NEW SERVER-= ACG WW2 Server (EU) =-

[BFBunny]

I think the majority of people that don't fly on the forums would probably like it like it is. Like me being a noob I'm bad at spotting so need a little help.

 

I never played online before because it was pointless as I could never find the enemy.

 

Not every player is an ace the 109 and if there were more novices encouraged by servers like this with the big impostors. I'd like to see a screenshot in 1920x1080 of how the different sizes look and make a poll

[rel4y]

Well the 109 is literally a ton lighter than the pifty1 and by the way flying on its historically lowest rating. C3 fuel, 1.98 Ata C3+MW being historical possible higher ratings. Taking into context that the P-51 modeled is a July/August 1945 Iwo Jima model with HVAR rockets which were never used in Europe by P-51s, there is no reason to complain. In the ETO the early type 3 rocket christmas tree launchers instead were employed. A K-4 without MW boost is simply ahistorical, as germans were using it since as early as 1942. By early 1944 pretty much all active duty fighters were fitted with MW50 boost.

 

Even 75 hg will not change climbrate and acceleration significantly. People are expecting way to much off a high altitude escort at deck. Having said that, I think 72 hg boost is historically perfectly viable (maybe even 75 hg, I would need to check sources) and should be introduced. It will however not change a thing in dogfights around the 400-450 kph range. At high altitude the pony is a beast, try taking the fight to 9-10km altitude and you will fly circles around 109s. By the way mid 1945 historically speaking the Dora should be flying on C3 fuel as well.

 

The pony has a turn, acceleration advantage though since the laminar flow drag bucket is modelled, even though even recent NASA papers conclude laminar flow did not exist in the pony in any other than lab conditions. Rivets, bumps, even dead flies would completely disrupt the laminar airflow. These small imperfections also dissipate energy like its a sport. In the areas of the prop slip stream laminar flow is a joke by itself. The aerodynamic forces will ripple,dent & warp the wing structure in suttle ways making airflow turbulent. At real flight Reynolds (>20.000.000) numbers the effect would disappear even under lab condition.

 

There are many reasons laminar flow is a myth and the 51 was underperforming compared to charts. For this reason I am also very sceptical about dubious excel calculations extrapolated on test flights with coated and sanded wings, which were conducted using paper sheets to protect the wings from insects during start/ low level flight. I even have a picture here of this interesting method.

 

Conclusion: Wait for a real allied dogfighter - the Spitfire. I will be flying nothing else for a while after release.

Edited February 25, 2016 by rel4y

[DarkRaiderss]

If they're facing exclusively 190s, then yes--it seems odd for the P-51s to hang around their ack-ack all day. However, if they're also facing 109s, then that's really all the P-51s can do. Anything else is suicide, assuming even pilot count/skillpool.

 

Aside from the mission altitude favoring the 109, the P-51D is stuck with lowest of its authorized WEP ratings which saw combat--unlike the 109, which has approximately the best of its authorized boost ratings which saw combat. The result of these combined factors: the 109 out-runs, out-climbs, and out-turns the P-51. That's effectively holding all the cards. Not literally all of them, of course, but those three are the ones that really matter in hard combat.

 

So, whenever the teams are numerically even (or weighted toward red), then expect P-51s to hang around their AAA. There really isn't much more they can do, against 109s. That's what happens when you pit a low-boost example of a P-51D versus a high-boost example of a 109K, at low or medium altitude.

 

I really don't think it's planned out like that and it doesn't happen all the time. The point of my post was to counter the claims that the players who fly the German planes not only are outnumbering the p51 players but that they are constantly covering and vulching the allied airfield. On several occasions I have seen claims in chat while playing that this was happening and after viewing the Tacview there was no such thing occurring. I know several p51 flyers who can school 109 flyers, and I'm talking good 109 pilots. So this idea that the p51 is severely under matched to the 109 is not true IMO. When the p51 gets its extra boost from the better fuel the outcomes will mostly be the same. It is going to come down, as it almost always does, to pilot skill.

[Echo38]

Well the 109 is [...] flying on its historically lowest rating. C3 fuel, 1.98 Ata C3+MW being historical possible higher ratings.

