Relative performance of the Mustang, the 109 and the 190

[NineLine]

Remember that WW2 project for DCS revolves around whole 1944 period.

 

We should also remember that the P-51 was around before the WW2 project came to light... it wasnt part of RRG's plan, just included for obvious reasons.

[rel4y]

Well the introduction of one of my favorite goodies in the P51D, the MK II/K-14 gyro sight, started in October 1944. This was with the introduction of -20NA blocks. So the first P51Ds modeled in DCS were actually later introduced than the 109 K4s. I think they are matched fairly well.

 

Now that I would also like to see introduction of higher boost rates doesnt change the fact, the match is there. It also doesnt change the fact that a mid 1944 Normandy map doesnt fit the modeled planes.

[Solty]

We should also remember that the P-51 was around before the WW2 project came to light... it wasnt part of RRG's plan, just included for obvious reasons.

Indeed and IMHO that project should have taken into account what version of P-51D we have and thefore build a plane set around the two known planes. Because D9 was also a ED's plane right?

 

Anyway, you said yourself that ED has something planed for P-51D. One can dream right?:pilotfly:

Because currently it is sad to see when you join a server and there are 4x P-51 vs 3xFw190D9 and 5x109K4.

 

The truth of every multiplayer game is, that people want to be the best, and they take the best tools to achieve their goal.

[NineLine]

Anyway, you said yourself that ED has something planed for P-51D. One can dream right?:pilotfly:

 

They are going to look at fuels as such down the line, as far as I know that is still the plan.

[Kurfürst]

We have discussed it very much already, and by 1944 standards the K4 which was a quite rare sight indeed, especially with G14 beeing the most produced variant for that stage of the war together with other modified G's like G6, G8 and G10. Especially like you said against those most common allied planes.

 

Yes, we have discussed this and you were shown the exact numbers operational and that the K-4 was no means a rare bird, yet despite these facts you keep repeating the same things that were already shown to you to be in error. There is no pont in repeating that again.

 

Therefore I suggest you look up the actual numbers of K-4s and D-9s operational on the Western Front in late 1944 and do the same for the P-51D-25 and present your findings.

 

Remember that WW2 project for DCS revolves around whole 1944 period.

 

Therfore we will get Spit IXc which is not exactly late 1944 ( Spit LFIX was produced since second part of 1943),

 

The IXLF did not see major use until spring of 1944 and de facto was the most common and typical Spitfire type until the war's end. Its exactly THE '1944 Spitfire'. Its also a ridiculously maneuverable bird with great climb, even if a bit slow. Learn to use that.

 

another plane and we will get P-47D (dunno which version realy) and P-47D was in service before 1944 and bubble cannopy P-47D25 was from May 1944.

 

Yeah I get it, the May 1944 bird against the October 1944 bird (which btw was entering production in August 1944 and only delayed by bombing) is grossly unfair. Right.

 

Then we get the P-51D from June 1944. All of those planes were made in thousands.

 

As noted by others the variant we have is from October 1944, a D-25, from the very same period K-4s appeared. How many D-25s were made?

 

How many K4's were operational during 1944?

 

How many P-51D-25s with gyro sights were operational during 1944?

 

Cause German's were not switching airplanes, if you were given a new type, that was only due to replacement for a destroyed one at this stage of the war or because you were "trained" on it.

 

Yet here's the strenght report of JG 77, dumping all their 109Gs and receiving 75 brand new K-4s in October 1944. http://ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg77.html

 

Many other units did the same, that's why you go from 0 109Ks to cc. 200 K-4s in service just in one month, October 1944.

 

K4 was just another type in many many types that served in the LW. And it was not even close to beeing produced in numbers like the late war G variants. Not in 1944! In 1945, yes many more were produced and focus switched to those K4 and D9 variants.

 

Using the same logic, the P-51D-25 was just another type in many many types that served in the USAAF, so we shouldn't have it. We should have a razorback P-47 or an Allison Mustang or what not. P-51D production (all blocks) was what, 8000 including 1945 and post war production? Yeah everybody should be flying P-40s and P-47D, those are the most produced US fighter after all. :doh:

 

What I hope is that the relative performance of the P-51D will get improved, as talisman said, the new 44-1 and 72'hg or 75'hg power setting would make things equal. You see the idea is that you take two planes that have distinct strenghts. That way plane's feel unique.

 

You get no counter arguements from me that in all fairness, 72" (not 75", it wasn't operationally approved) should be there for the 51.

 

That being said, even with 72" what you will get is a 4.5 ton plane with 1800 HP against a plane with the same horsepower, but literally a ton lighter. I wouldn't expect miracles to happen.

