72"

[Buzzles]

Under <10% differences in certain performance figures aren't going to do anything except when you're theory crafting contrived engagements.

 

The thing that's going to transform the P-51D isn't 72" MAP, it isn't the change to a ETO variant, it's going to be the new damage modelling applied to all the aircraft in DCS.

 

That dear fellows, is going to make a much much bigger difference to the Mustang in DCS.

[Echo38]

You are using btw many of the same arguments you vigorously attacked me for on the 109 discussion recently.

 

I don't know what you mean. The only area in which I am aware of having erred in that discussion was my oversimplification of the relationship between thrust and drag, and even that was more like a bit of an overstatement. The basic point I was trying to make was valid, despite my shoddy phrasing of it.

 

Under <10% differences in certain performance figures aren't going to do anything except when you're theory crafting contrived engagements.

 

I'm afraid this is simply incorrect. When two highly-skilled pilots duel in sufficiently similar fighters, <5% differences in fighter performances do make or break the fight. Which is why we agree on fuel loads when duelling. I am not "theory crafting;" this is backed up by my thousands of hours of virtual dogfighting experience. It takes a very long time to become sufficiently adept at virtual dogfighting to be able to recognize the importance of such "small" differences in fighter ability, and—unfortunately—this means that those without that experience generally can't see it. That you can't see it does not mean that it is not true, however.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Echo38

[Buzzles]

Sorry, the "I have more experience so I therefore I'm right" argument is a terrible defence.

 

If you could back it up by recorded empirical evidence, or hell, even a repeatable simulation, using known constants where the only variable is the MAP, then I'd concede the point.

 

However, even over hundreds or thousands of hours, no duel is going to be exactly the same every time. Too many variables at play at once. You're never going to be able to prove that it wasn't one of those rather than the small % difference in performance that actually swung the fight in favour of one of the aircraft involved.

[Echo38]

Sorry, the "I have more experience so I therefore I'm right" argument is a terrible defence.

 

If you could back it up by recorded empirical evidence, or hell, even a repeatable simulation, using known constants where the only variable is the MAP, then I'd concede the point.

 

However, even over hundreds or thousands of hours, no duel is going to be exactly the same every time. Too many variables at play at once. You're never going to be able to prove that it wasn't one of those rather than the small % difference in performance that actually swung the fight in favour of one of the aircraft involved.

 

Looks like it's story time? Oh, joy.

 

So there was a guy named Peter, in Rise of Flight. I trained him—kinda. It feels more like he trained himself, really. Anyway, I walked him through his first takeoff ... later practiced dogfighting with him all the time. I had more flight experience (several times as much, even today), but he had more natural talent. By the time we stopped duelling regularly, maybe a year later, he was a slightly better duellist than me.

 

Peter & I duelled each other so often, so many dozens (hundreds?) of hours, that when we picked two similar fighters (our primary matchup was Sopwith Camel versus Fokker Dr. I), for the majority of our duels, the outcome was roughly fifty-fifty. That is, most of the time, on any given day, we'd win and lose approximately equal numbers of times, regardless of which of us was flying which of those two fighters. Since we almost always flew at the same fuel loads as each other, the most common factor determining who would win more on a given day was who was more tired (or who had a headache, or who hadn't warmed up yet, etc.).

 

That's what I mean by "highly-skilled pilots duelling in sufficiently similar fighters." Anyway, the major plot point: one time, we did our usual duelling practice session, with Peter in the Camel and me in the Dr. I. In that matchup, usually Peter would win in the sustained turn, forcing me to utilize scissors & stall climbs to try to gain the upper hand. However, that day, I found that I was slowly but steadily out-turning him. I said to him (on voice chat), "Peter, are you sure you took 20%?" He replied, "Yes, as we agreed." But I kept out-turning him, and eventually forced him to attempt scissors, instead. As the Camel was inferior in scissors, I shot him down.

 

I said, "Peter, you felt heavy. Check your fuel." So he did, and guess what? He had accidentally taken 25% instead of 20%. I felt it, from how my fighter was beating his in a sustained turn, in a matchup where the inverse was usually true (but by a narrow margin).