 

I'm not an expert on the 109, but--are you sure about that? I hear conflicting things, but the general consensus seems to be that 1.98 ata never actually saw combat (or never saw combat more than a small handful of times), and that 1.8 ata with MW50 was the highest authorized rating which saw widespread combat.

 

Either way, the P-51D is much farther below its max historical rating than the 109K is from its own. Same with the averages.

 

For such a discussion, by the way, "historical" really needs to be clarified. We're likely to be using several different definitions which oppose each other, within the context of the conversation. I'm specifically referring to WEP ratings ("boost pressures") which were officially authorized for operational use, and saw significant combat.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Echo38

[rel4y]

As I said when putting in context that we have a P-51D-30NA. Surely not in 44. :thumbup:

 

OKL, Lw.-Führüngstab, Nr. 937/45 gKdos. 20.03.45

 

10. I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata

12. III. / JG 27 Bf 109 G-10 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata

19. III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata

20. IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 no change boost increase to 1.98 ata

 

Strength numbers 9th April 1945.

 

I./JG 27 29

III./JG 27 19

III./JG 53 40

IV./JG 53 54

Total 142.

 

1.8 Ata C3 fuel use by K-4 can be proven by pictures alone, since many photos show aircraft with a C3 triangle. But there are certainly OKL orders somewhere. I dont particularly enjoy the whole fuel discussion a lot.

Edited February 25, 2016 by rel4y

[Solty]

Well the 109 is literally a ton lighter than the pifty1 and by the way flying on its historically lowest rating. C3 fuel, 1.98 Ata C3+MW being historical possible higher ratings. Taking into context that the P-51 modeled is a July/August 1945 Iwo Jima model with HVAR rockets which were never used in Europe by P-51s, there is no reason to complain. In the ETO the early type 3 rocket christmas tree launchers instead were employed. A K-4 without MW boost is simply ahistorical, as germans were using it since as early as 1942. By early 1944 pretty much all active duty fighters were fitted with MW50 boost.

 

Even 75 hg will not change climbrate and acceleration significantly. People are expecting way to much off a high altitude escort at deck. Having said that, I think 72 hg boost is historically perfectly viable (maybe even 75 hg, I would need to check sources) and should be introduced. It will however not change a thing in dogfights around the 400-450 kph range. At high altitude the pony is a beast, try taking the fight to 9-10km altitude and you will fly circles around 109s. By the way mid 1945 historically speaking the Dora should be flying on C3 fuel as well.

 

The pony has a turn, acceleration advantage though since the laminar flow drag bucket is modelled, even though even recent NASA papers conclude laminar flow did not exist in the pony in any other than lab conditions. Rivets, bumps, even dead flies would completely disrupt the laminar airflow. These small imperfections also dissipate energy like its a sport. In the areas of the prop slip stream laminar flow is a joke by itself. The aerodynamic forces will ripple,dent & warp the wing structure in suttle ways making airflow turbulent. At real flight Reynolds (>20.000.000) numbers the effect would disappear even under lab condition.

 

There are many reasons laminar flow is a myth and the 51 was underperforming compared to charts. For this reason I am also very sceptical about dubious excel calculations extrapolated on test flights with coated and sanded wings, which were conducted using paper sheets to protect the wings from insects during start/ low level flight. I even have a picture here of this interesting method.

 

Conclusion: Wait for a real allied dogfighter - the Spitfire. I will be flying nothing else for a while after release.

The thing is that P-51 should never dogfight a 109. Never ever. It relies on it's speed to keep it self out of trouble. It is a plane that could leave the fight at will. But can't in this game because of the low boost.

 

Laminar flow a joke? Why then many airplane's during that period, that had different wing designs were switching to it? P39 didn't have laminar flow->P-63 has a laminar flow. La7 doesn't have laminar flow->La9 has a laminar flow. Typhoon->Tempest, Spitfire XIV->Spitefu.

 

And no, the MW50 was not available since 1942. Only at the begining of 1944 the MW50 was starting to be fitted. All previous planes either had raw power and no additional cooling or used GM1 for high alitude.