 

Frankly, what I see is only the wish to romp-stomp poor early 1943 G-6s with the 'bestest' P-51 one can ever have. I have seen this wish in other flight sims, too. 'We will get P-40 and stomp , we will have a P-47 and stomp, we will have a P-38 and stomp, we will have a P-51 and stomp.' These fantasies usually involve the opposing players being noobs, and having to struggle with some old, hopelessly obsolete type against Allied superplanes with superfuels and supergunsights. And when that fantasy collides with reality, the mind starts to make up excuses...

 

You already do not have to bother with a weakly armed P-51B or C with a birdcage canopy and various teething issues, you already have the definitive D model with a late 1944 computing gunsight. You also want it to have the highest possible boost version, and not only that, it would be even finer if the opposition would be an early 1943 G-6... I'd say you are already fairly set and yet asking for even more.

 

What I see to fail is the point. The K-4 is already there, its modelled, and it won't disappear. Its not even the most powerful, fully rated 2000 HP variant. But its every bit the lightweight power-monster it historically was, so try to deal with it - 8th AAF fighter pilots managed, I am sure you can too. It has weaknesses as well.

 

With K4 against current 67'hg P-51D, the 51 pilot has to be way better to win or have a numerical advantage or the K4 driver has to make a very grave mistake. Either way currently the K4 has nearly every advantage the fighter plane needs to be successful.

 

Luthier picked it and now we have it (and I am very glad he picked the definitive 109, just as he picked the definitive P-51, 47 and Merlin Spitfire). Its not going to go away. So just... deal with it, okay?

Edited February 15, 2016 by Kurfürst

[rel4y]

I very much agree with Kurfursts line of argumentation. I just would like to add on more thought.

 

I wasnt sure initially, but I just looked it up. Metal elevator P-51Ds first arrived over Europe in February 1945. As we have metal elevators modeled in the DCS version, it must be an early 1945 P-51D.

 

PS: Now mind, I am just going by the rivet looks of the 3D model on them here. Feel free to correct me. Also the -25NA blocks were the first to be fitted with rocket attachment points.

Edited February 15, 2016 by rel4y

[NineLine]

I still say, as I always have... I would like to see the P-51D in its historical role, along with the German fighters more worried about those bombers that those Mustangs were escorting... and I would like to see what that would do to the scenarios we have. Thats not even mentioning the German fighters being outnumbered, or out skilled in some cases...

 

Its hard to judge the Mustang against history when we aren't flying it like they did historically... Right now its more WWII Quake... and honestly... I am not so sure, 1 on 1, equal skill, the German planes wouldn't do better than some people think.

[MAD-MM]

SiThSpAwn you be more then right, because Mustang's main roll was with his high altitude Engine to protect the bomber long range fighter..

German Fighters are still struggle in this altitude...

And can also not understand this childish behaviour about the fuel...

Can I have then my Dora with C3 Fuel?

[NineLine]

Can I have then my Dora with C3 Fuel?

 

I have feature requested that all fuels be looked at, and the ability for the Mission Designer to assign which fuels are available, as well as limited supplies, etc.

[rel4y]

I still say, as I always have... I would like to see the P-51D in its historical role, along with the German fighters more worried about those bombers that those Mustangs were escorting... and I would like to see what that would do to the scenarios we have. Thats not even mentioning the German fighters being outnumbered, or out skilled in some cases...

 

Its hard to judge the Mustang against history when we aren't flying it like they did historically... Right now its more WWII Quake... and honestly... I am not so sure, 1 on 1, equal skill, the German planes wouldn't do better than some people think.

 

I completely agree. The main strength and importance of the Pony was the enormous range. Continental european warbirds at the time had a flight endurance of ~1.5 hours. Now the Pony could escort Bombers deep into enemy territory. Even though the close escort missions right after introduction went badly as germans amassed fighters and attacked frontally only once, the change in paradigm soon afterwards brought the P-51 to full potential. The following fighter sweep missions crippled the Luftwaffe and Göring even called the air war lost after almost 20% of Luftwaffe pilots were killed within a week.

 

People have a very false perception of the plane. It wasnt so much a highly potent dogfighter as much as it could shine with incredible endurance. The Me 262s shot down by P-51s were mostly after starting or right before landing of the mentioned. Look at Chuck Yeagers kills for example.

 

It was the right plane for the right job! In DCS some people feel cheated because of unrealistic expectations. In real life, pilots in addition had to put up with keeping fuel levels high enough to be able to return to their home base 500-600 miles away.

Edited February 15, 2016 by rel4y

[Solty]

@Kurfurst and @rel4y

The P-51D Mustang is not only a fuel truck. A very good site about P-51's history http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/production

 

By twisting facts and saying "it is not rare" when you can clearly see it is rare you do nothing good to the community. I took that data from German wiki, namely the table "Produktion der Bf 109 bis zum 30. November 1944".

