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

[LuSi_6]

very nice server! Thanks to large impostors I can see and shoot targets while flying with my Oculus! Great fun!

[DarkRaiderss]

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?

 

Apparently some feel it's a cheat or gaming the system as no real pilot would ever fly with less than max fuel (commercial airliners fly with less all the time). I have no problem with it as this is not a historical reenactment and it makes no sense to carry a full load for a thirty minute flight when it will effect handling.

Edited February 28, 2016 by DarkRaiderss

[LuSi_6]

airliners almost never fly with max fuel? they carry fuel for the distance + some safty margin

[DarkRaiderss]

airliners almost never fly with max fuel? they carry fuel for the distance + some safty margin

 

I know they carry less and that's what I meant. I believe the argument in another thread was that a pilot would not carry less fuel in real life. I don't care what we do in the game. Maxed out or running on fumes is fine by me. I edited my post to make it clear.

 

:megalol:

[rel4y]

.., than a well-made 109K running a mid/high rating.

 

You keep saying mid/high rating, why? If you dont consider 1.98 Ata was being used (which I may even understand since it was authorized only for roughly 1.5 months before ve day), then there is only one rating, namely 1.8 Ata. If you believe the OKL document excerpts I posted (1.98 authorization in March 45) then it is the lower/lowest rating of the two. Otherwise please show data of a K-4 production line variant with rating below 1.8 Ata and I will stand corrected.

 

PS: Remember, MW50 injection system and tank were production line installations for the K-4.

Edited February 28, 2016 by rel4y

[Ala13_ManOWar]

@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 longdidual stability 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.

But you realize the chart you're using as reference already gives you 385mph(619Km/H :shocking:) 67" @SL, even gives you 376mph(605Km/H) 61" @SL, and any of that's far from P-51D performance I think. Still something happens with that numbers.

 

S!

[Solty]

Lets then take a more conservative projection of the P-51 performance with 72'hg. Here it is, the 360mph at SL at 67'hg and 375mph (603kph) at 72'hg. But the document states it is preliminary only and I don't know what that realy means :P

 

Still even if that is the "true" performance, it is waay better than what we have now and would bring more balance. And even the Dora would be still faster, so that means it would all be good :).

 

As I said ED probably has even more data. But I doubt that performance would be any lower than that. This is around 39kph lower than the last one.

[rel4y]

44-1 is 150 grade fuel. I am OK with 130 grade 72". The motor/blower needed adjustment for 44-1.

Edited February 28, 2016 by rel4y

[Solty]

You are OK with it? Hah. That's not a problem. We will get a Spit IX running 150 Oct merlin 66. So supercharger should be ready. I've heard its going to be 25lbs, that is 81hg

Edited February 28, 2016 by Solty

[rel4y]

Yeah in a beautiful Spitfire with completely different cooling system and supply chain. One is RAF and the other one USAAF. Both had their own leadership and own regulations. Notice a difference? : )

And yes, I am OK with it. Cant speak for anybody else.

Edited February 28, 2016 by rel4y

[Combat Wombat]

Had a great time yesterday in the K-4 going head to head with a P-51 at 7-8 and 9 k !! The Sound of a mustang going past canopy to canopy 30' apart passing at 1,000 KPH + simply put "Amazing " That Supercharger really screams !!

Edited February 28, 2016 by Combat Wombat

[Solty]

Yeah in a beautiful Spitfire with completely different cooling system and supply chain. One is RAF and the other one USAAF. Both had their own leadership and own regulations. Notice a difference? : )

And yes, I am OK with it. Cant speak for anybody else.

Just read more about that. 72'hg and 150oct fuel was a standard since Gen. Doolittle took command of 8th AAF. It coincides with the fact that the P-51D was pushed (by him) as the primary escort fighter which caused many squadrons to switch from P47 and P38. I think only one Squadron was left with P47's.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Solty

[rel4y]

Oh well, maybe you are right maybe not. Ill leave it to ED to decide. I really dislike the whole fuel thing. :puke:

 

Could anybody check if you can fly through your own ordnance just dropped in the P-51/ Dora? Theres is bug in the 109.

Edited February 28, 2016 by rel4y

[Echo38]

You keep saying mid/high rating, why? If you dont consider 1.98 Ata was being used (which I may even understand since it was authorized only for roughly 1.5 months before ve day), then there is only one rating, namely 1.8 Ata. If you believe the OKL document excerpts I posted (1.98 authorization in March 45) then it is the lower/lowest rating of the two. Otherwise please show data of a K-4 production line variant with rating below 1.8 Ata and I will stand corrected.

 

PS: Remember, MW50 injection system and tank were production line installations for the K-4.

 

Like I said, I'm not an expert on the 109K, so I'm a bit unsure about all this MW50 stuff. The way I understand it, some K-4s were forced to run without MW50, because of local supply issues. Sometimes airfields didn't even have enough fuel and/or ammunition for the mission, due to the chaos of the crumbling Reich and the Allied total-war strafing. So, I don't know how "standard" it was, but the sans-MW50 K-4s must have seen at least some combat. You say that's 1.45 ata, as 1.8 w/o MW50 would quickly fail.