[rel4y]

Sorry Solty, it is absulutely not worth it to disprove you everytime.. Last time I did that you argued with Wikipedia data and lost on all fronts. Get your facts straight first, what you just said is wrong on so many levels..

[Solty]

Sorry Solty, it is absulutely not worth it to disprove you everytime.. Last time I did that you argued with Wikipedia data and lost on all fronts. Get your facts straight first, what you just said is wrong on so many levels..

You are disrespectful towards me, I am prepared though, because 90% of 109 players are like that.

 

You don't know enough about P-51 to be capable of speaking about it's characteristics. Check even what Yo-Yo has said about the P-51D's laminar flow beeing "weak". That is a claim that pops out every now and then and is completely false. The wing is not as efficient at low speed maneuvering but is a stable wing at most fighting conditions that P-51D was designed to fight in. That airplane is one of the most maneuvrable and fast planes of the war.

 

EDIT: Anyway, this is not the place for it. It is a ACG thread, and I don't want to overwhelm it with unrelated stuff.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Solty

[rel4y]

I am actually very much a spitfire guy and respect people with valid arguments. I'm by no means a P-51 expert, but I feel confident in an argument with you. Do you know what a Reynolds number is? Concerning MW50 please look at 1942 BMW801D tests.

 

Even NASA states laminar flow was not achievable by the P-51.. why do you think the idea of laminar flow was quickly abandoned after WW2 and instead the German methods of calculating boundary layer transition were adopted. Prof. Hermann Schlichting et al tested the Mustang wing at high Reynolds numbers and found laminar flow to be non-existent even in windtunnel tests. The new generation Me 262 wing had superior characteristic and was non laminar flow.

 

The German engineer Edgar Schmued however did a wonderful job at designing the iconic P-51. Once a quality British engine was put in it was a highly potent plane. Also manufacturing quality was superior to the German late war production, which made the piftyone an excellent fast escort. It could however not leave dogfights at will. Where did you get that from, history channel?

 

To stay on topic: please put in ground targets and supply columns. That would make it more interestingin my view.

Edited February 26, 2016 by rel4y

[gavagai]

On several occasions I have seen claims in chat while playing that this was happening and after viewing the Tacview there was no such thing occurring. I know several p51 flyers who can school 109 flyers, and I'm talking good 109 pilots. So this idea that the p51 is severely under matched to the 109 is not true IMO. When the p51 gets its extra boost from the better fuel the outcomes will mostly be the same. It is going to come down, as it almost always does, to pilot skill.

 

You are not flying all of the time, and the only time in the recent past I have been vulched was January 16th on the ACG server (just seconds after takeoff). Noticing that red pilots are preventing Blue pilots from gaining altitude over the Blue base is not the same as accusing Red pilots of vulching. The accurate description of ACG much of the time is this: Red pilots with a distinct altitude advantage control the airspace all around the blue airfield. This is normal when one side has fighters that climb much better than the other side (not to mention max airspeed and acceleration), and the airfields are set up for close-range airquake. It is also accurate that the Blue airfield AAA guns are frequently firing at Red pilots who cannot give up on pursuing Blue pilots so close to the Blue airfield.

 

Now, I don't view the situation so direly as Echo. I think the low-boost P-51 is a pretty good fighter so long as the situation is not a duel against the 109K, and definitely so long as the P-51 is not outnumbered (locally or globally). Once the P-51 supercharger kicks in the P-51 is doing much better against the 109K, but that altitude is really hard to reach most of the time on ACG before you are attacked by Red.

 

Player behavior is the best guide for understanding aircraft performance and map design. If one side is huddling and hiding in its AAA that is sure sign that one side has better performing aircraft for the map design. Another map design could be what it is needed to make the two sides more equal.

 

But, as for pilot skill, "it's the pilot and not the plane" is the favorite saying of the guy in the better plane. Echo is one of the best duelists I have ever faced, and even I can consistently beat him with the right aircraft matchup. Skill makes a big difference when two opponents are widely separate by skill. When they are close a small edge in aircraft performance becomes the ultimate weapon (It's no accident that nations invest billions of dollars in trying to provide their pilots with small edges in aircraft design).

