P51D engine power underperforming

[x39crazy]

As we have established before, the main user of P-51D Mustang in Europe.

 

Why so focused on the 8th Air Force if every other mustang user used 67"?

ETA: Talking about the mustang being our best fighter...I think you're forgetting we're getting two spitfires.

Edited June 15, 2016 by x39crazy

[MiloMorai]

Not every Mustang in the ETO used 67". British Mustangs used 25lb boost.

[msalama]

I am a firm believer of game balance here.

 

So you'd want to turn a good sim into a stupid furball game just like the others? Right...

[MiloMorai]

In a few months the spitfire 14 will be available and it's going to outperform all other piston planes.

 

Also it's hard for me to believe that the 8th air force mustangs that flew mostly high altitude escort to Germany and back would fly with 30% starting fuel like most p51 pilots online.When you fly escort missions you consume more fuel because you need to weave and ,or fly slower as to keep the bombers in sight.So you gain advantages that are not historically accurate anyway.

 

A minimum of 60% fuel would be more historical.

 

P-51s did not escort bombers from base to target and back to base. They picked up the bombers well into their flight. P-47s and Spitfires did the the early escorting and picked them up where again on the their return.

 

Basically the P-47s and Spitfires did 2/3rds of the escorting and the P-51s the remaining 1/3rd which was the most dangerous part of the mission.

[Solty]

In a few months the spitfire 14 will be available and it's going to outperform all other piston planes.

 

Also it's hard for me to believe that the 8th airforce mustangs that flew mostly hight altitude escort to Germany and back would fly with 30% starting fuel like most p51 pilots online.When you fly escort missions you consume more fuel because you need to weave and ,or fly slower as to keep the bombers in sight.So you gain advantages that are not historically accurate anyway.

I've talked and fought against players that took 50% during take off for the Bf109. So it is not only P-51D players that can do that. Some guys I flew with when I had the K4 flew only with 70% of fuel in the 109.

 

Don't act as if fuel quantity change is only available for P-51D.

[MAD-MM]

Currently it's not usefull to defuel on german side because your remove also your MW-50. But removing for airquake server i personal feel there nothing wrong, only for 109 not worth it because tanks is pretty small.

[shadepiece]

What a mess this thread is. I think it's pretty clear from those I talk to in the community, who are never on these forums, that they have given up on DCS. At least until we hear something about the Normandy map that is tangible.

 

I think most folks would have preferred older models of the 109, and 190. I love flying the 109, but in all honesty it should have been a G model, and the 190 probably should have been a late A model, although the D-9 is much closer to the Mustang than the K-4. K-4 is by far the best performing aircraft of the three.

 

The argument is either make the older 109s or 190s like most people would have wanted in the first place, but that just isn't ever going to happen. Obviously. Instead blue guys would like an update for the Mustang to the model that actually saw combat with the German planes that we have.

 

As is right now the Mustang just isn't as fun to fly for me. I know from the outset that I am at a severe disadvantage (mainly because I can't hit anything with the convergence set on the Stang, but I have opened that can of worms enough). After faffing about in the Stang I decide I'd rather fly something that I can get results in, and I switch to the K-4, and do faaaaarrr better than I'd do in the Mustang.

 

Bottom line: although the planes are modelled very well, and accurately, there is a huge gap in performance between the German aircraft and the 51 we have in game. I don't want to "balance" the two sides unrealistically, but I think having the version of the P-51 that actually flew against the German planes we have isn't that much to ask.

[Kurfürst]

We had a G-10/U4 flight model for quite some time, and the voices about how much the Mustang was outclassed by that was just as strong...

 

Thing is this. The Mustang is literally a ton heavier than the 109, and they have roughly the same amount of power available (even with 72").

 

Unless you get rid of that extra ton, you can't possible get the same dynamism the 109 has exactly because it has stupidly high power-to-weight ratio. Its not going to happen, it will always have this advantage, it will always be better at one on one. So do not fight on one on one, in multi-plane engagements, it solo advantages shrink to next to nothing, since you have longer ranged guns and just as fast.

[Solty]

We had a G-10/U4 flight model for quite some time, and the voices about how much the Mustang was outclassed by that was just as strong...

 

Thing is this. The Mustang is literally a ton heavier than the 109, and they have roughly the same amount of power available (even with 72").

 

Unless you get rid of that extra ton, you can't possible get the same dynamism the 109 has exactly because it has stupidly high power-to-weight ratio. Its not going to happen, it will always have this advantage, it will always be better at one on one. So do not fight on one on one, in multi-plane engagements, it solo advantages shrink to next to nothing, since you have longer ranged guns and just as fast.