 

I don't know exactly what that was in terms of total aircraft mass, but of course it was much less than 5% (because, obviously, the fuel mass isn't 100% of the total aircraft mass). For comparison, a P-38 taking 25% instead of 20% fuel would have a (very roughly) 1% increase in total aircraft mass—although I doubt that's the best comparison, because I think the P-38 had a higher ratio of fuel mass to total mass than the Sopwith Camel. But, you see the point: Peter's fighter was less than 5% (and probably less than 1%) heavier than usual, and I was able to notice this in a blind test.

 

When two pilots are experienced enough (Peter and I were both statistically in the top 1% of the community, at the time), and using a familiar fighter matchup which is also a close match (which Camel versus Dr. I was, in Rise of Flight at the time), a <5% difference in aircraft performance can be a larger factor than any other in the duel. Granted, this is an unusual example (most pilots don't practice competitive duelling, and even most competitive duellists aren't so close in skill & familiarity), but you see my point, I hope. I'm speaking from solid experience, not simply "theorycrafting."

Edited April 22, 2017 by Echo38

[Solty]

Firstly, 67' that reaches 375mph is not optimistic, it is an actual test, not a calculation. Secondly, that P51D reaches the 375mph with wing racks attached.

 

There is another test of a P51B reaching 380mph with 75hg and wing racks on and 388mph with them off, but what is interesting is that P51B is going only 364mph with 67'.

 

This means that there is an increase of 16mph from just the power and additional 8mph from wing racks.

 

It is a common misconception that D is less aerodynamic than B due to the bubble canopy. But D version sports few refinements like better wing racks and better gun ports that cut less speed. If we add that 8mph to the rackless P-51B we get 372mph at 67'. The main reason why D version is suppose to be worse aerodynamically is due to early P-51D having stability issues due to lack of the tail fin.

 

Now with our block that doesn't matter and with refined wing racks and gunports the P51D reaches 375mph. Add more power let's say 75' that would push it to higher sustained numbers. 391mph maybe? Who knows but I think its plausible that rackless P51D could easily achieve that 388mph of the P51B with the same power and I think its quite safe to assume so.

 

Edited April 23, 2017 by Solty

[otto]

Now comparing to the Dora, the Dora will have pretty much no advantages left except low speed roll rate.

 

I can think of a few other advantages but that doesn't really matter because i've seen fw A pilots get 10 to one kill ratios vs planes from 45 like tempest spit XIV...

I think that when more aircraft make their way into the game there will be more variation and things will improve.A scenario from 1944 where it's possible one side has an advantage and than a scenario from 1945 where the other side has and advantage.

[David OC]

Looks like it's story time? Oh, joy.

 

When two pilots are experienced enough (Peter and I were both statistically in the top 1% of the community, at the time), and using a familiar fighter matchup which is also a close match (which Camel versus Dr. I was, in Rise of Flight at the time), a <5% difference in aircraft performance can be a larger factor than any other in the duel. Granted, this is an unusual example (most pilots don't practice competitive duelling, and even most competitive duellists aren't so close in skill & familiarity), but you see my point, I hope. I'm speaking from solid experience, not simply "theorycrafting."

 

You're talking about the perfect match up in a perfect sterile PC simulated world, IRL this never would have happen tho.

 

Same fuel to weight, same height etc etc.

 

Talking about variances, the engines here were massed produced in wartime, what variance in performance would there have been across the board back then just for the engines alone IRL, 3%? more?

 

Ford eventually helped here by making changes so production could be more accurate and streamlined. Before that these engines were mostly hand crafted.

 

Quote

 

“V-12 engine is comprised of more than 14,000 individual parts. It was, and still is, often called “a watchmaker’s nightmare”

 

“Carburetors, magnetos, spark plugs, and similar items were sourced through American vendors and sub-contractors, although they were still manufactured to British specifications.”

 

http://www.tested.com/art/makers/492418-packard-merlin-how-detroit-mass-produced-britains-hand-built-powerhouse/

 

So there were many different companies building many different parts all around the world in wartime, there would have been some variance in performance per aircraft, no doubt. Even today with our production methods there are variances in performance still.

 

Another thing to consider is the simulation; some of these experts from these other Sims need to relearn how to get the most out of the aircraft in a much more accurate and less forgiving DCS Simulation.