 

Anyway, the next time we meet I hope I can recognize your screen name and that the combat isn't over the Blue base.:yes:

[DarkRaiderss]

You are not flying all of the time, and the only time in the recent past I have been vulched was January 16th on the ACG server (just seconds after takeoff). Noticing that red pilots are preventing Blue pilots from gaining altitude over the Blue base is not the same as accusing Red pilots of vulching. The accurate description of ACG much of the time is this: Red pilots with a distinct altitude advantage control the airspace all around the blue airfield. This is normal when one side has fighters that climb much better than the other side (not to mention max airspeed and acceleration), and the airfields are set up for close-range airquake. It is also accurate that the Blue airfield AAA guns are frequently firing at Red pilots who cannot give up on pursuing Blue pilots so close to the Blue airfield.

 

Now, I don't view the situation so direly as Echo. I think the low-boost P-51 is a pretty good fighter so long as the situation is not a duel against the 109K, and definitely so long as the P-51 is not outnumbered (locally or globally). Once the P-51 supercharger kicks in the P-51 is doing much better against the 109K, but that altitude is really hard to reach most of the time on ACG before you are attacked by Red.

 

Player behavior is the best guide for understanding aircraft performance and map design. If one side is huddling and hiding in its AAA that is sure sign that one side has better performing aircraft for the map design. Another map design could be what it is needed to make the two sides more equal.

 

But, as for pilot skill, "it's the pilot and not the plane" is the favorite saying of the guy in the better plane. Echo is one of the best duelists I have ever faced, and even I can consistently beat him with the right aircraft matchup. Skill makes a big difference when two opponents are widely separate by skill. When they are close a small edge in aircraft performance becomes the ultimate weapon (It's no accident that nations invest billions of dollars in trying to provide their pilots with small edges in aircraft design).

 

Anyway, the next time we meet I hope I can recognize your screen name and that the combat isn't over the Blue base.:yes:

 

 

I never said that it all comes down to pilot skill, just that most of the time in this game it does. If it was just who had the better plane then the 51s would lose all the time. That is not the case though. I have months worth of Tacviews that show many 109 pilots getting shot down. I do agree that on this server and at the altitudes usually flown the 109 has a mechanical advantage. The 51 is a high altitude interceptor and does best high and fast. That doesn't mean it's a POS at low altitude. I know of several pilots who kick 109 ass at low altitude (and mine has been kicked many a time). Maybe these guys are just aberrations and the rest don't stand a chance against the 109 but I'm sure there are others out there that would disagree.

 

Maybe more 51 pilots should fly on the DOW server. DOW server has plenty of distance between airfields and actual objectives. It's fun to fly on but the air to air action doesn't come as quick as ACG. That's probably why ACG is popular though and the 51 guys keep coming back. I think most want the fast action even it means they don't have the space to get up to altitude.

 

I am in favor of your idea of alternate airfields further back. That way those who still want to get into the thick of it quickly can still take off from close up and the others can go further back to have time to gain altitude. It's the simplest fix to this server that can be accomplished at this time. Until the Spitfire comes out. :thumbup:

Edited February 27, 2016 by DarkRaiderss

[Reflected]

Having 1945 rockets doesn't make the rest of the Mustang 1945, especially not in an airquake environment where it doesn't matter.

 

The performance of the P51 is not as good as it was? Is the lowest performing variant modeled? Maybe.

 

Is the 109's best possible variant the one we have in game? Maybe.

 

All this is much less "ahistorical" than making them duel each other at low level. Hence my initial point: please make the missions more varied so that there is more to it than just duelling. It doesn't mean airfields have to be further apart. Just add some ships, vehicles, trains, anything to shoot at apart from the best possible German prop fighters of the war.

[Echo38]

The performance of the P51 is not as good as it was? Is the lowest performing variant modeled? Maybe.

 

Is the 109's best possible variant the one we have in game? Maybe.