Oh realy? The voices that the Mustang was outclassed were during the time when our K4 didn't even resemble 109. There was no stifness on control surfaces and the airplane was capable of 620kph in level at SL and 31m/s rate of climb.

 

Then they have fixed it. And it so happened that Humminbird found out that the K4 was actually underpeforming AFTER the fix. That happened because (as I understood it) ED was using G14 as a reference for aerodynamic modeling. Which was fixed within around two weeks after beeing acknowlaged as a bug.

 

So no. The K4 never was underperforming for a long time.

[Pandacat]

So you'd want to turn a good sim into a stupid furball game just like the others? Right...

 

Read the whole message before you launch into any meaningful commenting.

[Pandacat]

Bottom line: although the planes are modelled very well, and accurately, there is a huge gap in performance between the German aircraft and the 51 we have in game. I don't want to "balance" the two sides unrealistically, but I think having the version of the P-51 that actually flew against the German planes we have isn't that much to ask.

 

This is exactly my sentiment as well.

[Kurfürst]

YA RLY my dear Solty, we had practically a G-10 and the *high-pitched complaints* was just as bad as it is now. Two weeks, yeah, right, that's good little lie, actually, it took about 3 months to fix it, after it has been found out, AND it was fixed despite the odd protests from usual suspects (including you, my dear Solty as I remember) that our 109K is perfectly fine as slow at it is, and lets just keep it that flawed state.

 

Meanwhile after the, uhm, incessant and vocal high-pitch *complaining* finally achieved that the P-51D was even helped a bit and now it reaches the most optimistic (factory tests *caugh-caugh*) speeds ever possible for 67", so optimistic in fact that it rivals the results achieved at tests at 72". No complaints from me or others, why not have a bit optimistically modelled Mustang, if for not else than for sporting spirits, yet here you are, still complaining, that you still can't fight a plane that's only fast as you...

 

Noooooo, nothing is ever good enough for your typical Pony rider, in no flight sim, ever in my experience, unless he can strafe perfectly lined up 109s on ground that dating from the Spanish civil war and have no fuel in them.

[Pandacat]

they have roughly the same amount of power available (even with 72").

 

If 72" doesn't make P51D outperform your 109k then what are you afraid of? Why don't u let people have it and let the game be a bit more balanced, so we can all have more fun.

[Kurfürst]

DCS doesn't need artificial balance or special treats handed out to those players who whine the longest and loudest, after all its not an airquake MMO, but an accurate and detailed flight systems model, which we already have, for 67" standard boost.

 

I don't give a fig or would like to see development resources wasted until the Spit, 262 and 47 is out, just so that some players could be more immersed in Luftwaffe trashing fantasies under some 'historic' pretext. Once decide to spend development resources to give high boost version to a single plane module, all buyers of other modules will rightfully demand the same treatment.

[MiloMorai]

At the moment DCS is airquake.

[Charly_Owl]

I don't give a fig or would like to see development resources wasted until the Spit, 262 and 47 is out, just so that some players could be more immersed in Luftwaffe trashing fantasies under some 'historic' pretext.

 

I have a feeling this thread is drifting way off topic.

[otto]

Oh realy? The voices that the Mustang was outclassed were during the time when our K4 didn't even resemble 109. There was no stifness on control surfaces and the airplane was capable of 620kph in level at SL and 31m/s rate of climb.

 

Then they have fixed it. And it so happened that Humminbird found out that the K4 was actually underpeforming AFTER the fix. That happened because (as I understood it) ED was using G14 as a reference for aerodynamic modeling. Which was fixed within around two weeks after beeing acknowlaged as a bug.

 

So no. The K4 never was underperforming for a long time.

 

Come on.Even when controls were free there were other disadvantages that the 109 had like broken wings at 4-5 g and you were still posting how much better the 109 was. Than the 109 controls don't offer full deflection unless you fly at 250 km/h.But that's ok to you ?

And it's not pressure you feel but a delay(It can't be modeled any other way so that's that .i understand the devs). Before the last update the mw50 tank was full all the time regardless how much fuel you used .The plane was not balanced and harder to fly on the edge of the stall.Now it's easier .

 

@ 109 Is easier to get kills.