 

P-51D blocks didn't change their engines! That is not the same. It is the same plane just little improvments or changes like stabilizing fin, wing racks etc. The difference between K4 and G14 is like between P-51D and P-51H. A new engine model and many other changes.

 

Anyway, the 72'hg or 75'hg will not make P-51D clearly superior. Because that is not the point. But it will level the playing ground for 1v1 action.

@MAD-MM

I do not understand how someone cannot see that every little piece of a puzzle is important. War is not just plane A vs plane B. It is strategy, logistics, tactics, aircraft and their weapon systems, then losses and victories, initiative, fighting capablity, production rate etc. Types of fuel and engine ratings are just as important as any other aspect.

 

@Sith

I agree with you on that. The airplane is surely out of it's comfort zone. But it will never be in it. My long experience with aircraft sims shows that most servers and players create/like missions that are quick and short. I myself do not like to fly too much without action. And even if that was the case, and missions were long and altitudes high and we had bombers to escort, we would still be far away from what makes a mission. That is leadership, cooperation and discipline. Which you will never find in an average multiplayer match. And I think that you will agree that a match in which you fly 3h to the target and stay there for 30min to go home (if one survives) for another 3h is not going to be interesting.

[rel4y]

@Kurfurst and @rel4y

The P-51D Mustang is not only a fuel truck. A very good site about P-51's history http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/production

 

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/variants/p51d

 

Nice site. It even quotes the exact same thing I just did.

 

One of the most important improvements to the P-51 was not structural. The K-14 gun sight was introduced in October of 1944 to the -20NA and later blocks. This new gun sight helped the pilots score more hits especially in higher deflection angle attacks. The K-14 utilized an analog computer. The pilot had to dial in the wingspan of the enemy aircraft and the range. Then all he had to do (sounds easy) was to put the enemy aircraft in the gun sight and pull the trigger.

Metal elevators were added in February 1945. The P-51D continued to have a fabric rudder.

 

Here is a link to the first P-51D-20NA to receive metal elevators. S/N44-63560, the 401st produced P-51D-20NA.

http://www.americanairmuseum.com/aircraft/18937

 

P-51D blocks didn't change their engines! That is not the same. It is the same plane just little improvments or changes like stabilizing fin, wing racks etc. The difference between K4 and G14 is like between P-51D and P-51H. A new engine model and many other changes.

 

You do know that the MSL output power of G14 motors, be it AM, ASM or ASB was 1800 HP. The DB had 1850 HP, thats a 50HP increase.

 

The P-51D had a 1685HP motor and the P-51H 2200HP. Thats a 515HP difference, so factor 10 to the difference of G14 to K4. You will probably want to rethink your statement now.

Edited February 15, 2016 by rel4y

[NineLine]

@Sith

I agree with you on that. The airplane is surely out of it's comfort zone. But it will never be in it. My long experience with aircraft sims shows that most servers and players create/like missions that are quick and short. I myself do not like to fly too much without action. And even if that was the case, and missions were long and altitudes high and we had bombers to escort, we would still be far away from what makes a mission. That is leadership, cooperation and discipline. Which you will never find in an average multiplayer match. And I think that you will agree that a match in which you fly 3h to the target and stay there for 30min to go home (if one survives) for another 3h is not going to be interesting.

 

But thats not on ED, ED is making a simulation, it requires missions that simulated to the best of our abilities realistic scenarios. You lose your rights to complain about the P-51 if you not willing to put it where it belongs ;)

 

I would totally fly a real P-51 escort mission... I cant wait to one day.

[Solty]

 

The P-51D had a 1685HP motor and the P-51H 2200HP. Thats a 515HP difference, so factor 10 to the difference of G14 to K4. You will probably want to rethink your statement now.

 

P-51D had 1720HP with 67'hg and if you push it to the British 25lbs standard or 81'hg for the Mustang IV you will get something near 2000HP

 

But thats not on ED, ED is making a simulation, it requires missions that simulated to the best of our abilities realistic scenarios. You lose your rights to complain about the P-51 if you not willing to put it where it belongs

 

I would totally fly a real P-51 escort mission... I cant wait to one day.

Well, I imagine that not many people have 8 hours of spare time to fly a P-51D in a simulation. Also, that will result in venous thrombosis.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Solty

[NineLine]

 

Well, I imagine that not many people have 8 hours of spare time to fly a P-51D in a simulation. Also, that will result in venous thrombosis.

 

You probably dont need to go full 100% simulation of an escort flight, you can work out some of the boring parts creatively. But I wouldnt be opposed to a long range mission, heck I just flew around NTTR on a fam flight, took quite a while, was no action, but it was immersive.

[Vincent90]

@Solty: I don't understand the discussion.

 

According to your own numbers, for every four 109 G-14 there was one 109 K. And those numbers discount the fact that production was ramping up rapidly, with 325 deliveries in december '44.