 

Barring individual variation, it's the lowest-performing example of all P-51Ds without rocket racks, yes. As for the 109, I'm not certain that it's the best configuration that ever saw combat (as you see, there's still contention on that point), but out of all the ones that ever saw combat, it's either mid-range or high-end (as opposed to the low-end rating of our P-51). Mid-range if 1.98 did see extensive combat, high-end if 1.98 was just a trial thing.

 

P-51D WEP ratings: 67", 72," 75," 81"

Me 109K WEP ratings: 1.8 ata, 1.8 ata + MW50, 1.98 ata + MW50

 

72" was officially authorized & saw extensive combat. 1.8 ata + MW50 was officially authorized and saw extensive combat. 1.98 is in doubt, as is 75". I'm not sure about 81", but the way I hear it, the British officially used it, while the USAAF never officially used it. Sourced corrections from those who've done serious, objective research on the subject would be very welcome, as this entire matter is hazy & unpleasantly obscured by biased parties on both sides.

 

Now, if picking only the lowest rating for the P-51D, but the mid/high rating for the 109K, were done to ensure that the two aircraft were were balanced against each other in mulitplayer, then I'd be happy with that. But that isn't the case. The 109 is already going to tend to be a better dogfighter than the P-51, because of their nature. As noted by ED reps, even 72" isn't going to make the P-51 a great dogfighter compared to the 109. Thus, it makes no sense from a balance perspective (nor from a historical-accuracy perspective) to choose the lowest historical rating for the P-51 & a mid/high-end rating for the 109, when the P-51 is already going to tend to be at a disadvantage in adversarial multiplayer, due to its higher mass & its wing design.

 

If there's a problem, the best thing to do is to minimize it, not to exacerbate it. In any multiplayer WWII aircraft sim, most of the combat will occur below 20,000 feet. It's the nature of the average simmer not wanting to play real war & fly around for hours without seeing combat. Saying, "The unfair disparity between WEP ratings doesn't matter, because you should be flying at 30,000 feet all the time, anyway" isn't a viable workaround. Fact is, most simmers aren't willing to spend 95% of their time out of combat, climbing to extreme altitude and then searching extensively for another simmer who's done the same. Therefore, picking a historical matchup which is better suited for the low & medium altitude fights that usually occur in multiplayer, is a far better choice than picking a matchup which is fair at high alt, but gives one side an unfair advantage at normal multiplayer altitudes. It isn't as though the real P-51s were usually this outclassed when the fight did get down low, you know. So it isn't as though the current situation is any more historically-accurate than the proposed, more-fair one.

 

And that brings me back to one of my original points, more directly relevant to this thread: has ACG tried a mission where the 109K is at its lowest-rating, like the P-51D is? I don't believe this is a magical solution, as I suspect it may merely reverse the disparity. But if it hasn't been seriously tried (meaning, the public played such a mission for a few weeks), then it really ought to be. It just might work, and if it doesn't, then nothing was lost. Even if the 109K without MW50 turns out to be outmatched by the 67" P-51D, then that's just a couple of weeks that the 109 pilots get to experience what the P-51 pilots have been dealing with for many months. And if it turns out that the 109K without MW50 is a good match for the P-51D at normal multiplayer altitudes, well, then problem solved!

Edited February 26, 2016 by Echo38

[Solty]

Having 1945 rockets doesn't make the rest of the Mustang 1945, especially not in an airquake environment where it doesn't matter.

 

The performance of the P51 is not as good as it was? Is the lowest performing variant modeled? Maybe.

 

Is the 109's best possible variant the one we have in game? Maybe.

 

All this is much less "ahistorical" than making them duel each other at low level. Hence my initial point: please make the missions more varied so that there is more to it than just duelling. It doesn't mean airfields have to be further apart. Just add some ships, vehicles, trains, anything to shoot at apart from the best possible German prop fighters of the war.