 

In turnfights maybe.But that the 109 is overall better is an illusion very easy to prove wrong. If you energy fight than D9 and 51 can dive with 850km/h ,870 km/h .In the 109 the controls are useless at 600 km/h. It's only better if you turnfight and that's going to be negated by the spitfire9.And even if you turnfight it has only 60 shells for the cannon with horrible ballistic trajectory, half of those are HEI that don't do anything unless hit liquid(on on planes that use 30% starting fuel).

 

Ps: I think a higher boosted p51 is a good thing.But 109 is soo much easier to fly than 51 is a mith that's busted after you learn energy fight skillfullly .

[Solty]

Come on.Even when controls were free there were other disadvantages that the 109 had like broken wings at 4-5 g and you were still posting how much better the 109 was. Than the 109 controls don't offer full deflection unless you fly at 250 km/h.But that's ok to you ?

And it's not pressure you feel but a delay(It can't be modeled any other way so that's that .i understand the devs). Before the last update the mw50 tank was full all the time regardless how much fuel you used .The plane was not balanced and harder to fly on the edge of the stall.Now it's easier .

 

@ 109 Is easier to get kills.

 

In turnfights maybe.But that the 109 is overall better is an illusion very easy to prove wrong. If you energy fight than D9 and 51 can dive with 850km/h ,870 km/h .In the 109 the controls are useless at 600 km/h. It's only better if you turnfight and that's going to be negated by the spitfire9.And even if you turnfight it has only 60 shells for the cannon with horrible ballistic trajectory, half of those are HEI that don't do anything unless hit liquid(on on planes that use 30% starting fuel).

 

Ps: I think a higher boosted p51 is a good thing.But 109 is soo much easier to fly than 51 is a mith that's busted after you learn energy fight skillfullly .

1. Because at that time the airplane could rocket climb at steep angles with 31m/s ROC and was faster and had no stifness at all, and that is why it was loosing its wings. Now there is stifness and as it should, the 109's pilot cannot pull enough G's to do so. At 600kph the airplane is perfectly flyable with good rudder inputs and elevator steering.

 

2. Have you ever taken into consideration that 109's cockpit is too small to actually make full deflection possible? Maybe it is just the digital stick indication is wrong and you are actually using full deflection, just the stick is shorter so it cannot travel to full digital display. There are many possibilities which you do not take into consideration it seems.

 

3. 109 is the only airplane currently that can shoot down the oponent with 1 or 2 shots constantly. While it takes tons of ammo from P-51D to bring down the K4. That is why B&Z in the P-51D is nearly impossible due to DM currently implemented and that is another topic which also takes a lot of time to discuss and was discussed previously.

 

4. Liquids are not modeled in the game, so sorry but all it does, as every other round is to do DMG to artificial HP of a section of the airplane. Which leads to critical failure and wing flying off or feuselage burning. If you have not noticed that means you play too much 109 :P

Edited June 15, 2016 by Solty

[NineLine]

I did AI tests, I know I know... AI... but I did AI tests, P-51s escorting bombers at altitude, 109's targeting those bombers, most times, the P-51s came out on top, or it was a even kill rate. That's without gunners on the bombers as well. I think you will find if you can generate a realistic mission that your results will change... that said, I know right now with the lack of WWII content, we end up with Air Quake, although if you are creative you can work around that some.

 

The biggest issue with the above test is the AI will use the cannon in any and every encounter, I dont think thats accurate, that the 109 would be so quick to cannon use against a fighter when they would want to use them against the bombers.

Edited June 15, 2016 by NineLine

[Cripple]

 

3. 109 is the only airplane currently that can shoot down the oponent with 1 or 2 shots constantly. While it takes tons of ammo from P-51D to bring down the K4. That is why B&Z in the P-51D is nearly impossible due to DM currently implemented and that is another topic which also takes a lot of time to discuss and was discussed previously.

 

 

Isn't that's something to do with the 109's cannon, versus half-a-dozen 50-cals in the Mustang? How will a boosted engine assist with this?

Or are you after bigger bullets too? :music_whistling:

 

(At the risk of making this sound ad hominem, can we really expect someone with a P-51D "sig" to be approaching this objectively and dispassionately?)

[Solty]

Isn't that's something to do with the 109's cannon, versus half-a-dozen 50-cals in the Mustang? How will a boosted engine assist with this?

Or are you after bigger bullets too? :music_whistling:

 

(At the risk of making this sound ad hominem, can we really expect someone with a P-51D "sig" to be approaching this objectively and dispassionately?)

Man, I was responding to his claims. It is not as if I have started the discussion about weapon systems.