 

So, of all the ratings for the 109K that I've ever heard of, 1.45 ata would be the low-end rating, 1.8 the mid-range rating, and 1.98 the high-end one. If 1.98 didn't see combat, then 1.45 would be low and 1.8 the highest of the combat-experience ratings. Hence "mid/high-end." 1.8 ata is the closest thing to "standard," regardless, and the average K-4 would be running this. The P-51D's equivalent would be about 72".

 

If you discount both 1.45 and 1.98 ata, due to uncommon usage, then that leaves 1.8 ata as the "only" rating, in which case the median would be 1.8. So, that'd still make 1.8 "mid-range," by definition. The middle of the P-51D's range would be the 72" rating, while the 67" we have is the lowest.

 

The semantics of all this is a bit silly. My point is simple: the K-4's got its average used-in-combat WEP rating, or higher; the P-51D has its lowest WEP rating. The result is that the 109 completely dominates the P-51 at low & medium altitudes, which is unfair and also not historically representative. The solution? Give the P-51D something close to its average rating, too. That'd be 72", which just so happens to be a historical contemporary combat rating, which is also a good competitive match for our 1.8 ata w/ MW50 109K.

 

But, I'm starting to agree with BFBunny--this has wandered a bit off-topic for this thread, at this point. The original discussion of how 109 compares to P-51 at low altitude was relevant, and the bit about how different WEP ratings affect that comparison was relevant to the comparison, but now we've wandered down the rabbit-hole of the MW50 / fuel / logistics discussion, and I think we can all agree that this isn't the thread for that.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Echo38

[GrapeJam]

But you realize the chart you're using as reference already gives you 385mph(619Km/H :shocking:) 67" @SL, even gives you 376mph(605Km/H) 61" @SL, and any of that's far from P-51D performance I think. Still something happens with that numbers.

 

S!

Check the weight, the P51D was already doing 375 mph at SL on 67"hg with wing racks, at 9780lbs weight, no reason not to believe a clean P51B at 8500lbs can't.

[GrapeJam]

Yeah in a beautiful Spitfire with completely different cooling system and supply chain. One is RAF and the other one USAAF. Both had their own leadership and own regulations. Notice a difference? : )

And yes, I am OK with it. Cant speak for anybody else.

The RAF ran their Mustang IV on 81"hg which is 25lbs boost just fine.

[BIGNEWY]

I do not know where this thread went off topic, but it has.

 

Topic here is " -= ACG WW2 Server (EU) =- " please return to it.

[Reflected]

I do not know where this thread went off topic, but it has.

 

Topic here is " -= ACG WW2 Server (EU) =- " please return to it.

 

The current topic is how to modify the missions so that it's not a "Luftwaffe slaughters Mustangs" server, and so that there is more P-51 jocks can do than just fly target practice for the enemy.:joystick:

[Echo38]

What I used to do on my instant-action servers was to have two close airfields with no AA guns, and then have two far airfields for each side, with heavy AAA. The two closest ones are for like-minded people to quickly get into fights; if someone doesn't wanna play nice and starts covering the other side's airfield, that's what the distant ones are for.

 

AAA alone on the middle airfield doesn't help much for quick-action missions, because it gets in the way of legitimate fights (e.g. we both take off and meet in the middle, but the fight accidentally moves near the AAA, which prematurely ends the fight), and doesn't keep the enemy from "capping" the airfield. They can't actually strafe you on the ground, but they just keep an eye on you and keep an altitude advantage over you until you're clear of your AA, which is little better.

 

So, my recommendation: minimal or no AA on middle airfields, which are <5min apart, and then each side's main airfield has two AA-defended backup airfields, in two different directions, far enough apart to make it difficult for the enemy to cap all three, and far enough away from the center of the mission area to allow airplanes time to climb to desired altitude.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

True OT, I realized last post this isn't the Spit thread :doh:.

 

The semantics of all this is a bit silly. My point is simple: the K-4's got its average used-in-combat WEP rating, or higher; the P-51D has its lowest WEP rating. The result is that the 109 completely dominates the P-51 at low & medium altitudes, which is unfair and also not historically representative. The solution? Give the P-51D something close to its average rating, too. That'd be 72", which just so happens to be a historical contemporary combat rating, which is also a good competitive match for our 1.8 ata w/ MW50 109K.

Trying to keep on topic about server dogfighting :music_whistling:, so your point is ED should try to balance the game to keep some equivalent performance in both sides. I don't like any kind of balance, that remembers me the old times. If 72" has a historic use I understand and I can agree that, but if the only reason for an out of standard manifold is trying to balance the game without further and real use data I'm not sure about that (while I'm a P-51 user).

 

S!