 

Actually it would make more sense if it was Germans who would attack ground targets. That way they would have to take bombs and attack ground targets, which would lead to P-51's beeing able to actually use energy advantage. But that would probably only be Fw190 pilot's, as I have yet to see a 109 that bombs something in a sim xD

[Reflected]

Actually it would make more sense if it was Germans who would attack ground targets. That way they would have to take bombs and attack ground targets, which would lead to P-51's beeing able to actually use energy advantage. But that would probably only be Fw190 pilot's, as I have yet to see a 109 that bombs something in a sim xD

 

Exactly my point. Give both sides ground targets, and make the AI targets fly higher. That way you can enter combat the following way:

 

a) you go for the ground targets and watch your 6.

b) you climb up to the furball (higher than it is now, preferably above the stage 2 altitude for the Mustang)

c) you protect your ground targets, and you can attack enemy planes from an altitude advantage. They are focusing on the ground target and are slowed down by their ordnance.

 

Surely better than: "go head on and duel", right? I don't see how it would exacerbate the problem.

 

@Echo: although your suggestion would help the balance, I'm not a fan of trying to make up for one ahistorical thing by implementing another one. I'd leave the 109s as they are.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Reflected

[rel4y]

P-51D WEP ratings: 67", 72," 75," 81"

Me 109K WEP ratings: 1.8 ata, 1.8 ata + MW50, 1.98 ata + MW50

 

While I completely agree with you on most parts, you mixed something up right there. The DB605DB of the K-4 cannot be flown at 1.8 Ata with B4 fuel without MW50. It would overheat and start knocking like hell. That is due to the missing charge cooling effect of MW50. The maximum boost without MW50 would be 1.5 Ata. C3 fuel by itself would also have a max of 1.8 Ata, with the difference of being altitude independent and as far is I know no time restriction on boost was issued.

 

Just to make it more obvious what you guys are wanting:

 

67 inHG = 2.24 Ata

72 inHG = 2.41 Ata

75 inHG = 2.51 Ata

1.5 Ata = 44.88 inHG

1.8 Ata = 53.86 inHG

1.98 Ata = 59.24 inHG

 

I have written in a different thread about the role of the P-51 in combat. After it was used in air supremacy fighter sweeps many german planes were destroyed on the ground and right before landing/ after take off. The wings were ordered to attack everything they could find, this happened mostly low level. Most Me 262 combat losses were results of this scenario, so it proved to be a highly effective strategy. Whole allied fighter wings were vulching known Me 262 bases, that is why these were equipped with FW190 "Platzschutz Staffeln" which should protect the jets in their vulnerable phases. But allies were vulching all Luftwaffe bases whichever aircraft was stationed there. So indeed P-51 should attack ground targets and columns everywhere and anytime, cause that was what they were ordered to do.

 

What we really need is a AI B-17 or any other allied 4 mot Bomber with well modeled air gunners. At defending high altitude interceptions the P-51 would shine and quickly servers would be flooded with Mustangs.

[Echo38]

While I completely agree with you on most parts, you mixed something up right there. The DB605DB of the K-4 cannot be flown at 1.8 Ata with B4 fuel without MW50. It would overheat and start knocking like hell. That is due to the missing charge cooling effect of MW50. The maximum boost without MW50 would be 1.5 Ata. C3 fuel by itself would also have a max of 1.8 Ata, with the difference of being altitude independent and as far is I know no time restriction on boost was issued.

 

although your suggestion would help the balance, I'm not a fan of trying to make up for one ahistorical thing by implementing another one. I'd leave the 109s as they are.

 

I'm not sure I understand you two. Are you saying that the K4 never ran at 1.8 ata without MW50? Or, never ran "significantly," that is, having seen extensive combat in that configuration? That is, are you saying that a 67" P-51D versus a 1.8 ata 109K without MW50 is not a historical matchup? Would you mind listing all of the extensively-used-in-combat WEP ratings for the 109K, from lowest to highest, as I did for the P-51D, including any required fuel type, presence of MW50, etc.? It's been too long since I've looked at the fuel-type issue, and it gets very complicated quickly (and that's without special-interest types mucking it up).