 

It’s definitely going to be interesting seeing some of these “fair and equal setups” Pro competition duelling, once the damage model and spotting is polished up. I don’t believe in a simulator as good as DCS a few extra horsepower will help you or save your butt that much, it’s going to be the pilot that uses his aircraft more effectively in "this simulation" and makes no mistakes “Ice” man.

 

I do Hope there will be other better variations of the P-51 just to see this big difference, once the competitions start.

 

To me DCS is much closer to real life than any other sim and should be treated and used as such, not played out in a perfect sealed vacuum to be nice and perfectly fair.

 

I think if you were to battle it out 1vs1 and have a grand champion type event, the event itself would need to mix up the starts and have many variations anyway to really see how good the pilots are in coping with different start positions etc.

Edited April 24, 2017 by David OC

[Echo38]

Talking about variances, the engines here were massed produced in wartime, what variance in performance would there have been across the board back then just for the engines alone IRL, 3%? more?

 

So there were many different companies building many different parts all around the world in wartime, there would have been some variance in performance per aircraft, no doubt. Even today with our production methods there are variances in performance still.

 

Aircraft quality variation is not portrayed in DCS. We all spawn every time with fresh, identically-replicated examples. Yes, I (and Eagle Dynamics) are aware that real examples could vary dramatically in performance, even when factory-fresh (and especially after seeing extensive use). DCS, however, models an ideal situation, not actual wartime conditions (in which e.g. the late-war Me 109s tended to have shoddy construction due to factors such as material shortages and use of slave labor).

 

I think if you were to battle it out 1vs1 and have a grand champion type event, the event itself would need to mix up the starts and have many variations anyway to really see how good the pilots are in coping with different start positions etc.

 

I think you'd find that any flier capable of holding his own in duels with the best duellists in the world is already quite capable of dealing with varying conditions. The only area in which a dedicated duellist (such as myself) struggles compared to the average pilot is in teamwork. I don't work very well with allies, due to lack of experience flying in groups. But I was quite comfortable with the full range of starting positions. Indeed, on normal missions, I tended to fly NoE, for visibility reasons, meaning I was quite accustomed to beginning the fight at an E disadvantage. But I also was comfortable with high-altitude (e.g. 25,000+ ft.) dogfighting.

 

You must remember that even dedicated duellists, in flight sim-games, spend a lot of time in normal missions. Even if we wanted to exclusively duel, the fact is that, in any sim-game, at any given time, the option to duel a pilot of equal or greater skill usually isn't available. So we duellists aren't some sort of rare and elusive breed only seen in its natural habitat of the duelling server. : ) As a result, skilled duellists are quite proficient in other mission types, as well. For example, I managed to indefinitely keep a 21 to 0 kill ratio on a full-scale historical-style mission (17 of them while flying "underdog planes"), on the most popular public server in Rise of Flight at the time. Yet I'm more far more happy in the duel servers—even though I had little more than a 1-to-1 K/D there—because that's the single best way to maximize rate of learning about the art of dogfighting. And, to me, that's what it's all about. In a simulator, there's more to be proud of in losing well to a great pilot in a fair fight, than in shooting down all of the poor blighters in the world in battles stacked in your favor.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Echo38
checked page to be sure; it was 21, but only 17 of those were while flying an underdog plane

[Andy1966]

tell Clare Chennault that. Tactics , Tactics, and more Tactics

[Echo38]

tell Clare Chennault that. Tactics , Tactics, and more Tactics

 

In real life, one does what one has to do to stay alive, to win a war. This isn't real life. You don't have to be a complete dick to your opponent in a multiplayer simulator/game. Indeed, you shouldn't be. So, "anything goes" may be a great idea in a war, but it isn't good for multiplayer.

[saburo_cz]

I want a realistic simulation of dogfighting.

and dogfights during WWII was abou tactics...

so, what do you really want?

[Echo38]

Not all dogfights had more than two combatants. Most did, yes, but not all. Furthermore, mock combats regularly occurred which closely resembled the type of duelling I engage in. You can't pretend that this never happened, in order to sneer at my simulated dogfights.

[David OC]

I think Echo38 wants a perfect laboratory test room to fly in with these 1 vs 1 battles, so everything is just perfect in a little sealed test bubble.

 

I don't think having 72" is going to be a big game changer, yes it would be nice to have a little more power granted, but it really is a very small extra. In a sim like DCS with how the world and planes are modeled, the extra horsepower is negligible to all the dogfighting decision variables at play.

 

Looks like it's story time? Oh, joy.

 

Peter & I duelled each other so often, so many dozens (hundreds?) of hours, that when we picked two similar fighters (our primary matchup was Sopwith Camel versus Fokker Dr. I), for the majority of our duels, the outcome was roughly fifty-fifty. That is, most of the time, on any given day, we'd win and lose approximately equal numbers of times, regardless of which of us was flying which of those two fighters. Since we almost always flew at the same fuel loads as each other, the most common factor determining who would win more on a given day was who was more tired (or who had a headache, or who hadn't warmed up yet, etc.).

 

Another variable to consider here is the speed of the aircraft with your story above. You will of course see the speed difference much easier at 113 mph vs 364 mph.

 

That's not including the diving speeds available, as the speed increases the skill set would, judgment and decision making has to be much much quicker, gunnery becomes harder etc. At these speeds of ww2 aircraft, a little extra fuel weight is insignificant really to the combat picture.

 

Sopwith Camel top speed 182 km/h / 113 mph

Fokker Dr.I 185 km/h / 115 mph

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangIV-divetest.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_Dr.I#Specifications_.28Dr.I.29

[Echo38]

as the speed increases the skill set would, judgment and decision making has to be much much quicker

 

You'd think that, but in a dogfight, it isn't so. With our faster fighters, the turn times are increased, giving the pilots more time to plan ahead, to see things coming and react to them. In Rise of Flight, a fighter can reverse direction in three seconds or less. So, in a tight scissors fight, you're always 1.5 seconds away from a potential collision, or a shot opportunity (either his, yours, or both). In DCS, the fighters take much longer to turn around, being faster and heavier. This gives you plenty of time to see a potential collision and avoid it, or to see a shot being lined up and react accordingly.

 

The best pilots in RoF were constantly colliding with each other in duels. Multiple times per hour of duelling. It simply wasn't possible to react in the small window. In Second World War sim-games, however, the good pilots never, ever collide in a duel. There's simply more than enough time to react in those wide, low-rate, high-speed turns, compared to the twitchy little kites of the First World War, with their tight, high-rate, low-speed turns.

 

I think Echo38 wants a perfect laboratory test room to fly in with these 1 vs 1 battles, so everything is just perfect in a little sealed test bubble.

 

You mock me as though there were something wrong with wanting the two fighters to be a good match for each other in multiplayer. I think there's something wrong with wanting one fighter to be better than the other in multiplayer, rather than wanting them to be well-matched.

 

I don't think having 72" is going to be a big game changer, yes it would be nice to have a little more power granted, but it really is a very small extra.

 

As I said, to a serious competitor in any field, a ~7% advantage is a large one, not a "very small one." I'm sorry that you lack the experience to understand this, and to feel it, but you mustn't assume that because you and the average virtual pilot can't feel such a change, that better ones must not, either. We can and we do. It matters.

 

Several of my virtual flight students called a 12% disadvantage "almost nothing." Yet, guess who was losing in seconds during each dogfight, even without that disadvantage? I'll give you a hint: them, not me. ; )

The less experience you have, the less a given disadvantage matters to you, because your own margin of error is larger compared to that disadvantage. But the more skill one has, the smaller one's margin of error, the more that given disadvantage matters, by being larger in comparison to one's small errors.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Echo38

[Solty]

@ Those that claim higher power means very little.

You are starting to sound like British generals of WW1. You just heard about the Machinegun but it sounds usless and probably would have only bad effects and even if it had good ones like the aleged firepower it can be dealt with using the mad minute technique proving it usless in your eyes.

 

It's always the same debate, claiming that P51 players just should get better at it and that it all can be equalised by tactics... If that was the case nobody would go out of biplanes.

 

Try flying with that power. It is a game changer for P-51D. Everything gets strenghtened climb, acceleration and top speed, the plane becomes "lighter" to handle. Your insistance on the lack of any big impact shows that you have never flown in any other sim.

 

Listen, take MW50 out of your 109 and try to go to combat then and see if you don't spot the difference. I am not saying you will be helpless, of course not. Sure you will have plenty of kills with it, I assume, judging by your confidence, that you easily get stats of 5:0 and 9:1, but I can assure you that without that MW50 you will be much more careful and try only the easiest of aproaches, because if you mess up, that P-51D will eat you alive. Unless it is flown by a complete rookie.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Solty

[philstyle]

It's always the same debate, claiming that XX players just should get better at it and that it all can be equalised by tactics... If that was the case nobody would go out of biplanes.

.

 

I've seen this argument used since day one of online flight simming. The argument that the "pilot" wins the fight, and not the aircraft.

It's plain nonsense.

 

If machine performance did not matter, they would have downed-tools with the Fokker Eindecker and the DH-2. But we know that military suppliers constantly upgraded their machines in order to provide an edge over, or parity with, their opponents; and we have countless anecdotes from the pilots themsleves commenting on how important aircraft performance was.

 

That's not to say that pilot skill does NOT matter. But the only way to prove that pilot skill was the determining factor is to put the two pilots in the SAME aircraft, with the same starting energy sum.

 

The machine absolutely matters. In fact, the machine matters MORE than the pilot. We know this to be true, because we are entering the age of pilot-less aircraft.

Edited April 25, 2017 by philstyle

[David OC]

I do agree with you both and think the P51 should get the extra horsepower if they were very much around at the time of D-Day. I do enjoy all the ww2 planes in different ways and I'm no expert at any of them, I've watched many battles with very good pilots in these types of very different aircraft and most of the time it comes down to a simple mistake and not using the aircraft to it's strengths or just getting frustrated and doing something silly.

 

Like I said, cannot wait to see these types of battles in DCS over Normandy. Some live comp streams would be very cool of the pro's battling it out.

 

The machine absolutely matters. In fact, the machine matters MORE than the pilot. We know this to be true, because we are entering the age of pilot-less aircraft.

 

Of course everyone's looking for that edge "overall" moving forward etc, many many green pilots got shot down tho on both sides in ww2 and they were in the much better plane. Even now the US spends more than anyone else on have extremely trained pilots and this makes a huge difference if sent into battle, they even use A-10 sim for training lol. Germany made a big mistake of not pulling out their Aces so they could go and train up the new guy's.

 

Lest we forget, Anzac Day in Australia today.

Edited April 25, 2017 by David OC

[OnlyforDCS]

I've seen this argument used since day one of online flight simming. The argument that the "pilot" wins the fight, and not the aircraft.

It's plain nonsense.

 

 

No one here is making the argument that the different airframes don't matter. On the contrary. The different airframes are different enough to have their own quirks, their own strengths, their own weaknesses. DCS is the first, truly the first commercial simulator that is accurate enough to portray those differences to such a high degree of accuracy.

 

What some are arguing is that giving the Mustang 72" of manifold pressure is not going to be a magic "I win" button. It will still have to be flown to its strengths to maximise its effectiveness, and how many virtual pilots can claim to do that 100% of the time they are in the air?

 

Do you really think that if you are doing badly in the Mustang now, that it will make a difference? Suddenly your K/D will improve? No, this will benefit only the current Mustang aces who fly it to its limits already. If a pilot doesn't know how to use it properly this cca. 3% of extra speed will mean less than nothing.

 

The only thing that will make a significant difference (for pretty much everyone in the air, but the .50 cal armed fighters will benefit the most) is the new damage modeling (when it arrives).

Edited April 25, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[Pocket Sized]

Jeebus I did not mean to open this can of worms.

 

It's a small improvement, sure, but it's still an improvement nonetheless.

[MAD-MM]

What is the difference between Top Speed of the 109 and the P-51 68 HG in DCS?

[Echo38]

What is the difference between Top Speed of the 109 and the P-51 68 HG in DCS?

 

Not sure as to the exact number, but at normal multiplayer altitudes, it's very small. The reason why the 109 tends to dominate the P-51 is the same reason the Spitfire tends to dominate the 109; the top speed on paper is better for the latter, in each case, but the advantage in top speed is much smaller than the disadvantage in acceleration. One real Second World War pilot (I don't remember his name; sorry) called it "combat speed." That is, he said that the Spitfire had a higher "combat speed," even though it's actual top speed was technically higher. For the majority of a dogfight (including an attempt to disengage), the Spitfire is faster than the 109, and the 109 is faster than the P-51.

 

So, in a P-51, the only way to effectively get away from a 109 in normal multi-play is to be lucky enough to spot him at long range, and then simply refuse to engage. Once you've actually engaged in a dogfight (whether simple turn-and-burn or an intelligent energy fight), you've lost your opportunity to extend safely. It will take you at least a minute to exit gun range (that is, assuming it's a 109 with 20mm, unlike ours), in a low-altitude fight. The 109 will be faster for a large part of that extending phase, while the P-51 slowly accelerates back up to its top speed.

 

Of course, at high altitude, that changes, both because of the superchargers and because of the greater energy pool (being able to steeply dive away). But, I'm talking about normal multiplayer engagements, which are usually less than 10,000 feet (because, naturally, ~no one wants to spend 20 minutes climbing up to 25,000 feet and then returning to the target area, in between every fight).

[OnlyforDCS]

Not sure as to the exact number, but at normal multiplayer altitudes, it's very small. The reason why the 109 tends to dominate the P-51 is the same reason the Spitfire tends to dominate the 109; the top speed on paper is better for the latter, in each case, but the advantage in top speed is much smaller than the disadvantage in acceleration. One real Second World War pilot (I don't remember his name; sorry) called it "combat speed." That is, he said that the Spitfire had a higher "combat speed," even though it's actual top speed was technically higher. For the majority of a dogfight (including an attempt to disengage), the Spitfire is faster than the 109, and the 109 is faster than the P-51.

 

So, in a P-51, the only way to effectively get away from a 109 in normal multi-play is to be lucky enough to spot him at long range, and then simply refuse to engage. Once you've actually engaged in a dogfight (whether simple turn-and-burn or an intelligent energy fight), you've lost your opportunity to extend safely. It will take you at least a minute to exit gun range (that is, assuming it's a 109 with 20mm, unlike ours), in a low-altitude fight. The 109 will be faster for a large part of that extending phase, while the P-51 slowly accelerates back up to its top speed.

 

Of course, at high altitude, that changes, both because of the superchargers and because of the greater energy pool (being able to steeply dive away). But, I'm talking about normal multiplayer engagements, which are usually less than 10,000 feet (because, naturally, ~no one wants to spend 20 minutes climbing up to 25,000 feet and then returning to the target area, in between every fight).

 

I have to say that I completely disagree with pretty much everything you wrote there. Assuming you are talking about the modules in DCS that is.

 

First of all the 109K does not dominate the P51D, it is better in the turn fight, but the more massive P51D will be faster in the dive and top speed. (Especially a fully fueled one, people seem to forget that those escorting Mustangs in WWII used drop tanks and flew ABOVE the bombers) The Spitfire is definitely much slower than the 109K and definitely does not dominate it, it is the better turning fighter, but its slow climb and top speed means that the 109K can pick and choose when to engage. Of course if it chooses to turn with the Spit it will lose.

 

As for altitude fighting I almost never engage in a fight in a Mustang or a 109, unless I have an energy advantage. I will climb higher than you and engage. Otherwise I will dive and extend. In the Spit I have no problems flying high or low, although higher is better, and supercharger territory is best. However in the Spit, if I get in trouble Im usually dead unless someone helps out or the enemy makes a mistake. As Im the slowest plane out there and can't run to save my life.

 

For someone who claims to be a huge expert on these fighters, you got a lot of things wrong here.

Edited April 25, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[Echo38]

I have to say that I completely disagree with pretty much everything you wrote there. Assuming you are talking about the modules in DCS that is.

 

Not exactly; with the Spitfire vs. 109 part, I'm referring to the general situation in flight sim-games. I've never flown or faced the Spitfire in DCS, for example. Perhaps our Spitfire is much slower than it is in the older sim-games, but I'd find that surprising, as usually even the lesser sim-games got at least top speed in the "ballpark."

 

In every sim-game I've flown & faced a Spitfire, it shares the same characteristics, which are as I described. They easily out-accelerate, out-climb, and out-turn the other fighters in question, while remaining basically equal in roll. The only significant flight disadvantages are top speed and dive (and, even here, the disadvantages are much smaller in % than the advantages are).

 

As I've stated many times in the past, I do not take any sim-game as a "resource," much less old, outdated ones that have been proven to be wrong on multiple critical points. Still, I'd be surprised if they all were this drastically wrong on such an obvious point (although I suppose I shouldn't be, given the P-38 MIL speed documentation error propagation).

 

Now, with the P-51, I am referring to the one in DCS. It is barely faster than the 109, at low altitude (in some past versions of the sim, it was actually slower). Superior diving ability doesn't really come into play much below 15,000 or so. Below 10,000 feet, any advantage gained over a 109 by diving is rather small (in comparison to normal gun range) by the time one needs to pull out. The 109 only loses a few hundred feet. The 30mm Mk. 108 does change the dynamic here, reducing the 109's advantage a bit, but if we imagine that our 109 has a 20mm cannon, you'll see that the little separation the P-51 gains isn't nearly enough to let it get out of gun range in a timely manner. The 109 has plenty of time to gun down the P-51 as the latter slowly accelerates away, even while diving.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Echo38

[OnlyforDCS]

Not exactly; with the Spitfire vs. 109 part, I'm referring to the general situation in flight sim-games. I've never flown or faced the Spitfire in DCS, for example. Perhaps our Spitfire is much slower than it is in the older sim-games, but I'd find that surprising, as usually even the lesser sim-games got at least top speed in the "ballpark."

 

In every sim-game I've flown & faced a Spitfire, it shares the same characteristics, which are as I described. They easily out-accelerate, out-climb, and out-turn the other fighters in question, while remaining basically equal in roll. The only significant flight disadvantages are top speed and dive (and, even here, the disadvantages are much smaller in % than the advantages are).

 

As I've stated many times in the past, I do not take any sim-game as a "resource," much less old, outdated ones that have been proven to be wrong on multiple critical points. Still, I'd be surprised if they all were this drastically wrong on such an obvious point (although I suppose I shouldn't be, given the P-38 MIL speed documentation error propagation).

 

 

Well there is your problem. You claim not to take sim-games as resources, but in all your claims you are doing just that. Those sim games you mentioned have absolutely no bearing on the aircraft we have in DCS.

 

Now, with the P-51, I am referring to the one in DCS. It is barely faster than the 109, at low altitude. Superior diving ability doesn't really come into play much below 15,000 or so. Below 10,000 feet, any advantage gained over a 109 by diving is rather small by the time one needs to pull out. The 109 only loses a few hundred feet. The 30mm Mk. 108 does change the dynamic here, reducing the 109's advantage a bit, but if we imagine that our 109 has a 20mm cannon, you'll see that the little separation the P-51 gains isn't nearly enough to let it get out of gun range in a timely manner. The 109 has plenty of time to gun down the P-51 as it slowly accelerates away, even while diving.

 

Well, repeating the same statements over and over again does not make them facts. The Mustang's serious mass advantage over the 109 will prevail at any altitude, if you keep it fully fueled and fight to your advantage. If you are low, say doing a strafing run on ground targets, and get jumped, then you are dead. But that is pretty much true of any aircraft. Other than the aformentioned Spit, which can outturn all of them defensively. The 109K we have in the game has the 30mm, not the 20mm. The G you keep harping on about in another thread would be better armed than the K, and would turn better.

Edited April 25, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[MAD-MM]

My Point was you don't make out of the P-51 a Dogfighter even with 72 HG, would be struggle still against the 109, with the P-51 4 tons Combat weight.

Currently right flown Mustang is untouchable by the 109 because even when they dive from same altitude slightly nose down away you never catch him or fly straight with enough separation.

More so found the Spotting System more a handicap for the P-51 while you can never chose engage or climb first because it is always to late.

The only Plane how struggle with the 72 HG Mustang is FW-190 with losing every advantage, and Fuel war starts again about C3 Fuel. This time for Luftwafflewhiners

Edited April 25, 2017 by MAD-MM