 

What does numbers also don't show is the strength and composition of the Luftwaffe during 1944.

 

You're acting like the Dora and Kurfurst was like the Me 163, or the Ta-152 even. Like Kurfurst wrote: The Kurfurst was by no means a rare bird.

[Solty]

It is just a difference between rare and nearly non-existant. Tiger I was a rare sight on the battlefield, but that doesn't mean it was nearly non-existant like the Sturmtiger.

 

43 Ta152 were made overall (not counting pre-production stuff and prototypes). That is nearly non-existant, especially in 1944.

533 is rare for K4, when most planes in LW are G14, G6 and Fw190A8 and F8 which can be counted in thousands. And not only that, you also have to remember that all of those planes could not be operational at the same time.

[Kurfürst]

Right.

 

So we have the P-51D-25, which saw service in October 1944 (early 1945 if we count for the metal ailerons), correct? We also have the K-4 & D-9 in its late 1944 state.

 

And if this site

 

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/production

 

is accurate no more than 2200 P-51D-25s were made (1600 in Inglewood, 600 in Dallas).

 

Now if I follow Solty's arguement, these ca. 2200 P-51D-25s first appearing in October 1944 are supposed to be COMMON, while the 1600 K-4s and 1700 or so D-9s produced (a total of ca 3300), both of which appeared also in October 1944, are RARE. :doh:

[jester_]

@Sith

I agree with you on that. The airplane is surely out of it's comfort zone. But it will never be in it. My long experience with aircraft sims shows that most servers and players create/like missions that are quick and short. I myself do not like to fly too much without action. And even if that was the case, and missions were long and altitudes high and we had bombers to escort, we would still be far away from what makes a mission. That is leadership, cooperation and discipline. Which you will never find in an average multiplayer match. And I think that you will agree that a match in which you fly 3h to the target and stay there for 30min to go home (if one survives) for another 3h is not going to be interesting.

 

I think you underestimate the average simmer.

 

While everyone likes action, of course, I think you'd be surprised at the amount of people who will sit down and fly a long range escort mission for three hours with no contact whatsoever. I can direct you to a certain F-16 sim in which people do it every day, and another WWII sim in which people sit down and fly patrols and escorts for five hours straight with no contact.

[rel4y]

It actually seems to be a block 30-NA or at least to be in a 30-NA configuration, which would be post war (ETO) nontheless. Take a look at the thread i recently opened.

[MAD-MM]

And this Produaction Numbers who cares? Germany was Months before the end of War, and constantly under pressure of Bombing raids it's stunning they even can produce in the last month such output of planes. According to history we have to fly G6/14 with produaction flaws in endurance and performance.

[Talisman_VR]

Tempest MkV alongside the Spit and P51D would be just a perfect match for the Dora, K-4 and Me 262 time line.

Than add some larger bomber types, for both sides, and the dream comes true; you know it makes sense :thumbup:

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Reflected]

Guys, I think we are spoiled here :)

 

Coming from another sim I must say that if our biggest concern is whether or not the opposing planes are historically well matched, and the discussion is about 3-4 months time, then we must be thankful for not having some LOT more serious FM anomalies that make historical matchups go straight out through the window.

[DarkRaiderss]

Last I checked this is not a historical reenactment. These are three planes that could have met in combat (and probably did on occasion). This isn't about what was the most likely matchup. I am not looking to fly a poorly built slave labor plane that was repaired from cannibalized parts on a frontline airfield.

 

We have three comparable aircraft with which to play a video game with. There is virtually nothing historical in ww2 DCS but what we have is a lot of fun and I'm excited for the future. All that being said I do want all the planes to be as accurately modeled as possible.

[RoflSeal]

Right.

 

So we have the P-51D-25, which saw service in October 1944 (early 1945 if we count for the metal ailerons), correct? We also have the K-4 & D-9 in its late 1944 state.

 

And if this site

 

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/production

 

is accurate no more than 2200 P-51D-25s were made (1600 in Inglewood, 600 in Dallas).

 

Now if I follow Solty's arguement, these ca. 2200 P-51D-25s first appearing in October 1944 are supposed to be COMMON, while the 1600 K-4s and 1700 or so D-9s produced (a total of ca 3300), both of which appeared also in October 1944, are RARE. :doh:

 

P-51D were retrofitted in the field to bring up to the latest production block whenever possible, with the tail fin, elevators and so-on.

 

This has been pretty much standard in the USA(A)F. Only example USAAF wartime aircraft example that I can find that doesn't fit this rule is P-47D, you couldn't change from birdcage to bubble canopy.

 

But P-51B-5 could be retrofitted to B-15 standard, F-86F-1 retrofitted to all the way to F-40 standard, F-16A block 5 retrofitted to Block 15 MLU, F-35 block 1 retrofitted to block 3i.