 

Just to make it more obvious what you guys are wanting:

 

67 inHG = 2.24 Ata

72 inHG = 2.41 Ata

75 inHG = 2.51 Ata

1.5 Ata = 44.88 inHG

1.8 Ata = 53.86 inHG

1.98 Ata = 59.24 inHG

 

Not all inches of mercury are created equal. : )

 

In other words, MAP alone doesn't tell the whole story. For example, a 109's Daimler-Benz @ somewhere around 1.98 ata (= ~60", you say) had something like 2000 hp, while the P-38's Allison had to be somewhere around 80" to output 2000 hp. Unless I'm very mistaken, that is--mind you, it's been a few years since I really looked at this, but when I did the calculations, I determined that the P-38 had to be about 75 or 80 inches to get similar horsepower to the max-tested 109.

 

And, of course, horsepower alone doesn't tell you everything about the actual thrust, either. There's propeller type and all that. So, I think you're being a bit misleading (unintentionally, no doubt) when you post that side-by-side comparison of inches-of-mercury. It makes it look like I'm suggesting that the P-51 get much more power than the 109, but that isn't the case. I'm suggesting similar areas of contemporary ratings, which--not coincidentally--ends up in a rather good approximation of balance.

 

Neither one of these aircraft dominated the other in real life, when logistical problems (pilot training, fuel quality, manufacturing defects, etc.) weren't getting in the way. Which they usually were, to the P-51's favor, but I really don't want the 109 crippled by logistics. I simply want the P-51 to have one of its slightly-higher-than-the-lowest historical ratings, to make it less of an underdog relative to the 109. 72" to the P-51 would be both historical and more fair&balanced than the current situation of lowest-rated P-51D versus mid/high rated 109K. The question is, does ED intend to do it, and when? And what viable workarounds can mission makers enact in the meantime?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Echo38

[rel4y]

Having 1945 rockets doesn't make the rest of the Mustang 1945, especially not in an airquake environment where it doesn't matter.

 

The performance of the P51 is not as good as it was? Is the lowest performing variant modeled? Maybe.

 

Is the 109's best possible variant the one we have in game? Maybe.

 

I have to disagree with you here. The 1945 P-51D-30NA is very much the best P-51D in existence. People seem to forget all the aerodynamic, weapon & structural improvements which this includes and for some reason only focus on boost pressure.

 

When raising the boost pressure, the DCS P-51 will be pretty much equal in status and equipment to the ones used in Korean theatre in the 1950s. As said before the K-4 modeled is the lowest boost version there was. You could only strip it of MW50, which is not historical but merely an act of game balance.

 

PS: Echo I know I didnt include compression ratio, but I did not want to further complicate this. You are very much right though. The prop effiecency of the P-51 modelled is higher than the german one though. So that is a non issue.

Edited February 26, 2016 by rel4y

[Reflected]

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that a 67" P-51D versus a 1.8 ata 109K without MW50 is not a historical matchup?

 

I see your point. Let me rephrase: just because the Mustang is restricted, it doesn't meant the 109 should be as well. The ideal solution would be to fix the Mustang.

[Echo38]

The ideal solution would be to fix the Mustang.

 

I agree--except it's not really "fixing" the Mustang, as the one we have isn't necessarily "wrong," but--rather--it's adding a more appropriately-matched historical configuration. : )

[rel4y]

I'm not sure I understand you two. Are you saying that the K4 never ran at 1.8 ata without MW50? Or, never ran "significantly," that is, having seen extensive combat in that configuration? That is, are you saying that a 67" P-51D versus a 1.8 ata 109K without MW50 is not a historical matchup? Would you mind listing all of the extensively-used-in-combat WEP ratings for the 109K, from lowest to highest, as I did for the P-51D, including any required fuel type, presence of MW50, etc.? It's been too long since I've looked at the fuel-type issue, and it gets very complicated quickly (and that's without special-interest types mucking it up)

 

Alright! :thumbup:

 

You can not run the DB605 with B4 fuel as modeled in the game on 1.8 Ata. The fuel is simply not of high enough octane to eliminate engine knocking. C3 fuel in comparison is similar to allied 150 octane fuel and before change in mixture somewhere along the end of the war was 96/145 octane. (I am really not sure how much the octane rating changed and when that change took place. As I said I am not interested/ knowledgable in fuel discussions.)