 

And, no the Mk108 works similar to how it should, it is the .50cal that underperforms drastically. EDIT. And that is because because it works in a completely different way than the Mk108 works. .50cal uses AP ammo but it should API M8 instead and DM is realy lacking in features. API ammo is used to puncture through the skin and drive the magnesium into the vital parts of the airplane and set it afire or explode it. Mk108's ammunition is HE based and works in a way that it provides destruction to the whole structure more effectively. It damages whole sections of the airframe and doesnt puncture it like the .50cal does. Realy I suggest you to read more about it before you make remarks like "bigger bullets" next time.

 

And what because Otto doesn't have a 109 sig he is not biased? The guy who has in his Location: "Where Hartmann fought P-51's".

 

I have an extensive knowledge about P-51D and nearly as big konwledge about Bf109s and their use during the war. So please spare me time with your petty insults.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Solty

[adrianstealth]

The DCS P-51.

 

Is a great sim plane, I do hope the devs continue with development on it & release updates etc

[Merlin-27]

We are a passionate (and competitive) bunch. And we love our WWII aircraft, that is for sure.

 

Thing is this. The Mustang is literally a ton heavier than the 109, and they have roughly the same amount of power available (even with 72").

 

THIS, aside from all of the other banter, is IMO the crux of the frustrations here. These aircraft were made to serve distinctly different roles and built with hugely different guidelines and requirements. We will never see a perfect balance between them. I honestly don't think the MP increase will make a huge difference on the outcome of most duels, but why not add it? I think it is a given that this is a sim (at least the WWII part) showcasing the premiere warbirds of their time. I have flown all of the available WWII DCS aircraft but I have a special love for the Mustang and she just feels "familiar" to me. It will be interesting to see what is used for the Normandy variant we have been told about. Yes, it is true that a 1 on 1 match-up with an able pilot in a K4 is a hair raising experience but I'm quite sure that is how it would probably shake out in real life. The truth is that we fly these planes beyond what most of the pilots even dreamed of trying (as actual lives were on the line) and in many cases it is uncharted theoretical water. These encounters remain fictional no matter how many changes are made. The "historical" part of the experience will never be identical to real life for a multitude of reasons and I hope that can be realized without hurting the community participation or excitement too much.

 

We are all here, above all, to enjoy WWII aviation. Here's to hoping it stays enjoyable.

[Cripple]

 

Thats what you get for not beeing borne an Englishman

 

I have an extensive knowledge about P-51D and nearly as big konwledge about Bf109s and their use during the war. So please spare me time with your petty insults.

 

I am very sorry you see that as an insult (petty or otherwise). I was merely suggesting that your objectivity in this matter may be... compromised.

 

This is not about debating historical fact here. I believe we are debating whether it is necessary (or even appropriate) for the *simulated* P-51D to be "buffed", particularly at point when the resources to do that would be taken away from other WW2-related projects, such as the Normandy map and forecasted aircraft. Is the existing Mustang so bad that it needs a priority engine upgrade? Doesn't sound like it...

 

(I'm Scottish, actually. Look at the info to the right. I chose to view that as an oversight rather than a deliberate insult though.)

[Solty]

I am very sorry you see that as an insult (petty or otherwise). I was merely suggesting that your objectivity in this matter may be... compromised.

 

This is not about debating historical fact here. I believe we are debating whether it is necessary (or even appropriate) for the *simulated* P-51D to be "buffed", particularly at point when the resources to do that would be taken away from other WW2-related projects, such as the Normandy map and forecasted aircraft. Is the existing Mustang so bad that it needs a priority engine upgrade? Doesn't sound like it...

 

It is a discussion board. And I am trying to change a thing here that would benefit the whole community. The P-51D even in late 1944 fought usually the G6 and G14. Not the K4. With that matchup the 67'hg would be fine. But because we have the K4 and because there is no alternative to the K4 (other models are not beeing made) and my only option here is to opt for the power output that actually was used by the P-51D in reality, when battling the Bf109K4 and Fw190D9 in this late war scenario. Real life pilots had actually a bit better performing aircraft than we do currently. That is because USAAF knew that Germans were developing new types and especially Fw190D9 and Me262. So the Mustang which became main escort fighter at that point had to stay competetive against them. So the war can end quicker with fewer Allies soldiers dying.

 

It is not an "artificial buff" to the P-51D, because by the time the K4 appeared on the battlefield. Many Mustangs were already using the new fuel and power for 6 months. :book: