72"

[BuzzU]

I don't see why everyone seems to be against adding it.

 

If it's accurate and was used at the time then it should be added to the sim, regardless of whether it makes a difference or not.

 

Same goes for the G suit, if it was used and is accurate then it should be added.

 

This goes for the German aircraft as well, if the German aircraft are missing anything then it should be added if it's historically accurate.

 

 

Personally I hate balance, balance ruins sims imo. I want to see the aircraft preform and have the things that they had historically, even if it means that the aircraft is inferior or superior to the others.

 

Everyone is a big word and doesn't apply here.

 

All I ever said I wanted was for the plane to be accurate. Whatever that is. Anybody who wants a balanced battle doesn't want a sim unless the real planes were perfectly balanced. Not sure that's ever the case for any year.

[Echo38]

I don't see why everyone seems to be against adding it.

 

A small number of vocal players oppose it; I don't know what the actual ratio is of those who do and don't. Some oppose it because they don't want to see their competitive advantage disappear. Not all who dismiss the concept of balance are doing so for that reason, I'm sure, but it makes me wonder when people say things like, "As long as it's historical, balance doesn't matter"—despite the unarguable fact that there is a wide range within historical accuracy which allows for well-balanced matchups.

 

What we have here isn't really the "historical crowd" versus the "balance crowd," the way some insinuate. It's more of the "historical & unbalanced" crowd versus the "historical & balanced" crowd. (Balanced for standard multiplayer matches, anyway.)

 

And, really, the "historical & unbalanced" crowd must not want historical accuracy as much as they say they do, or else they'd be clamoring for an actual average wartime example of a 109, degraded manufacturing and all. Not that I want manufacturing defects—I don't—but I'm not one of the ones claiming that historical accuracy is the only thing that matters.

 

Anybody who wants a balanced battle doesn't want a sim unless the real planes were perfectly balanced. Not sure that's ever the case for any year.

 

Not exactly. There were some examples that were so close as to be virtually indistinguishable, though. "For any year" is much too broad; one has to go down past model, often past block. There were so many variables in configuration (let alone the variation in individual examples), and that's a happy thing, because it means that you can find two examples for almost any given fighter matchup (e.g. P-51 versus Me 109) which are effectively "perfectly balanced" with each other, for a given scenario (e.g. dogfighting at <10,000 feet). One may need to delve into the realm of individual variation in some cases, but that generally is unnecessary.

 

You give me (IRL) a healthy body, unlimited fuel & maintenance resources, and exact replicas of every individual P-51 and 109 ever flown in combat, and I promise you that I can come up with two examples which are perfectly balanced for low-altitude dogfighting, or close enough that no one can tell which is superior, when both are flown by the best dogfighters in the world. Might take me a few months, given how physically exhausting dogfighting is IRL, but I'd get it eventually. : )

Edited April 27, 2017 by Echo38

[OnlyforDCS]

What BuzzU said: The P51D we have is pretty accurate. It needs better damage modeling because the .50 cals are kind of weak. A G-suit would also probably help, though if you are killing your energy with blackout inducing turns, you are probably going to be losing that fight anyway.

 

Everything else is just icing on top of a pretty tasty cake. 72" of manifold pressure is historically accurate. But then again so is 67". For whatever reason Eagle Dynamics chose to model that plane. If they decide to up it's rating it will open a Pandora's Box. Suddenly everyone and their mother will be pushing their own agenda to include "historically accurate" modifications of their favorite airframe.

 

What is already going on with FC3 and the modern jets is going to happen to DCS: WWII, and we will be left with a sim catering to a crowd who want a perfectly balanced line-up for their airquake servers.

 

Normandy is coming out soon, with the nice AI pack. Let's wait and see what they come up with, but I think that airquake in DCS is soon going to be a thing of the past.

[rel4y]

As you may or not be aware, I cannot fly flight sims anymore due to joint injuries. I can use neither joystick nor pedals without pain.

 

No I was not aware and I am sorry that a hobby of yours was taken away like that, but that does in no way influence the way I would argue with you. And I did patiently answer your questions until you accused me of - I still dont know what and repped me negatively. How was I accusing you here of something, its a rhetorical question: Why not stay historical, cause I think every historical match in this list is good.

 

I know I am not Kurfürst, but here are my thoughts anyway. Why not stay historical?

 

Block 5NA/10NA vs G-6/14

Block 15NA and up vs G-6/10/14/K-4

 

What does competetive in this case even mean? Both aircaft are better in some ways than the other and have their advantages. 9th airforce never went higher than 67" boost and 8th did.

 

I still dont know what you mean by an intermediate/ in between 109. Either with or without MW, there is your variation. You can do that in the ME right know. The change in approximate frontal flat area drag between K-4 and G-6AM is 0.0812 m^2 and the difference in weight ~150-200kg.

 

So, see, my advocacy of 72" to balance out the P-51 vs. 109 situation (without reducing historical accuracy—it's a shame that I have to point this part out every damn time, but if I don't, someone's sure to start hollering about how balance isn't as important as accuracy) is not out of some supposed 109 hate, but is rather objective. It's simply a good thing to have reasonably balanced teams in multiplayer, if this can be done without reducing the fidelity of the sim. Happily, the addition of 72" doesn't reduce historical accuracy in the slightest, and it's an appropriate historical match for the 109K. It's win-win (except for the players who prefer 109 to dominate P-51).

I have been saying for years give it 72" MAP, its historically accurate for 8th AF. But I also look at the effects realistically and have posted a very objective assessment of the before/after situation several times now. By the way Kurfürst and many others you consider as diehard 109 fans approve 72" as well. The only problem I see with this is the FW 190, but FW pilots are usually more experienced than the average P-51 pilots on servers anyway.

 

And, as I've mentioned repeatedly, they increased their MAP even when using the standard fuel. I've seen documents authorizing some of the mid-range WEP ratings on 130, with the caveat that the engines will wear out faster. The 150 extended the engine life, but wasn't necessary for e.g. 72". The false idea that the large majority of U.S. fighters ran exclusively factory ratings, with only the groups which had access to 150-grade fuel using higher ratings, is a result of the fact that USAAF manuals were not properly updated (as several wartime pilots said, many of the pilots never even saw a manual). Instead, they issued periodic "memorandums" containing the authorizations (and, of course, not all crews waited for the memo).

I would really like to see sources for this, as I have never heard of that and I honestly doubt it as the Merlin at 27l displacement was already overboosted for the 130 grade fuel. I expect it would be knocking like crazy at 70" MAP and above without higher octane fuel or some sort of ADI like water. Once 150 grade (44-1) fuel was available the 8th AF allowed 72" WEP rating. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/supplymemo-11july44.pdf)

 

Look, I'm not unreasonable. Maybe I didn't make it clear, last post, but I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong about the G-6 situation. What you suggest about it simply isn't something I've encountered before. I'm not a 109 expert, nor a P-51 expert; the P-38 was my area of relative expertise, and even that was a long time ago. So, most of what I "know" about the 109 comes from hearsay, and it so happens that the idea I've heard repeatedly was that there was a range of G-6 variants, and that most of them did poorly, compared to a factory-rated P-51 and later (or even earlier!) models/blocks of 109.

 

If this is wrong, I'm actually quite open to correction, but at this point, I'd rather not take it from the fanatically pro-109 clique on this forum (which isn't the majority of 109 fliers, mind you, but roughly five guys who just can't accept that the two fighters were generally more equal in reality than they are in the sim). If I've mis-characterized you as being one of that group, then I genuinely apologize, but everything I recall you saying in any discussion on the P-51 and 109 ends up supporting the 109.

I am also not unreasonable, but you have to understand that I and I am sure many others really felt like you were deliberately not reading/ acknowledging anything members of this forum were telling you. And yes, I probably do favor the 109. Mostly the E and F models but I also like to fly all other planes except russian warbirds really. But even if someone may be biased to some extend, a fact stays a fact and when one is pulling numbers out of his ass he usually gets called out rather quickly on this forum. A lot of knowledgable people around here.

 

What I am trying say: if you dont trust some members of this forum thats perfectly fine, check if its true and then continue discussing. The data is out there all over the internet and only one google search away. But please dont attack people and argue with them based on hearsay. Now lets stay civil and agree to agree on some points and not so much on others.

Edited April 27, 2017 by rel4y

[Echo38]

Just jumping in here, but how about creating an escort bomber mission at 30000 ft? If the 109s don't want to come up and play then their base gets bombed

 

This can work if you give the players air-starts, but air-starts are themselves problematic for several reasons. For one, when users don't have to take off every flight, they start to get rusty at it. I've seen this first-hand, and even experienced it to some degree. It's terribly embarrassing when pilots are excellent at combat but can barely take off without scraping a wing. : )

 

But what really gets me about air starts is that, well, so much of DCS's wonder comes from the almost-impeccable modelling of the systems management. Skip the startup and takeoff, and you're missing, like, half of that. It'd be a shame if the community effectively forswore startups and takeoffs, so that they could have high altitude matches without axing their combat/hour rate.

 

I personally love high altitude dogfighting. It's more slow-paced and tactical, with lots of planning and grokking of E state required, much more thoughtful and less reflexive than low-altitude combat, which occurs at a faster pace due to the tighter turning circles and such. But, consistently getting into high-alt fights in a timely fashion is impossible without air starts, and air starts are a bad solution.

[BuzzU]

Echo................I did say battle. That's usually more than just two fighters. I'm sure two planes were close to matched, but are those two always the only ones in the battle?

 

Even adding bombers changes the odds, because the enemy fighters are trying to kill the bombers and not just fight the escorts. Which is pretty much what P-51 missions should be. Online or off. Not air quake.

[BodyOrgan]

I've explained why I don't agree with these kinds of requests for "balance" in my previous post. You chose to ignore that in your reply and focused on restating your previous points. Fine. We're done here I guess. You win.

Please note, I fly competitively in multiplayer environments, and enjoy dissimilar combat, but it isn't enjoyable to fly outclassed 100% of the time.

 

Echo38 has explained he isn't about making two dissimilar aircraft fly the same, but rather allow for the various modifications to be accessed such that the aircraft can be competitive against each other.

 

See highlighted portion of Echo38's post below:

I'm not trying to ignore any actual response of yours. I simply haven't seen you say anything which counters my point about historical accuracy and balance. As far as I've seen, it's mostly just been "balance doesn't matter, only historical accuracy," and ignoring the fact that having both is entirely possible, without making any concessions to fidelity or historical accuracy. I mean, you said that it's up to mission makers to balance things, but how are they supposed to balance a low-altitude P-51 vs. Me 109 engagement with only two basic choices (109K with MW50 or 109K without MW50), neither of which can result in an even match?

 

I don't see why everyone seems to be against adding it.

 

If it's accurate and was used at the time then it should be added to the sim, regardless of whether it makes a difference or not.

 

Same goes for the G suit, if it was used and is accurate then it should be added.

 

This goes for the German aircraft as well, if the German aircraft are missing anything then it should be added if it's historically accurate.

 

 

Personally I hate balance, balance ruins sims imo. I want to see the aircraft preform and have the things that they had historically, even if it means that the aircraft is inferior or superior to the others.

At one point the G suit in the 51's were available, but they removed them for balance reason, thus swinging the balance 100% in favor of the German aircraft, as in a virtual world the only real advantage the 51 employed was it's high speed (high G) maneuvers.

 

Type of fuel, G suit, and other modifications would be nice as options in mission editing, so a mission creator can create a completely unbalanced, or reasonably balanced session depending on mission design, and their choices.

 

Just jumping in here, but how about creating an escort bomber mission at 30000 ft? If the 109s don't want to come up and play then their base gets bombed

 

Or make it 15-20k if you want more advantage one way or the other

This concept may prove to pan out to some extent once Normandy is released, but isn't really viable today. Also, for the players who want a purely dogfight experience this scenario is not desired.

 

 

For all the virtual arm chair pilots who are so rigid as to ignore any modification to an aircraft's numbers even if based on historical fact.... please consider the real forces applied to a pilot in actual combat.

 

For example, in a high G turn the pilot's motion would be greatly restricted as their body weight would increase proportionately with the amount of G's they incur. In other words you wouldn't be able to keep perfect track of your opponent in these turn fights if they start to slip past your 12 position. Go to the gym, and load your head, and neck with 40 or 50 pounds, and start to look around. It's a recipe for immediate injury which would probably result in death in an aircraft.

 

Staying on this example lets think about the required strength to hold the stick in place to maintain a high G turn. It would probably require both arms. In this the likelihood of a 109 pilot able to operate the flaps or elevator trim would be very low if at all. Lets assume the 109 pilot is strong enough to use a single arm on the stick, but his other arm is still 6+ times his weight, and has to move a huge fly wheel which means it's either flaps or trim (not both which you can do in the sim), and at that weight the pilot would be moving the wheel extremely slowly making its use negligible.

 

The 51 on the other hand has the flap lever lower, and it's hydraulically operated. If the pilot didn't need both their arms on the stick for just a brief moment they would be able to drop their arm with gravity to push the flap lever to the desired degrees. Their elevator trim is also a tiny wheel which can be operated much easier.

 

We can go into pilot endurance next. From my understanding the stick forces on the 51 are much less than that of the 109, if this holds true then in an extended fight the 109 pilot would wear out quicker. Eventually they simply wouldn't be able to maneuver anymore due to fatigue.

 

We can go on, and on about cockpit layout, gyro sights, blah blah blah but what all this above just says is that so much of the historical effectiveness of an aircraft is already being gamified by your HOTAS, and lack of someone dropping weights on you every time you pull the stick...

[rel4y]

I fly mp as well and I am not seeing any aircraft being outclassed. Look at the burning skies stats. I cant actually believe some of you guys fly online.

 

http://burning-skies.vioo.com.ua/en/pilots/4/air-rating.html

http://burning-skies.vioo.com.ua/en/planes/4/list.html

[BodyOrgan]

I fly mp as well and I am not seeing any aircraft being outclassed. Look at the burning skies stats. I cant actually believe some of you guys fly online.

 

http://burning-skies.vioo.com.ua/en/pilots/4/air-rating.html

http://burning-skies.vioo.com.ua/en/planes/4/list.html

Yeah, you didn't notice my name sitting right there in #8 (as of this writing)? I can't remember where I was last month, something like #3, and I'd probably be around that if I actually flew more this month, but life has taken over a bit.

 

The P-51D at sea level is outclassed in all categories against the 109. I'm saying this, and I shoot them down quite often... but I also fly the 109, so I know what I'm up against.

 

Here's the low down:

 

1. The 109 is faster at seal level.
   
2. The 109 accelerates faster.
   
3. The 109 climbs (significantly) faster.
   
4. The 109 turns better at lower speeds.
   
5. The 109 turns better at higher speeds (only because the 51 pilot will blackout because they removed the G suit).
   
6. The 109 can float in the air like a helicopter because it's engine won't burn up (something that probably needs to be fixed because I doubt this is true to life).
   

Number 6 will prevent a P51D from getting enough AOA to take a shot at a 109 unless the P51D has enough speed left over after climbing up for the shot. If the 51D decides to take a gamble, and ends up not having the AOA the 51D's nose will be forced over because speed is required rather quickly or the engine will blow. The 109 can simply drop in at this point, and pick you off.

 

 

 

The P51D really only has one flight characteristic that is superior to the 109, and that's high speed handing, but it can't use it due to G forces (no G suit).

 

 

Against the FW-190:

 

1. The 190 is faster.
   
2. The 190 will accelerate faster.
   
3. The 190 will climb (significantly) faster.
   
4. The 51D will out turn a 190 unless the 190 decides to use a high Yo-yo after gaining a small margin of speed advantage (which it can since it is faster at sea level) whereas the P51D will barely maintain its speed in a turn.
   

If you know how to use the 190, then you can even out turn a P51D.

 

 

I'm the one who honestly feels like everyone debating in these threads doesn't really fly these machines competitively.

[otto]

[*]The 109 is faster at seal level.

 

 

First of all why is your kill/hour ratio of 4.2 with the 109 and 4.0 with the p51 ?

If the p51 is so outclassed why isn't there more difference ?

 

Also can you make a comparison in dcs of sea level speed between p51 and 109 because i tried it and i'm 20 km/h slower in the 109 with cooler on auto. Is there a special setting for the 109 or something ?

[Echo38]

I calculated his K/H to be 3.9 in P-51D and 4.3 in 109K. That makes his K/H more than 10% better in the 109 than in the P-51.

 

(28 kills / 7:10:08 flight hours, and 21 kills / 4:52:59 flight hours, respectively)

 

K/H isn't nearly as important as K/D (which doesn't seem to be listed), but it's still notable that a guy who flies P-51 more than 109 can still get 10% better kills/hour in the 109.

 

Also can you make a comparison in dcs of sea level speed between p51 and 109 because i tried it and i'm 20 km/h slower in the 109 with cooler on auto. Is there a special setting for the 109 or something ?

 

I don't know, myself, but BodyOrgan is the second high-scoring pilot who, in the last two days, has mentioned to me that the current P-51 is slower than the 109 on the deck.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Echo38

[BodyOrgan]

First of all why is your kill/hour ratio of 4.2 with the 109 and 4.0 with the p51 ?

If the p51 is so outclassed why isn't there more difference ?

 

Also can you make a comparison in dcs of sea level speed between p51 and 109 because i tried it and i'm 20 km/h slower in the 109 with cooler on auto. Is there a special setting for the 109 or something ?

Maybe there isn't a difference because I spent a butt load of timing figuring out what I can, and can't do in the P51, and the pilots I'm flying against make poor choices.

 

If you look at my March statistics, and go off the numbers you'd probably think the P51 outclasses all the other aircraft. Numbers are only going to tell you half the battle.

 

They say nothing about whether I'm working in a team, did I decide to go 1 on 1 or 5 on 1, etc...

 

As for this speed difference I honestly don't know how to tell you to fly your plane, but I can run down P51's in my 109, and I get run down by 109 in my P51.

 

I calculated his K/H to be 3.9 in P-51D and 4.3 in 109K. That makes his K/H more than 10% better in the 109 than in the P-51.

 

(28 kills / 7:10:08 flight hours, and 21 kills / 4:52:59 flight hours, respectively)

 

K/H isn't nearly as important as K/D (which doesn't seem to be listed), but it's still notable that a guy who flies P-51 more than 109 can still get 10% better kills/hour in the 109.

 

I don't know, myself, but there must be, because BodyOrgan is the second high-scoring pilot who, in the last two days, has said that the current P-51 is slower than the 109 on the deck.

Lets keep in mind I don't spend a huge amount of time in the 109. Most of my time is in the P51 because I like it better, so my 109 skills especially deflection shooting need major work.

 

Also keep in mind those kills in the 109 are against Spitfires mostly because everyone likes to fly the plane which is going to give them the win. If it were mainly against P51's I'd have even more kills in the 109 because there is literally nothing they can do if I get them to lose their speed.

[otto]

Maybe there isn't a difference because I spent a butt load of timing figuring out what I can, and can't do in the P51, and the pilots I'm flying against make poor choices.

 

If you look at my March statistics, and go off the numbers you'd probably think the P51 outclasses all the other aircraft. Numbers are only going to tell you half the battle.

 

They say nothing about whether I'm working in a team, did I decide to go 1 on 1 or 5 on 1, etc...

 

As for this speed difference I honestly don't know how to tell you to fly your plane, but I can run down P51's in my 109, and I get run down by 109 in my P51.

 

 

Lets keep in mind I don't spend a huge amount of time in the 109. Most of my time is in the P51 because I like it better, so my 109 skills especially deflection shooting need major work.

 

Also keep in mind those kills in the 109 are against Spitfires mostly because everyone likes to fly the plane which is going to give them the win. If it were mainly against P51's I'd have even more kills in the 109 because there is literally nothing they can do if I get them to lose their speed.

 

You could make a mission in dcs .Set a 109 at 500 start altitude and try to fly as fast as you can for 30 seconds - 1 minute.Do the same in p51. Than post the tracks from the game here.

 

You might be right but it doesn't make sense because the p51 should have less drag than the 109 because of the laminar flow wing and both planes have about the same horsepower.Maybe it's a bug .

Edited April 27, 2017 by otto

[BodyOrgan]

You could make a mission in dcs .Set a 109 at 500 start altitude and try to fly as fast as you can for 30 seconds - 1 minute.Do the same in p51. Than post the tracks from the game here.

 

You might be right but it doesn't make sense because the p51 should have less drag than the 109 because of the laminar flow wing and both planes have about the same horsepower.Maybe it's a bug .

I don't know if I'm willing to spend time creating, collecting, and posting tracks..... maybe.... but what scenario are we talking here?

 

• P51 at 67", automatic radiators, run mixture (my experience with this is random engine detonation which could happen immediately or 5 minutes later)
  
• P51 at 67", automatic radiators, rich mixture
  
• P51 at 67", closed radiators, run mixture
  
• P51 at 67", closed radiators, rich mixture
  
• P51 at 67", open radiators, run mixture
  
• P51 at 67", open radiators, rich mixture
  

 

• P51 at 61", automatic radiators (I tend to run this in dogfights, but sometimes the engine will just randomly detonate too)
  
• P51 at 61", closed radiators, run mixture
  
• P51 at 61", closed radiators, rich mixture
  
• P51 at 61", open radiators, run mixture
  
• P51 at 61", open radiators, rich mixture
  

Seems no matter what the P51 pilot must take a risk when accessing full speed. I've never had a 109 engine detonate if I had any MW50 left.

 

I would have thought the same considering the laminar flow wing, but it doesn't appear to hold up in the game. I do know as long as the P51 is in a shallow (as in very shallow, its speed just needs to be where Solty claims it should be in level flight) dive it can basically prevent the 109 from gaining, but the 109 doesn't lose either. If level flight becomes a reality though, the 109 will catch up.

Edited April 27, 2017 by BodyOrgan

[Echo38]

I would really like to see sources for this, as I have never heard of that and I honestly doubt it as the Merlin at 27l displacement was already overboosted for the 130 grade fuel. I expect it would be knocking like crazy at 70" MAP and above without higher octane fuel or some sort of ADI like water.

 

If memory serves, it was for the P-38's Allison and not the P-51's Merlin, and now that you mentioned knocking, I suddenly realized that it (mid-range ratings on the 100/130 fuel) may not have worked for the P-51, because the Allison had a much lower factory rating (and proportionately lower "mid" and "high" ratings) than the Merlin. For example, factory rating being 60" for the P-38L as opposed to 67" for the P-51D, which eventually got officially raised to 66" and 72" respectively (with plenty of stories about, but AFAIK not officially documented for combat, higher ratings such as 75").

 

So, I would expect the P-38 going from 60" to 64" or 66" to be more viable on 100/130 grade fuel than the P-51 going from 67" to 72". But I don't know much about the differences between the Allison and the Merlin, or about how each reacted to the different fuel types.

 

Now, as for the document(s) in question, I've spent over an hour looking, and am only finding ancient forum threads with dead links which may or may not have once pointed to the one(s) I'm looking for. I know I saw it ... not that I could reasonably expect anyone to take my word for it, of course. : /

Edited April 27, 2017 by Echo38

[Echo38]

You could make a mission in dcs .Set a 109 at 500 start altitude and try to fly as fast as you can for 30 seconds - 1 minute.

 

Been a few years since I've done a speed test, but IIRC, one minute may not be long enough for the fighter to reach its top speed. I seem to recall doing tests where, from sustained turn speed to top speed without any altitude change, at least a minute and a half were required to reach actual top speed (most of that time being the last few MPH or KPH, of course).

 

automatic radiators (I tend to run this in dogfights, but sometimes the engine will just randomly detonate too)

 

Back when I flew the P-51, I also used automatic radiators, and would also frequently suffer engine failures at WEP (even when consciously keeping airspeed high during maneuvers). Some of my fellow fliers said that radiators should be manually opened at WEP, and that this can keep the engine from failing. I'm not sure if this is the same thing you're talking about with "detonation," though, as I'd expect radiators to matter for overheating and detonation being something more related to fuel burning in the cylinders. But, I'm shaky on my definition here.

 

Now, as for the document(s) in question, I've spent over an hour looking, and am only finding ancient forum threads with dead links which may or may not have once pointed to the one(s) I'm looking for. I know I saw it ...

 

Okay, ancient forum thread indicates that the information in question comes from Warren Bodie's "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning," which I own ... somewhere. And it's a very large book. [sigh]

[David OC]

Just to repeat a question for you guy's....

 

So if ED adds the 72' to the P-51, will this satisfy the debate for low down combat in MP? or will G suits and fuel etc come back up next if the 109 seems to still get more kills online down low pro vs pro etc?

 

I guess this might upset the 109 guys that want to set up classic B-17 missions on the Normandy Map, as the P-51 would be much much better at those altitudes then, unless this was only an option in MP like someone mentioned before.

 

Do you think 72’ will unbalance the mid to higher altitude fights too much and would be better as a mission editor option?

How available where G suits in 1944, I thought it was more late 1944 pilots started getting g-suits? If this is the case then forget G suits.

 

So if this was to happen

Add the editor option for the P-51 to have 72’ and let the mission designer choose

Add a Late Bf 109G to the DCS line up for the mission designer to choose.

 

PDF - Very detailed and researched thesis.

The role of the p-51 in the defeat of the German air force in world war two.

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-07022008-013657/unrestricted/courter_thesis.pdf

[otto]

The p51 is faster.It is really obvious why: two planes with the same horsepower but one has laminar flow wing.You don't have to be Einstein.

 

p2oHFITX-Og

 

At first the 109 accelerates better from the lower speed but than the speed difference is about 20 km/h in favor of the P51.

 

I've also flown the p51 until the engine blew and it took some stupid flying to do that.It's in the track.

 

Feel free to make your own test but like i said : Unless there's a bug there's no way a plane with laminar flow wing will be slower than one without considering both planes have same horsepower.

109speed-sea-level-1-1.trk

p51speed-sea-level-1-2.trk

speed-test-109-2.miz

speed-test-51-2.miz

Edited April 28, 2017 by otto

[BuzzU]

Have you tried starting the test in level flight and see what they accelerate up to? Instead of diving to faster than top speed and letting them drop to top speed. Maybe the P-51 maintains speed better, but what speed can it get up to without a dive.

[OnlyforDCS]

Have you tried starting the test in level flight and see what they accelerate up to? Instead of diving to faster than top speed and letting them drop to top speed. Maybe the P-51 maintains speed better, but what speed can it get up to without a dive.

 

It won't make a difference in their top speeds BuzzU. The dive just lets the planes get to their max speed quicker and so the video is shorter to set up.

 

If the planes can't achieve their top speed without a dive, that would indicate that there is a serious bug in the physics of the entire simulation.

Edited April 28, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[BuzzU]

They were both still dropping speed when the test ended. If the P-51 was better in aero it might maintain the speed longer, but can't accelerate up to it.

 

That's another point. If the 109 accelerates harder it would get to top speed faster than the P-51. If they both start at even mph the 109 will catch the P-51 even if the P-51 has a higher top speed but needs longer to get to it.

 

 

edit...On a second look. They had about leveled off on top speed. Still, accelerations has to be figured into catching another plane.

Edited April 28, 2017 by BuzzU

[OnlyforDCS]

That depends. In a drawn out chase, it matters very little. The plane with the top speed advantage will come out on top.

 

In terms of energy fighting, the P51D has the 109 beat in all aspects. Where acceleration really matters with regards to these two fighters is really in the climb. The 109K has the potential to extend away by climbing away from the P51. (Assuming an equal energy state) In any kind of chase scenario where there is a little bit of an altitude margin the P51D will always be able to dive away from a 109, or dive on to a 109.

 

Things will really heat up when the P47D arrives. :)

Edited April 28, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[BuzzU]

I'm looking forward to the P-47, but not for dogfighting. I want to use it for ground attacks and of course escort with P-51's. However, escort winds up in dogfights, but with an edge to the escorts, because the enemy is trying to shoot down the bombers and not concentrating on the fighters.

 

 

Getting back to the top speeds. I agree that a sustained chase favors the plane with the highest top speed. I have to say again that the higher top speed of the P-51 won't help it if the 109 accelerate harder and catches the P-51 before it can reach top speed.

 

I'm not saying the 109 accelerates harder, but it should be tested. I can't do it because I don't have the 109.

[Echo38]

So if ED adds the 72' to the P-51, will this satisfy the debate for low down combat in MP? or will G suits and fuel etc come back up next if the 109 seems to still get more kills online down low pro vs pro etc?

 

I see no reason why G-suits should still be withheld, given that these are contemporary with the 109K-4, and it would also help to close the gap. But, yes, the addition of 72" and G-suits should fix the P-51's competitive situation as much as is reasonably historically possible.

 

75" may be hypothetically necessary to achieve actual parity down low, but 75" is not an option, because (as far as I can tell) it was never officially authorized (although, of course, that didn't stop plenty of crews from using it, historically). The benchmark for an item's introduction in the sim seems to be official authorization and combat use, which would automatically exclude anything that never made it further than field tests.

 

Regardless, 72" should at least be "good enough." Putting back the G-suits should help a little bit more, but I don't regard these as highly as the power rating, in low-altitude fights. These two things are best that can be done to make things even at low altitudes, within a requirement of strict historical accuracy.

 

Do you think 72’ will unbalance the mid to higher altitude fights too much and would be better as a mission editor option?

 

No, I don't think it would unbalance higher altitude fights. My understanding is that 72" helps more down low than it does up high. Something about supercharger states, or something like that, if I remember correctly. Yo-Yo mentioned something about this a while back.

 

However, regardless, I think it's been generally understood that 72", if introduced, would indeed be an option, for the mission maker to decide, rather than replacing the 67"-rated P-51D. I don't think anyone has suggested that the 67" be done away with. Indeed, I'm counting on that not happening, or else the FW 190D could be in the same boat that the P-51D is now.

[BuzzU]

Were there other changes to go along with the 72"? Like better cooling?