[Echo38]

If 72" has a historic use I understand and I can agree that

 

Yes, 72" was an officially-authorized rating which was widely used later in the war, when P-51Ds would have been facing 109Ks. I would never suggest a non-historical aircraft configuration for balance. My suggestion involves picking the closest match out of the contemporary historical configurations. Improved competitive balance + no reduction in historical accuracy = pure gain. Question is, is ED gonna do it. But, really, this has already been beaten to death, and this isn't the thread for it.

 

my recommendation: minimal or no AA on middle airfields, which are <5min apart, and then each side's main airfield has two AA-defended backup airfields, in two different directions, far enough apart to make it difficult for the enemy to cap all three, and far enough away from the center of the mission area to allow airplanes time to climb to desired altitude.

 

It looks something like this, although this picture isn't to scale:

 

 

On each side, the two rear airfields need to be far enough away from each other to make it difficult for the enemy to CAP both, and far enough away from the middle one to give the fighters some space to climb to appropriate altitude. But they also need to be close enough to the middle that it doesn't require everyone to make a ten-minute flight to the middle, just because someone's vulching at the middle one. So, if the middle two are ~3min apart, then the distance between one of the rear fields and the middle field should be maybe ~6 min.

 

The good news is that if everyone on the server wants to have quick dogfights with no "vulching," they can still do that. And now, if someone does want to spoil everyone's fun by "capping" the other airfield, there are good options for the latter side to avoid combat long enough to climb to a reasonable altitude. Or, they can simply start from the far airfield and make a beeline to the middle, on the deck, if they'd rather sacrifice altitude for minimal time-to-target. The bad news is that this doesn't really solve the P-51-sucks-down-low problem, as they're simply going to have to waste loads of time to get to an altitude where they have a decent chance.

 

Other than high-altitude air-starts, this is the only remaining workaround I can see for the 109-totally-dominates-at-normal-alt problem, until the P-51D gets the appropriate historical rating (if ever). The P-51s are generally going to have to spend some minutes climbing up to at least medium altitude between every fight, which means both sides are going to have to do less fighting and more waiting. The tougher the competition, the higher the required climb, and thus the longer the wait. Doesn't help anyone's rate-of-learning, but that's all we got, for now.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Echo38

[gavagai]

Easiest fix: give the P-51 a 10,000ft airstart.:music_whistling:

 

The craziest thing is that it wouldn't be insurmountable for the 109K, which reaches 3km just a minute or so after raising the landing gear.

[IronJockel]

The current topic is how to modify the missions so that it's not a "Luftwaffe slaughters Mustangs" server, and so that there is more P-51 jocks can do than just fly target practice for the enemy.:joystick:

 

It's more like a t4trouble slaughters everything server :lol:

When i'm flying the Stang instead of the dora i'm not experiencing what most of you guys are claiming here.

Rolrate is key against the 109.....

 

However i agree that MW50 sound not be the norm but the exception, so i will change that as soon as the mission-editor allows me to do so without breaking the mission.

[MAD-MM]

And why can the P-51 not climb in a other direction over the map?

After that the Mustang is on all altitudes even the same Speed or faster then then Dora turn better climb in the same speed and dive faster with 72 HG.

Even the MW-50 is also not working with defueling. And speaking about how unfair is flying with 68 HG? why can good pilots score so hard like "trouble" when the Mustang is so bad currently?

[rel4y]

Ok one last statement on ratings. 1.45 ata is the german military power, same as 61" for the Mustang. MW50 was introduced as an alternative to the early 44 short in supply C3 fuel. It was chosen because water and methanol are crap easy to produce/ mix and no shortage was ever to be expected. You could fill it up with 30/70 mix or wathever you had the joy of mixing at the time. You are saying there probably were shortages in supply and it is likely aircraft flew at lower ata etc. This is pure speculation and no data indicates anything like it. So far you have argued reasonably, but this sounds like desperate try of legitimation to me. Once again 1.45 is no official rating but simply military power. All production line engine charts available clearly rate the DB605DB/DC for at least 1.8 ata.

One could argue well there were probably supply shortages in spark plugs for the allies because heavy lead fouling caused the need of replacement about every two missions. So maybe some Mustangs were knocking heavily on WEP and could only run at military power which should make 61" boost an engine rating. See what I am doing?

 

I already said testing how the 67" Pony fares against a 1.45 ata military power only 109 is for game balance a valid choice at sea level. Higher up the disparity will be gigantic because the 109 supercharger cant keep up the charge pressure for reasonable engine output. So what we are doing is completely ahistorical but in favor of frustrated P-51 simmers to keep the motivation alive. This is a reasonable thing to do.

 

I repeat once more 1.45 ata is not and never was a WEP engine rating for the DB 605DB/DC, it is normal military power. There were only two engine ratings ever issued, 1.8 ata and 1.98 ata.

 

Btw Ethanol works just as well, so if you found a supply of wodka at the eastern front you could fill the MW tank with it and fly 1.8 Ata or pinch a hole in the pipe and get drunk in flight.

Edited February 29, 2016 by rel4y