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

[IronJockel]

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

 

Well It maybe worth a shot.

[BFBunny]

This thread is so far off topic you'd need a telescope to find out where it began.

[Echo38]

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

 

I'm afraid not. Go back and read what I wrote, please, concerning that. Basically, "I suspect it won't work, but it's worth trying out." We have nothing to lose by trying out a mission with this combination, since it's already available in the mission editor. I doubt it's a viable solution, but there's no reason not to try it. The worst thing that can happen? You 109 pilots will have two weeks of experiencing what the P-51 pilots always experience. ; )

 

As I've said several times, I believe that the best (and only viable) solution is a P-51D that has 72" (or 75", if certain conditions are met*). However, that's in ED's hands. They've heard us, and it's down to whether or not Yo-Yo & co. agree that it's worthwhile to DCS: WWII, and if/when they budget time to do it.

 

In the meantime, the community owes it to itself to at least try the experiment I suggested, even if there isn't much chance of it being a success. There's no good reason to refuse to try it out for a mere two weeks, just to see what the results are.

 

* 75" should be implemented only if it can be proven to have officially seen combat, and if it won't result in P-51 dominance. I doubt that a 75" P-51 would be too much for our 109K to handle--they should be on very even footing--but I am worried about the FW 190D's ability to handle a 75" P-51. Thus, in order for 75" to be a good solution, both conditions would have to be met: proven to have been authorized for combat, and not excessively powerful for either of the two opponent fighters. 72" sounds to me like the best solution, as it fulfills both conditions.

 

This thread is so far off topic you'd need a telescope to find out where it began.

 

It might seem so, but the subject of how the P-51D compares to the Me 109K, at lower altitudes, is actually quite relevant to a thread about a server which pits the P-51D versus the 109K at lower altitudes. : )

Edited February 26, 2016 by Echo38

[rel4y]

Well I guess its worth a try. Just set the MW tank to empty instead of B4 fuel. :thumbup: I suspect a lot of engine failures though, since theres no way to limit the boost as in real life.

 

Has anybody tried flying the K-4 for prolongod periods without MW50 at boosts above 1.45? I would expect rapid overheating, throttle firewalling should be a no go. Will test tomorrow.

Edited February 26, 2016 by rel4y

[IronJockel]

I just changed the loadout of 190 and 109 and it broke our mission script.

No mission changes until i find out what is going on there.

[Solty]

I just changed the loadout of 190 and 109 and it broke our mission script.

No mission changes until i find out what is going on there.

Hey no worries mate. You tried :)

 

EDIT: I hope you had a copy?

Edited February 27, 2016 by Solty

[IronJockel]

Hey no worries mate. You tried :)

 

EDIT: I hope you had a copy?

 

Sure. Never change anything without a backup:thumbup:

[Echo38]

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

 

I suddenly got something, upon re-re-reading this. Well, actually, two things--"ata" is a German noun, yeah? So I should be capitalizing it. But, the main thing: you're saying that 1.8 Ata is 1.8 Ata, regardless of which fuel type, and whether or not there's MW50. That is, 1.8 Ata produces the same horsepower on the 109K's DB, regardless of whether or not there's MW50. The MW50 or higher fuel grade simply allow it to run at that HP more safely. So, it works like the water injection on the P-47, rather than the MW50 actually providing a direct HP boost. Did I get it right, this time?

 

In which case, I'm mistaken about a 109K running at 1.8 Ata without MW50 being a good match for the 67" P-51D, right, because the former would be essentially the same as the current 1.8 Ata with MW50 109K, in terms of performance. Is this correct? If so, then 1.8 Ata is simply overmatched for the 67". Hmm. That brings me back to square one: I can't see any viable solution other than 72" for the P-51D. All other suggestions I've seen or thought of have at least one thing wrong with them, in one or more of the three key areas (historical accuracy, competitive balance, and development workload).

 

Ironjockel, thanks for trying to implement the experimental matchup. If you ever do figure out how to get it working compatibly with your mission scripts, please do let me know what the results end up being. I think I already know the answer (P-51 dominance), but there's still a chance of being pleasantly surprised with a reasonably balanced match, which could then serve as a clumsy workaround until ED brings about 72" (if/when).

Edited February 27, 2016 by Echo38

[zebra0312]

Sorry, but "ata" is NOT a German noun. It is an abbrevation for "Atmosphäre, technisch, absolut" and so it is not capitalized. Like the abbrevation of "Meter" is not "M", it is "m".

Edited February 27, 2016 by zebra0312

[rel4y]

You need to differentiate between B4 and C3 fuel. You mixed the engine output between the low octane (87) B4 fuel and the high octane (96/145) C3 fuel. The ground crew could adjust for different compression between the two fuels by simply turning a few screws.

 

MW50 is made up of 50% water and 50% methanol and is used for charge cooling. The water in MW50 is used to cool the air in the supercharger, therefore making it more dense and throwing more oxygen molecules in the engine to react with hydrocarbons and producing greater mean effective pressure. The methanol has actually less cooling effect than the water, but is used in conjunction to limit knocking of the engine and increases the heating value. The whole MW is pressurized and supercharger injection is executed at a few bar overpressure.

 

Beyond full throttle height MW50 does not deliver much additional engine output, only a few percent due to charge cooling effect.

 

So you see, when not using MW50 with B4 fuel you will lose some hundreds of BHP below full throttle height. You can run the DB605 at higher boost than 1.45 Ata without MW50, but the engine will start knocking and being overstressed. The engine will not produce the same amount of BHP at the same boost pressure as with the use of MW50.

 

Now with C3 fuel the story looks different. C3 fuel as said before has a lean octane rating of 96, but was of synthetic nature and added with high amounts af aromatic hydrocarbons which gave it a theoretical rich octane rating of 145. This is comparable to the allied 150 fuel type and was in use since 1942.

 

The DB605 should in theory produce a few less BHP (~50) at 1.8 Ata with C3 fuel than with B4 fuel + MW50. This again is due to missing charge cooling effect. It will however not cause knocking of the engine because the octane rating of C3 is much higher compared to B4. Furthermore the effect is altitude independent and not time limited.

 

After corrections in quality control of DB605 parts it was cleared to be used with C3 + MW50, by which another increase in boost pressure and therefore further increase in BHP (2000) engine output was possible.

 

So to conclude:

 

1.45 Ata, B4 no MW50 -> 1410 BHP (cant really run higher boost or will risk engine blow up)

1.8 Ata, B4 + MW50 -> 1825 BHP (10 minute rating)

1.8 Ata, C3 no MW50 -> 1775 BHP (unlimited)

1.98 Ata, C3 + MW50 ->1973 BHP (10 minute rating)

 

Now a 1.45 Ata limited K-4 is only of theoretical nature, since it employed production line installation of MW50 tank and injection system. As I said after depletion of the MW50 (~40 min) the pilot would be limited to Steig- und Kampfleistung (1.45 Ata) but it is not an official rating. The MW50 tank however could be left empty or filled with normal avgas fuel for extended range, in which case a cockpit switch had to be adjusted.

Edited February 27, 2016 by rel4y

[rel4y]

What people just dont seem to realize is, that however much you increase boost for the P-51.. at sea level the 109 will rape the Mustang! And people wishing for a G-10 or G-14 dont understand the problem at all. A G-14 may even outperform a K-4 at deck due to its engine design and less weight. A G-10 has exactly the same engine as the K-4 but is lighter, a bit drag-ier and has the better anti fighter armament (20mm MG151).

 

The Mustang will however fly cirlces around a 109 at high altitude due to lower wingloading and blower design. So the only viable choice is actually to increase the altitude of the fight. The P-51 was designed as a high altitude escort and not a low level crazy dogfighter. But for some reason people dont want to hear that. :noexpression:

 

At 21000 ft the 67" (actually the data is for 61", R.D.E.1.(a) 1/9/44) Pony has ~ 1400 BHP while the B4 + MW50 109 only has ~1280 BHP. This discrepancy should increase with altitude.

Edited February 27, 2016 by rel4y

[Ala13_ManOWar]

What people just dont seem to realize is, that however much you increase boost for the P-51.. at sea level the 109 will rape the Mustang! And people wishing for a G-10 or G-14 dont understand the problem at all. A G-14 may even outperform a K-4 at deck due to its engine design and less weight. A G-10 has exactly the same engine as the K-4 but is lighter, a bit drag-ier and has the better anti fighter armament (20mm MG151).

 

The Mustang will however fly cirlces around a 109 at high altitude due to lower wingloading and blower design. So the only viable choice is actually to increase the altitude of the fight. The P-51 was designed as a high altitude escort and not a low level crazy dogfighter. But for some reason people dont want to hear that. :noexpression:

 

At 21000 ft the 67" Pony has ~ 1400 BHP while the B4 + MW50 109 only has ~1280 BHP. This discrepancy should increase with altitude.

+1 :thumbup:.

 

 

I've said a couple of times, even for a 67" Ponny handbook states below 15.000ft going W.E.P. is pointless as you don't get more HP but engine damage is higher. So, what's the point to a 72", or 75" (as combat reports says) but get even better high altitude performance? Low level P-51 still will lose the battle. If something, going 72-75" low level you'll blow your engine up sooner.

 

S!

[rel4y]

I just tested a bit. When engaging 1.8 Ata without MW50 the engine will break after 12-85 seconds. So if MW50 is not available please say so somewhere, because people will frequently break their engines when moving the throttle above 1.45 Ata!

Edited February 27, 2016 by rel4y

[Solty]

+1 :thumbup:.

 

 

I've said a couple of times, even for a 67" Ponny handbook states below 15.000ft going W.E.P. is pointless as you don't get more HP but engine damage is higher. So, what's the point to a 72", or 75" (as combat reports says) but get even better high altitude performance? Low level P-51 still will lose the battle. If something, going 72-75" low level you'll blow your engine up sooner.

 

S!

 

And that handbook is wrong. The charts from tests clearly show a speed increase at low alt with higher boost.

 

And again. The 72hg won't make the P51 a better dogfighter by a large margin. But it WILL make it faster than 109. Why people want to dogfight? B&Z. That's all mustang is about. And 72hg rating will make it possible for P51 to have its one and very much historical advantage. Speed.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

If you say so, all right (but I usually "trust" handbooks...), but 72" will make P-51 faster than 109, where? Low level? medium level? high level?

 

S!

[Echo38]

Yeah, the 72" helped down low, not up high. Confirmed by Yo-Yo. And it's low altitude where the P-51 needs such a boost, anyway. There's a reason why the USAAF raised the WEP rating to 72". It wasn't to look good on paper. : )

 

USAAF manuals were rife with errors, due to bureaucratic wankery. The Major in charge of the P-38 manual had little experience with the '38, and he refused to listen to Lockheed on a number of key points, with the result of a bunch of bogus being put into the manual. Some of it was bad enough that Lockheed test pilot Tony Levier was sent from base to base in Europe, correcting the myths via personal demonstrations. The P-51 manual has errors, too, so I expect North American Aviation had their own such frustrations. So, you shouldn't trust the USAAF handbooks from that era. Any time there's a good source which indicates anything contrary to the manual, you should believe the better source.

 

I don't have a chart comparing the power curves for these two aircraft with these specific configurations, but--on average--the P-51D was faster than the 109K at most altitudes, if not all. It was close enough that, at least at some altitudes, individual variation could have reversed that (e.g. a really well-made K4 versus a "lemon" P-51D), as could a rating disparity. So, yes, a low-end P-51D could be slower than a mid/high-end 109K, but--in general, P-51 was faster, even at lower altitudes. On the flip side, the 109 was the better dogfighter, at most altitudes (and it's a lot easier to drag the fight down low than it is to drag the fight up high).

 

In real life, the two were very closely matched, except that the 109 usually didn't perform to its maximum potential, due to late-war logistical problems (average pilot experience being the most important, but far from the only one). Those logistical problems resulted in a tendency for the P-51 to dominate, IRL, hence the (mis)impression that "the P-51 won the war," but that's a deceptive effect. A well-made, well-maintained, well-flown 109K was a serious threat and a relatively even match for a well-made, well-maintained, well-flown P-51D--neither one was dominant, the way the 109 is in the sim (or the way that some think the P-51 should be). P-51 had speed advantage, 109 had climb & turn. P-51 will tend to have an edge in 10 vs. 10, 109 will tend to have an edge in 1 vs. 1; P-51 will tend to have an edge up high, 109 will tend to have an edge down low, but--on average--neither one will "hold all the cards," at any altitude, the way our 109 does at the average altitude.

 

The fact that this isn't accurately represented in the sim isn't due to modelling error, but rather due to the choice of aircraft configurations ... the whole lowest-rated P-51D versus the mid/high-end rated 109K problem (again, whether our K is mid-range or high-end depends on whether or not 1.98 ata saw widespread combat, which is apparently a point of eternal debate). That choice may have been logical from a development standpoint (because of data availability, and so I do not criticize Eagle Dynamics for having made that choice), but it sure sucks from a multiplayer standpoint. There's no benefit to either one from a historical standpoint, because both {67" vs. 1.8 ata w/ MW50} and {72" vs. 1.8 ata w/ MW50} were common historical matchups, so it isn't a question of which one is more historical. The two remaining key points on 67" vs. 72", then, are development-budget and relative performance (i.e. competitive balance).

Edited February 28, 2016 by Echo38

[Solty]

If you say so, all right (but I usually "trust" handbooks...), but 72" will make P-51 faster than 109, where? Low level? medium level? high level?

 

S!

Let me show you one of those charts which actually shows 72'hg performance. The chart show's that the 72'hg mustang would benefit the most at low altitude, but only at the realy high altitudes the boost gives no real advantage.

 

Lets take SL as a benchmark, because that is quite frequent in DCS MP.

 

It shows that the P-51 (granted it is B, but with the same engine V-1650-7) is able to obtain 362mph (582kph) at SL and that is nearly the same to what our P-51D in DCS can do (I have checked it our P-51D does 580kph at SL). It also shows that the 72'hg P-51 is capable of 393mph (632kph). While our 109K4 in DCS is capable of 360mph (590kph with automatic radiator) at SL.

That means the 72'hg rating will make the P-51D faster. Even if those numbers will be a bit lower, they will still make the difference.

 

What will change with 72'hg rating.

 

P-51 will become faster than the 109 by around 42kph. That is not a lot, but it is enough to dive away and be sure the 109 won't catch you. It will also make a difference when zooming and when trying to catch it.

 

Currently the 109K4 is faster, turns better and is overall a better low speed dogfighter. That leaves the P-51 with very small window of oportunity to evade it and extend and pray he will loose you. If he keeps with you? Well prepare for a fight that you are destined to loose, and only if the 109 player makes a grave mistake you have chance of beating him.

 

And again, note. I do not claim that will make the P-51D turn a lot tighter, or that it will make it way more maneurvrable. NO. But it will have that one thing that DEFINES the P-51 project. Speed. Please understand that :(

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: @Echo. Thx mate. o7

Edited February 28, 2016 by Solty

[gavagai]

Turn rate depends on the relative fuel loads. It is shameful but when I fly the P-51 I reduce the fuel load to 40%. With that much fuel the P-51 seems to have a slight edge in turn rate against the 109K. With a low fuel load I've managed to out turn some of the best 109 pilots in DCS.

 

The 109K probably doesn't benefit nearly as much from a reduced fuel load.

[Echo38]

"ata" is NOT a German noun. It is an abbrevation for "Atmosphäre, technisch, absolut" and so it is not capitalized. Like the abbrevation of "Meter" is not "M", it is "m".

 

Danke. Two years of Deutsche classes isn't enough to make myself intelligible; it's just enough to make a fool out of myself!

[Ala13_ManOWar]

But that's a nonsense, B model was faster than D, we all know that. You can't ask for B performance in D model. Also, is that an actual measure or calculated theoretical values? IMO that 67 to 72" performance bump looks like a theoretical calculation. Never, ever, direct manifold changes makes direct speed gains as drag increases exponentially with speed. I don't know what but something out of usual is happening there.

 

On the other hand, it's well known Fw190D9 was the fastest low level out there with 610Km/H, so suddenly P-51B (not D) were 23Km/H faster than Dora using 72"? I wonder why they changed B model with D or even why they built Low level fighters like LFIX or MkXII Spits if they just could use P-51Bs outperforming the whole Luftwaffe. You aren't taking some data somewhere in their whole consideration.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Luftwhiner bitch but neither am I an allied whiner and if I fight those claiming the wonders nobody ever saw in Luftwaffe you both now describe wonders I never saw in allied fighters, and that's weird because germanophile has a redemption being war loosers but allied won the war so they gave the information they wanted, there's no point in saying P-51 was faster than 109K (yes, K model only) at all altitudes but they forgot to mention all this time. Not to mention some 72" manifold would worn out engines like hell, I see people blowing their 72" engines in DCS like dead flies falling.

 

The 72" (even 75" manifold I've seen in combat reports) is probably a fair claim (still out of all handbooks, even 1953 Korea F-51 war ones...) but I think you're missing something somewhere with all those fantastic performance claims (the same Luftwaffe fantastic claims does, I mean).

 

S!

Edited February 28, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Echo38]

there's no point in saying P-51 was faster than 109K (yes, K model only) at all altitudes but they forgot to mention all this time. Not to mention some 72" manifold would worn out engines like hell, I see people blowing their 72" engines in DCS like dead flies falling.

 

Not always faster at all altitudes, no. As I said, a poorly-built and/or beat-up P-51D, running a low WEP, will surely be slower, at least at some altitudes, than a well-made 109K running a mid/high rating. But, assuming both ships are well-made & well-maintained, and running similar contemporary ratings (namely, 72" vs. 1.8 ata w/ MW50), then--yes--the P-51 is likely to be slightly faster at all altitudes, and much faster at some. Meanwhile, the 109 will climb & turn slightly better at all altitudes (except for the last few thousand feet below the ceiling, perhaps), and much better across most of the range.

 

In other words: with the config matchup I described, the P-51 should always be faster--slightly faster at some altitudes, much faster at some altitudes. The 109 should always climb & turn better (except, maybe, around ceiling)--slightly better at some altitudes, much better at some altitudes. Generally, the 109 would have a greater advantage in climb & turn than the P-51 has in speed, but the higher you go, the more the P-51 starts to have a greater advantage in speed than the 109 does in climb & turn.

 

Yes, 72" did increase the risk of engine failure. Naturally, I expect this to accompany such a power increase in the sim, just like real life.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Echo38

[Solty]

@Ala13_ManOWar

You have made so many points it is hard to realy tackle all of them. But let's try.

 

1. Please give me data that states "P-51B is faster than P-51D". Because that is another myth that flies around and I only might suspect it is connected to early P-51D models. Early P-51D's had problem with longitudinalstability due to lack of the tail fin which created situations in which the D was loosing speed, but that doesn't concern us. We have a stable P-51D.

 

2. There are many reasons during the war concerning manufacturing that makes much more sense in a wider spectrum than just "produce plane A because it is better than plane B" while P-51B is certainly not "better" than Spitfire MkIX at everything. Check climb rates. It is a interceptor vs air superiority fighter type of argument.

 

3. You also misunderstood me. Two P-51B's in this test were using two different engines. V-1650-3 which was a standard engine on most 1943-44 P-51B's and very late B's V-1650-7 which is also the engine of the P-51D, that is why a "standard" B will not be faster (at least at low alt) than the D and this test show's that there are area's where the Merlin 63 is better than 66, but the reason for Merlin 66 aka Packard V-1650-7 is that allied plane's needed a better low level capability.

 

4. What can I tell you? It is not like I made those tests up and posted here. Those are not my projections. It is a data from the period. And there are tests that show P-51D outperforming the P-51B while both are at 67'hg, just as there is a test showing P-51B outperforming D at 75'hg. It just depends on many different factors and overall I think that the difference is barely noteworthy. What is sure though, is that P-51D would benefit from 72'hg immesly. Even if we take another tests that give it lower speeds.

 

It will still be faster than Bf109K4 which will save it's pilot's life. Because P-51D is not a low level dogfighter. And should never be used as such. The reason you see so many people blow their engines, is that they push it to 67'hg and start turning and getting at speeds of around 200mph. Which will lead to not enough cooling on the engine and too much stress.

 

Why did I choose this test? Because it states the most about aircraft's conditon and weight and it is a data for a test, not estimation. It also show's 72'hg while most P-51 tests available on the net show 75'hg.

 

It very well might be similar to what Hummingbird was arguing. Where he stated that K4 "should" fly 610kph at SL, while other tests have shows 580kph and Yo-Yo's data gave it finally 590kph. So if 'theoretically' the tests that say's that the P-51B can reach 632kph means that P-51D can reach 610kph it will still help DCS P-51 player's to have a fair go at this.

 

This test is just one of many and probably many more from NACA, NAA and NASA and RAF, that ED can probably acquire with no problem.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Solty

[IronJockel]

This is what i get when i edit the mission file with the current DCS build.

 

 

If anybody has an idea pls send me a PM.

[rel4y]

Hey ironjockel! The mission editor has a bug at the moment. You can't change MW50 in single player missions as well. I would assume this is related.

[OutOnTheOP]

Turn rate depends on the relative fuel loads. It is shameful but when I fly the P-51 I reduce the fuel load to 40%. With that much fuel the P-51 seems to have a slight edge in turn rate against the 109K. With a low fuel load I've managed to out turn some of the best 109 pilots in DCS.

 

The 109K probably doesn't benefit nearly as much from a reduced fuel load.

 

I still don't get why anyone would see that as "shameful". If you're expected to fly a thirty-minute sortie, you take a thirty-minute fuel loadout. (well, 40 minute with a reserve, but 40% is WAY over enough for a 30-minute sortie).

 

No one thinks it's "shameful" to not lug a full load of bombs around for a short-range intercept mission, so why should it be considered "cheating" to choose not to handicap yourself with three hours of fuel just because your aircraft has better basic fuel capacity than the opponent?

Edited February 28, 2016 by OutOnTheOP