removed based on mission profile? How big of a job was the adding/removal thereof, anyway?

 

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out later; perhaps they contain an answer to my question.

 

Honestly I dont think this matters. The wing racks weren't permanent fixtures. A player should be able to remove them, especially since the combat in game isnt typically at 35,000ft after flying for 6 hours.........and the P-51D racks have negligible speed loss.

 

If the P-51 had 150grade in game all 3 of our fighters would be nearly tit-for-tat on every performance figure. Speed on all fighters would be in the 440mph area and climb on all fighters would be about 4400fpm.

 

If we had a different model of 109 with the option of gondola guns, it would be equally silly to make it impossible to remove them. The ETC racks also cause drag.....0-2 mph depending on weight.

Edited February 28, 2015 by USARStarkey

[Echo38]

The wing racks weren't permanent fixtures. A player should be able to remove them, especially since the combat in game isnt typically at 35,000ft after flying for 6 hours...

 

I agree with that. My question is more academic; it never really occurred to me to wonder how much work it was & how often they removed & added them, and so I'm naturally curious now.

[Solty]

I think that if Bud Anderson had his whole plane repainted and polished through one night... So taking racks of the wing is nothing for ground crew.

[Echo38]

If the P-51 had 150grade in game all 3 of our fighters would be nearly tit-for-tat on every performance figure. Speed on all fighters would be in the 440mph area and climb on all fighters would be about 4400fpm.

 

Ah, but at what altitudes, though? This can make a big difference. Some of these birds, their performance curves even leapfrog each other at different altitudes; I think the most crossings I've seen was four! (Faster at low alt, slower at low-medium alt, faster at high-medium alt, slower at high alt--supercharger stages and stuff, you know.) When it's like that, you have a close match.

 

But when you have one of the other examples, where one is hugely faster at low altitude and the other is hugely faster at high altitude, that can get tricky in a multiplayer flight sim. Due to the nature of how long climbs take, and how most people (even hardcore simmers) don't want to spend 20 minutes out of combat after every crash, combat tends to occur somewhere around 10,000 feet (~3000m), on average, in a multiplayer flight sim/game. Perhaps even as low as 5000 feet, if it's an "quick action"-style dogfighting mission with the opposing airfields close to each other.

 

This is the problem I'm worried about for the upcoming P-47; I'm concerned that, the great majority of the time, in multiplayer, the P-47 is going to be completely out of its element (which was high altitude) and thus effectively outclassed. This is especially likely to be problematic if the P-47 doesn't get its late-war WEP ratings (which, I believe, it's going to need far more than the P-51D does; the P-47 has a much higher weight than the P-51, and thus is even more reliant on power for its maneuverability). I've spent too many long, lonely hours alone at high altitude while the fun was had by everyone else at low altitude to not be worried about this.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Echo38

[Crumpp]

So my question is, does anyone have solid information on whether or not the bomb racks were added & removed based on mission profile? How big of a job was the adding/removal thereof, anyway?

 

Yes, they were changed based on mission profile. How complicated that was depends on the specifics of the aircraft equipment and type of drop tank to be used.

 

Removing the racks and fairing is possible and not a relatively big job.

 

The maintenance manual has detailed instructions for the different types of sway bars and pads required for the various types of drop tanks.

 

At it's simplest, It involves ~20 bolts (rack and fairings) and unplugging the electrical harness.

 

That is just if you are going to take them off. Changing ordinance or fuel tanks is more involved.

[TAGERT]

Cool, so we can all agree Narushima was mistaken when he said..

 

PS: The 150 octane fuel mustangs all had wing racks installed, which reduced their top speed to that of a clean regular fuel mustang.

 

As if to imply they could not be removed

 

Not to mention the latter version of ord racks used late in the war did not affect the top speed as much as some of the earlier versions did.

Edited February 28, 2015 by TAGERT