Relative performance of the Mustang, the 109 and the 190

[Zimmerdylan]

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.

 

 

 

This is exactly where I am with DCS. I cannot pull from the Mustang any kind of performance that I am satisfied with. But I can push the 109 to it's limits and use it successfully and enjoy it. Is it historically accurate? It's really hard to say, but really.....who cares? I personally do not get much from the Mustang, and when I say that DCS sells it short, I'm only posting my opinion. The truth is that I don't have any issues flying any plane so long as I can feel good about what I'm doing. It's not WWII and we're not putting our lives on the line here. Thank God for that, or I'd of been buried and gone a loooong time ago.

As for this variant of this and that variant of that on these planes. I think that ED certainly pays attention to much of these things but as in everything, there are differences from the sim and reality. This has been discussed on the forums over and over about every A.C. here. So I don't really pay much attention to the charts and graphs from this variation or that one. I pay more attention to what I can do with the A.C. and my experience with it in the sim. That's all that counts for me.

[DarkRaiderss]

I've been flying warbirds in DCS for about two months now. I have all three but almost exclusively fly the 109. I've always liked the plane and enjoy is temperamental nature as well as its older style cockpit (compared to the other two). I can't say if any of them are modeled to historical accuracy but these have a more realistic feel than some of the sims I've played in the past.

 

If the mustang, or other other two for that matter, is not accurately modeled then I'm all for correcting the issue. I'm not swayed by arguments about historical accuracy as to the most likely matchups in the sky over France/Germany. There are innumerable factors that led to matchups that I feel that ED is not trying to replicate. The planes involved existed at the same time and place. At least it's not a Luftwaffe 1946 scenario with planes that were prototypes or only existed as blueprints.

[NineLine]

If the mustang, or other other two for that matter, is not accurately modeled then I'm all for correcting the issue.

 

Its less about that and more about people wanting a different variant of the D than what we currently have.

[Foul Ole Ron]

Don't see any issue with having the K-4 as it was a relatively common front-line plane. The Mustang probably should have a 72" WEP rating in line with the 8th AF standard from mid-44.

[Terribletwo]

Maybe more thought should have been given to the models being introduced into ww2 DCS. THE P40 next? What the heck are we supposed to do with that? Completely unfit for combat vs the 109k and 190d9.

[NineLine]

Maybe more thought should have been given to the models being introduced into ww2 DCS. THE P40 next? What the heck are we supposed to do with that? Completely unfit for combat vs the 109k and 190d9.

 

VEAO's offerings are about what interest them, and what they have available to work with, its not about the 1944 package ED is working on. That said, back during WWII, they didnt have very good game balance, so there has been sone evidence shown that some P-40s might have mixed it up with these versions of 190s at least, I cant remember where it was shown or stated.

Edited February 16, 2016 by NineLine

[Echo38]

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.

 

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.

 

I don't think anyone is asking for anything of the sort. I said that a G-6 would be a ~balanced match for our factory P-51D, not the best P-51D configuration. There's a huge difference between factory and best. Yes, anything better than a factory P-51D would be gross overkill for a standard G-6. An 81" P-51D, or even a 72" P-51D, would be a ridiculous match for a G-6, and it's a strawman to suggest that this is what I/we want. I want no such mismatch.

 

67" P-51D vs. 109G-6 would surely be a fair match, at least at normal multiplayer altitudes. While the G-6 is an earlier airplane than the D, the G-6 was still a common enough opponent for the P-51D, historically. The two would be on roughly even footing in multiplayer (P-51 having a bit more speed, 109G-6 having better climb & turn). The G-6 would struggle at high altitudes, yes, but how often do DCS users fight up at 30,000+ ft.? And there's still room for play with different configurations of G-6, to get the closest match when taking high-alt into consideration, too.

 

The 72" P-51D would be best matched with something like an Me 109G-14, I think. Not entirely sure exactly which 109 model/block/configuration would be the best match (competitive & historical). 72" P-51D is probably still a bit too weak for the K-4 configuration we have, at least at low/medium alt, but 72" is clearly too strong for a G-6. Besides, there's too much of a chronological difference between the latter two, even though there was likely some overlap. Thus, a 109 somewhere between G-6 and K-4 would be best match for a 72" P-51.

 

The 109K is a bit of a puzzle. As I understand it, we've got a K-4 that's on (or near) the upper end of the historical range. It's running 1.8 ata with MW50, which is the most high-end configuration which is known to have seen mass combat use, right? 1.8 ata with MW50 is more powerful than 1.8 without MW50, but not as powerful as 1.98 ata. But it's also doubtful whether the 1.98 saw mass combat use. Did I get all that right? I'm not an expert on the K-4, I'm afraid.

 

Now, the best competitive match for our {1.8 ata + MW50} K-4 would be the 75" P-51D, as far as I can tell. However, I don't think that this was a historically-common match; while I suspect that there were 75" P-51Ds which occasionally encountered 109Ks, I've never seen official documentation to that effect. Thus, I wouldn't actually suggest this match be implemented, as long as there is doubt that 75" was a standard configuration.

 

Meanwhile, in order to find a competitive match for a 109K that's configured to the max (1.98 ata), we'd probably need to go all the way up to the 81" boost which (I've been told) the British used on their Mustangs. Obviously, that'd be quite excessive for the 1.8 ata 109K. It might even be overkill for the 1.98 ata K-4; I really don't know. On one hand, 81" is crazy-high; on the other hand, the 109 is quite a bit lighter, and 1.98 ata is also a pretty damn high pressure. IMO, this "match" is pretty dodgy, on both sides; neither one seems to have been very common, and I'm not a fan of the "arms race to superplanes." I personally would not want to see either 81" or 1.98 ata; this is a hypothetical matchup, to get a better picture of the overall comparison between the two aircraft (e.g. how far from the extremes are the current & suggested ratings).

 

The good news is that there are plenty of models/blocks/configurations for the pair, which faced each other commonly enough to be rightly called a historical match, and that leaves plenty of room for picking models/blocks/configurations which are competitively balanced with each other (that is, which tend to score roughly even against each other, when both are flown by pilots who know the two ships well). The bad news is that it'd be quite a bit of work for Eagle Dynamics to implement every model/block/configuration, and so we can't expect any new models/blocks from them in the forseeable future. But that doesn't rule out additional (historical) horsepower ratings for the current engines.

 

I earnestly believe that the best solution overall would be a 72" P-51D to face our current 109K. 72" was definitely used extensively, so it's a historical match, and while the 72" P-51D still probably won't quite hold up to our K-4 at normal multiplayer altitudes, it'd be a lot closer to being even, competitively, than the current 67" one is. Increasing the MAP to 72" would also require the least amount of additional work for ED, so all three points (still historically common, improved competitive balance, & the least development time) point to this being the best solution, rather than asking ED to start adding lots of different models/blocks/configurations, or to incorporate configurations which aren't known to have been historically common.

 

 

 

Here's a list of all the matchups I've examined for the P-51D, with the current matchup and suggested matchup in bold text. Naturally, all of the ones which have a model other than 109K are off the table, for development workload reasons.

 

67" P-51D vs. higher-end 109G-6

72" P-51D vs. 109G-10

72" P-51D vs. 109G-14

67" P-51D vs. 1.8 109K - imbalance, P-51's favor?

67" P-51D vs. 1.8 MW50 109K - imbalance, 109's favor

72" P-51D vs. 1.8 MW50 109K - best balanced historical match for our 109K

75" P-51D vs. 1.8 MW50 109K - historically questionable

81" P-51D vs. 1.98 109K - historically dubious

 

There may be models/blocks/variants in between G-6 and K, which might be a more appropriate match than G-10 & G-14, but I don't hear much about the ones between G-6 and G-10.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Echo38
extensive rewrite for clarity

[Terribletwo]

And what of the better fuel that the P51 used? Why can't that be added as well?

[jester_]

That said, back during WWII, they didnt have very good game balance, so there has been sone evidence shown that some P-40s might have mixed it up with these versions of 190s at least, I cant remember where it was shown or stated.

 

This is the most important quote ever in the history of combat flight sim, specifically WWII.

[Echo38]

And what of the better fuel that the P51 used? Why can't that be added as well?

 

FYI: some of the slighter increases in WEP rating on some of these birds didn't require a special fuel type. I don't know about the P-51, specifically, but the P-38J (factory WEP rating: 60") was officially authorized (& recommended) to run a few inches higher, on the standard fuel. It was the more extreme increases which officially required the special high-grade fuel (which came with its own problems, by the way). It's been a while, and I don't remember all the details, but I do have a few copies of document scans authorizing 64," 66," & 70" for the P-38J & L, and at least one of those ratings was cleared for the standard fuel, with the caveat that it'd wear out the engines faster than the same rating on the recommended fuel. I'm pretty sure the P-51 went through a similar process, but I don't remember for sure; sorry. You can find this stuff on Mike William's site. There might be other resources, too, but I don't know of any (and would love to hear if anyone does).

 

One thing to bear in mind is that some of the higher ratings were cleared for testing, but not necessarily combat. For example, I'm looking at a scan right now which says that the P-38J was cleared for 75," but this appears to be a test document and not an authorization for combat. There may or may not have been an actual combat authorization for 75" P-38s; I don't have any such scans, and don't recall seeing any, so I currently assume that it wasn't authorized for combat. This approach, of course, should be taken with the P-51, as well. It can be easy to assume that a document clearing an airplane/engine for a certain rating means it saw widespread use, but this isn't necessarily the case. But some of the less-extreme increases (e.g. 72" on the P-51) have been well-documented.

 

Anyway, bit of a tangent. Main point was that a special fuel was not needed for a moderate increase in WEP rating, above factory, for at least some of these airplanes. It simply wore out the engines faster if the right fuel wasn't used, but it was judged a net benefit to have more emergency power available at the cost of increased engine failure risk (and I agree with the brass on this one).

Edited February 17, 2016 by Echo38

[RoflSeal]

I'm pretty sure all P-40F were retired from the Western front by 1944 lol.

 

I'm pretty sure there were no P-40 at all in active roles in Italy by the time the Dora entered service (and I'm pretty sure that was never used in Italy)

 

EDIT: Just checked, the P-40s were retired from Italy in July 18th 1944, 2 months before the Dora first entered service.

Edited February 17, 2016 by RoflSeal

[gavagai]

67" P-51D vs. 109G-6 would surely be a fair match, at least at normal multiplayer altitudes. While the G-6 is an earlier airplane than the D, the G-6 was still a common enough opponent for the P-51D, historically. The two would be on roughly even footing in multiplayer (P-51 having a bit more speed, 109G-6 having better climb & turn). The G-6 would struggle at high altitudes, yes, but how often do DCS users fight up at 30,000+ ft.? And there's still room for play with different blocks/configurations of G-6, to get the closest match when taking high-alt into consideration, too.

 

The 109G-6 might be even better than the 109K-4 for the type of combat we see in multiplayer. The Gustav is a lot slower, but still has good low-end acceleration. It has less weight, which is good for the low altitude turning contests we see, and the 20mm cannon is much better for deflection shooting or long-balling a running P-51.

 

I honestly don't see why people think the DCS 109K-4 is such hot stuff or so fear worthy. If you want to duel it, the 109K-4 will win. With any other type of tactical situation the 109K-4's poor handling and low-velocity Mk 108 cannon can be exploited. How much have you actually fought the 109K-4 in multiplayer, Josh? (not being snarky with that question, I remember you were prevented from flying as much as you'd like).

Edited February 17, 2016 by gavagai

[Solty]

The 109G-6 might be even better than the 109K-4 for the type of combat we see in multiplayer. The Gustav is a lot slower, but still has good low-end acceleration. It has less weight, which is good for the low altitude turning contests we see, and the 20mm cannon is much better for deflection shooting or long-balling a running P-51.

 

I honestly don't see why people think the DCS 109K-4 is such hot stuff or so fear worthy. If you want to duel it, the 109K-4 will win. With any other type of tactical situation the 109K-4's poor handling and low-velocity Mk 108 cannon can be exploited. How much have you actually fought the 109K-4 in multiplayer, Josh? (not being snarky with that question, I remember you were prevented from flying as much as you'd like).

 

You have aswered your own question:smilewink:. "If you want to duel it, the K4 will win". That makes for an more players that choose K4 on servers which ends in imbalance and additionally it creates a group of "better pilots" that think their capability to beat the P-51D is only connected to their "skill", which leads to some people beeing abusive on the server to others. Another problem it poses is that the "underdog" side requires very presistant players, which leads to very small playerbase on the Allied side. Another thing is that if you want to battle a clearly superior airplane you need teamwork and that is unachievable on open servers.

 

Ther are a lot of potential problems and there are countless discussions on every gaming forum about balance issues. The main problem with this is that it kills the longevity of a title, due to rising frustration of the playerbase.:book:

[NineLine]

ED will never play the balance game. If the goal is to model realistic fighters aircraft, then you are going to have imbalance no matter what you do, no matter what variants you make. Its just a fact of life.

 

ED's goals right now are to give us the ability to make more meaningful, historical missions and settings. Sounds like a much better goal. Nothing listed here is really going to ever even the playing field.

[Solty]

ED will never play the balance game. If the goal is to model realistic fighters aircraft, then you are going to have imbalance no matter what you do, no matter what variants you make. Its just a fact of life.

 

ED's goals right now are to give us the ability to make more meaningful, historical missions and settings. Sounds like a much better goal. Nothing listed here is really going to ever even the playing field.

The 72'hg will. At least it will make P-51D a little bit faster and that will make the fight against the 109 winnable in 1v1 situation. Because of the possiblity to extend or even run away in cerain circumstances.

 

While the Fw190D9 vs P-51D balance will remain the same. I think that actually D9 vs P-51 is pretty good matchup, even with the current lacking in speed P-51. But I think that this matchup would become more interesting with addition of the new power setting. The Fw190 will still be faster, but tactics will play more of a role, because it won't be able to disengage at will, but still will have advantages.

 

Me262 can be balanced out by the mission makers. It will also not be such an amazing plane for the altitude we mostly fight at.

 

I think that overall the game is not really very unbalanced... but the K4 vs P-51 certainly is problematic, and the sooner ED would create the new power setting, the better for all.

[NineLine]

The 72'hg will. At least it will make P-51D a little bit faster and that will make the fight against the 109 winnable in 1v1 situation. Because of the possiblity to extend or even run away in cerain circumstances.

 

ED isnt trying to make a 1v1 game though. The goal would be to put the P-51s where they belong, and where they operated during '44. If you put them there, chances are the benefits of 72'hg will be hard to notice in most situations. If you use something outside where it was used, chances are you will find shortcomings.

 

Here is what balance in DCS World looks like... fly your P-51s versus these guys:

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by NineLine

[Solty]

That is not true. Have you never heard about the concept of "assymetrical balance"? It is when you pick units that are different, and yet create a situation where one plane can be used to utilise one tactic and other can use another to defeat each other.

 

For example. If we take F6F3 vs A6M5 we get one plane that is a very good low speed turner and has amazing handling at low speed, and another plane that is faster with a bit better high speed characterstics. Yes the faster plane has the advantage to stay fast, but if he will stay fast, he will have nearly no ability to engage the slow flying zero. So he has to commit a bit to shoot it down and pull deflection, but if he overcommits, he will engage the turning fight, the Zero will win. If he is conservative the F6F will win or the fight will end with both of them bugging out.

 

The fight is inherently balanced because there are two extremes that utilise their completely unbalanced capabilities to the fullest.

 

 

EDIT: That is why Fw190D9 vs P-51D is balanced. Because the Dora is faster and has better roll rate at low speed. But P-51D is a better turner at lower speeds and has better roll rate at high speed. They both have advantages to use against each other, that are not inherently much better than the enemy.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Solty

[Zimmerdylan]

VEAO's offerings are about what interest them, and what they have available to work with, its not about the 1944 package ED is working on. That said, back during WWII, they didnt have very good game balance, so there has been sone evidence shown that some P-40s might have mixed it up with these versions of 190s at least, I cant remember where it was shown or stated.

 

I remember when the P-51 first came out and people were complaining about the issue of practicality. "It has no place here" yet many of us rushed to purchase it. So I am 100% behind anyone who puts out a module based on their personal interests. If I am also interested, I'll certainly purchase it (The P-40 is on my short list). There are several modern modules that I own that I never use in real combat roles. The Hawk is a lot of fun, but I have yet to even arm it.

For many of us, it's more about enjoying the thought of flying and less about every detail being accurate. It's just not practical to think that any of these planes are close to their real world counterparts, there are just way too many factors involved. It's the nature of the beast.

 

 

Just a curiosity question: How many of you guys come out ahead over the 109 in a P-51 more often than not? I cannot get a majority victory stat over it no matter what I do. But, I tend to be able to fly the 109 much better, even with it's unforgiving nature.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Zimmerdylan

[rel4y]

It is quite interesting that the Dora is considered the inferior plane. It is actually the most evolved dogfighter of the three in my eyes. Perfect control harmony, more than adequate armament, good energy retention and in general no flaws. People are simply not employing it the right way, rarely they make use of the superior roll rate.

 

Take a look at guys like Ze Hairy on youtube an learn. He would rape pretty much all the P-51 pilots I have seen online even if they had korean era birds. Or look at guys like Karaya, gr00ve over at CloD, they simply destroy everyone. When they fly for RAF side they diminish the germans even though some allied fanboys complain all the time about being at a disadvantage.. Its the same everywhere really. :huh:

[NineLine]

Sorry, but you ignore too many factors that would effect that 'balance'. Its not realistic to expect to ever achieve that, and thats not what wars have ever been about. You don't aim to be even with someone.

 

That is not true. Have you never heard about the concept of "assymetrical balance"? It is when you pick units that are different, and yet create a situation where one plane can be used to utilise one tactic and other can use another to defeat each other.

 

For example. If we take F6F3 vs A6M5 we get one plane that is a very good low speed turner and has amazing handling at low speed, and another plane that is faster with a bit better high speed characterstics. Yes the faster plane has the advantage to stay fast, but if he will stay fast, he will have nearly no ability to engage the slow flying zero. So he has to commit a bit to shoot it down and pull deflection, but if he overcommits, he will engage the turning fight, the Zero will win. If he is conservative the F6F will win or the fight will end with both of them bugging out.

 

The fight is inherently balanced because there are two extremes that utilise their completely unbalanced capabilities to the fullest.

 

 

EDIT: That is why Fw190D9 vs P-51D is balanced. Because the Dora is faster and has better roll rate at low speed. But P-51D is a better turner at lower speeds and has better roll rate at high speed. They both have advantages to use against each other, that are not inherently much better than the enemy.

[Zimmerdylan]

It is quite interesting that the Dora is considered the inferior plane. It is actually the most evolved dogfighter of the three in my eyes. Perfect control harmony, more than adequate armament, good energy retention and in general no flaws. People are simply not employing it the right way, rarely they make use of the superior roll rate.

 

Take a look at guys like Ze Hairy on youtube an learn. He would rape pretty much all the P-51 pilots I have seen online even if they had korean era birds. Or look at guys like Karaya, gr00ve over at CloD, they simply destroy everyone. When they fly for RAF side they diminish the germans even though some allied fanboys complain all the time about being at a disadvantage.. Its the same everywhere really. :huh:

 

I love the Dora. I can easily outfly the P-51 in it. I think it's a great plane!

[Solty]

The balance is there as long as one of the oponents has an advantage in one of the crucial fields.

 

P-51D vs Fw190D is a perfect example of such balanced fighting. With those two planes fighting each other you can never be sure which will emerge victorious. They both have very similar performace, but very different flight characteristics. That creates for an interesting fight.

 

P-51D 67'hg vs Bf109K4 is not a balnced fight, because the K4 has two of the most important factors during a dogfight in which it is superior. Speed and turn time.

P-51D with 72'hg is going to be more balanced because the P-51D will become faster just a bit and that will make the fight more of a battle of wits and capablity to use your plane to maximum. The K4 will still accelerate better, climb better, turn better and have better low speed control. Just the P-51D will now be able to extend and run.

 

And that is also representative of what IRL both those plane's were about. Different tactics and knowledge of the enemy plane.

 

Balance creates longevity for the title. Nobody wants to get his butt kicked all the time. And an average DCS P-51D player now is loosing. It is not about me, because I can handle myself, and yes I loose to many very good K4 players, but I hate to go into a server which has 11 people online and see that only 2 of those people are P-51D, most of the enemy team consists of K4's. And that can be quickly fixed with 72'hg rating.

 

Why 72' or 75' and not 81? That is because 81' was only used by the british and I don't like to have an unhistorical advantage.

 

Remember that those power settings are all historical, just one of them is not used by the USAAF.

 

It is both balanced and historical.

[Terribletwo]

I flew the P51 online numerous times without a single kill.

 

I bought the Dora after 20 or so missions in the P51 and immediately got 2 kills in my first sortie, online.

 

 

This proves something in my mind.

 

1- getting a kill in WW2 was difficult. online games where folks land with 5 kills every other sortie is absurd and unrealistic. It took numerous missions to get a kill.

 

2- shows how crappy german pilots were, generally speaking. I'm a crappy pilot and I'd been dead my first P51 mission in WW2. But the Dora in the hands of a crappy pilot like me resulted in two kills.

 

3- The Dora in the hands of american pilots would have been a slaughter x2.

 

 

Imagine February 1945, you just jumped down from your Cessna training mission and your commander says, now take that Dora and go kill P51's...That was pretty much the state of german pilots by then, with few exceptions.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Terribletwo

[Zimmerdylan]

[ame]

[/ame]

 

[ame]

[/ame]

 

 

I tend to go with these two videos on the performance level of the 109 and P-51.

[NineLine]

bunch of words...

 

So many things are missing still. Balance is not real in WWII. War is and has always been about developing weapon systems to give you the edge against your enemy.

 

You also are over estimating the benefit of the higher boost of an aircraft cruising at high altitudes in an escort role.

 

You balance doesnt include, condition of the aircraft, skill of the pilots, weather, time of day, on and on. I dont fly DCS for a balanced game, I fly DCS for a simulation of WWII aircraft. Fly Air Quake is not a WWII experience for me, and I wont judge the aircraft we have based on that.

 

I never want to see ED balancing their sim based on most of the factors you listed.