 

DB605DB on B4 fuel without MW50 -> Sondernotleistung 1.5 Ata, (very short time, dont know exactly) mostly combat power of 1.45 Ata must be used

 

DB605DB on B4 fuel with MW50 -> Sondernotleistung 1.8 Ata, 10 minute rating

 

DB605DB on C3 fuel no MW50 -> Sondernotleistung 1.8 Ata, no limit in boost time, altitude independend effect

 

DB605DB on C3 fuel with MW50 -> Sondernotleistung 1.98 Ata, 10 minute rating

 

As qouted earlier, the highest rating saw some use after the OKL order dated 20.3.45. If significant or not lies in the eyes of the observer. In March 45 the war was pretty much lost and german forces were surrendering to US/GB troops while fiercly fighting soviet forces.

 

Now please dont misunderstand me. I am not saying it is impossible a K-4 without MW50 met a Mustang. There probably where some planes flying around in this configuration, but there is no specific data that I know of. Once the MW50 tank was empty (used up or leaked) you couldnt use it anyway. But what I am saying a 109K would not meet a 30NA Mustang at any time in history. Also I have said 72"hg should be introduced, maybe even 75. I would need to check sources to make up my mind.

 

Now when I am flying I am using MW50 mostly when going vertical to get an edge over the opponent in climb. In medium speed scissors or turn fighting the high boost torque is your enemy in my opinion.

 

Since Echo was right, the MP calculation is misleading Id like to correct this. HP calculation however is not misleading as prop efficiency is similiar with a slight edge to the 4 blade Hamilton Standard. Only difference is max torque development being mostly negated by RPM adjustment.

 

DB605DB

1.45 Ata -> 1411 BHP (Steig-Kampfleistung, B4 fuel - C3 fuel in 1.98 Ata configuration has actually lower output)

1.8 Ata -> 1825 BHP (Sondernotleistung 10 min rating)

1.98 Ata -> 1973 BHP (Sondernotleistung 10 min rating, C3 fuel only)

Edited February 26, 2016 by rel4y

[Solty]

@rel4y Those engines work at different regimes giving different power outputs. DB engine will produce more power at lower boost but can't be pushed harder. So?

 

This whole discussion doesn't belong here. Can we get a new thread?

 

I agree--except it's not really "fixing" the Mustang, as the one we have isn't necessarily "wrong," but--rather--it's adding a more appropriately-matched historical configuration. : )

+1

Edited February 26, 2016 by Solty

[IronJockel]

As long as it's the on average best option for all players to spot each other the "large" setting I will leave it there until ED shows some improvements there. I think we all have enough of the blindness problem in pre 1.5 DCS. The mod is something client side (right??).

 

About ground Targets: Last time we had them on the server they got ignored by almost everybody and feedback back then was that the current Airquake setting is what the players want. I am not convinced that they are worth the extra object count plus possible bug source on the server. Almost nobody will care, plus all options I currently have post WW2 vehicles.

The secondary airfield I could add the current setup are so far away, that people taking off from there would take far too long. However, I will add it this weekend and see.

PS: the last time we had a scenario with “bombers” players still made low level dogfights, while from time to time a German player wiped the transport planes unchallenged.

And TBH my motivation for making complex scenarios with modern vehicles in a supposed to be WW2 scenario isn’t very great and all other mission builder in ACG don’t bother at all.

It currently all comes down to the map.

 

Sorry for late response. I was having exams.

[Echo38]

Ironjockel, what about the without-MW50 experiment? Has it been extensively tried yet?

[rel4y]

How much BHP does a +21 lb/sqin / 72 inHG Merlin 66 put out? I found conflicting numbers.

 

Following numbers are for the M.S. blower.

 

at +18 lb/sqin / 67 inHG I have 1700 BHP (1630 BHP at SL?) -> current model

at +25 lb/sqin / 81 inHG I have 2000 BHP

 

So at the moment we have a 1700 BHP P-51D vs a 1825 BHP K-4 at ten minute rating.

 

And you want a 1700 BHP P-51D vs a 1411 BHP K-4 to make it fair, did I get that correct?

Edited February 26, 2016 by rel4y