P51D engine power underperforming

[Cripple]

It is a discussion board. And I am trying to change a thing here that would benefit the whole community.

 

... "as long as they fly the Mustang."

 

 

I repeat my question: historical accuracy aside, does the simulated P-51D require this modification to keep it competitive (rather than game-winning) at this time?

[Solty]

... "as long as they fly the Mustang."

 

 

I repeat my question: historical accuracy aside, does the simulated P-51D require this modification to keep it competitive (rather than game-winning) at this time?

Yes I do believe so. The P-51D currently is put an disadvantage by two main issues. The DM and the power output. To understand what I mean, you have to understand the Mustang.

 

The P-51D is not a dogfighter. It is a B&Z aircraft. Because of it's laminar flow profile wing it is unable to stay with maneuvering Bf109's and Spitfires or similar airplanes of the period. It uses it's speed to stay competetive just like the Fw190. The Mustang has to extend and reengage with a different position. The moment you are going to maneuver you are getting into big trouble.

 

Now, K4 negates everything for the Mustang because it is just as fast while beeing tighter turning and overall better at maneuvering, except for the high speed scenario (around 700kph). This creates a situation in which the P-51D player can only pray that this enemy is just inexperienced.

 

72'hg boost would NOT make the P-51D a beast. It would make it faster than the 109 and capable of it's own fighting style. The 109 is nearly always dictating its own fighting style, because it can climb faster, it is usually above the Mustang when engagement happens and it can stay faster than the Mustang because P-51D has to constantly maneuver not to get hit and thefore it is unable to go into offensive nor escape the situation.

 

72'hg would just give the P-51D its historical advantage which ties into the whole point of the design of the airframe. SPEED. The speed defined the P-51 program. Even before it was modified to carry lots of fuel, it was all about getting better speed. The first Mustang Mk1 had the alison engine was faster than the P-40 and was even faster than Spit MkV from the same year while having lower power.

 

It is a one trick Pony. Speed and high speed agility. Now in DCS, it is not capable of doing what the Mustang does, because reaching the Vmax is nearly imposible before the K4 reaches its own, and actually catches the P-51.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Solty

[Captain Orso]

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.

 

Yes! Thank you!

 

Put the P-51D in the environment for which it was designed and the situation will be totally different.

 

Funny how nobody found anything comment worth in SiThSpAwN's post.

[Tomsk]

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.

 

It also dives better, zooms better, performs better at high altitudes, handles much better at high speeds and of course has much longer range.

 

Sure if you insist on taking a P-51 into a low-medium altitude co-E dogfight with a 109 K4 he's got a huge advantage. Which is why it wasn't done that way. If instead you climb very high, and boom and zoom your opponent then it doesn't matter that he'd win a dogfight. If he has the advantage, dive away a 109 K4 won't catch a P-51 in a shallow dive. Or sucker him into a 400 mph game of scissors, where the P-51 should absolutely cream a K4.

 

The K4 definitely climbs, accelerates and turns much better and those are really nice advantages to have. But the P-51 has its advantages too, it's about who uses their advantages better.

[Cripple]

It also dives better, zooms better, performs better at high altitudes, handles much better at high speeds and of course has much longer range.

 

Sure if you insist on taking a P-51 into a low-medium altitude co-E dogfight with a 109 K4 he's got a huge advantage. Which is why it wasn't done that way. If instead you climb very high, and boom and zoom your opponent then it doesn't matter that he'd win a dogfight. If he has the advantage, dive away a 109 K4 won't catch a P-51 in a shallow dive. Or sucker him into a 400 mph game of scissors, where the P-51 should absolutely cream a K4.

 

The K4 definitely climbs, accelerates and turns much better and those are really nice advantages to have. But the P-51 has its advantages too, it's about who uses their advantages better.

 

Indeed.

 

How on earth is a K4 "above the Mustang when engagement happens", unless you were to start at the same airfield (at the same time)?

 

If you have the height advantage you can even dictate whether to engage or not.

[shadepiece]

At the moment DCS is airquake.

 

Hahahahahahahhahahaha! Nailed it. It really is just air quake at the moment. To say that it is anything more is to be completely blind to the fact the the same experience is had in Cliffs on ATAG, Wings of Liberty in BoS, or even War Thunder (shudder).

 

The reason so many people have left DCS WWII, or not joined in the first place, is because it is the most unsatisfying air quake of them all.

 

Historically accuracy arguments aside it is easy to see the 109 has a massive advantage over the Mustang. There is only ONE allied fighter. No wonder people are unhappy. No choice, and the only choice is obviously disadvantaged.

 

Solty is sooooooo correct. The .50s are tragically underpowered. The DM is absolutely unacceptable. The DM leans the advantage even further to the Axis.

 

I might try to look past the terrible DM if I could change my damn convergence!!!

 

All those reasons make it harder, and harder to get people to come back or try it in the first place.

 

It really doesn't help that the DM hasn't been officially addressed or updated.

[NineLine]

 

It really doesn't help that the DM hasn't been officially addressed or updated.

 

ED has noted that the damage model will be looked at and fixed, saying that they have someone that worked on the DM from CloD.

 

That said, even with a more advance DM, the 109 is tossing cannon shells at you... if you get in a position to take a few of those, you are gonna have a bad day.

Edited June 15, 2016 by NineLine

[otto]

With respect man.I wrote p51 should get fuel upgrade.I wrote damage model for 109 is too hard. But it's not like p51 has only disadvantages and 109 only advantages.

 

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.

 

At 4.5 g ? Maybe if it was 8 i might have believed that.

I undertood at the time from Yo-Yo's post it was a bug.My mistake.

 

 

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.

 

Real pilots talk about stifness at speed of 400km/h and over. Not 250-300.

 

 

 

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.

 

First video. P51 deflection shooting.

 

TN9oHgP13BA

 

Second video 1-2 cannon shells and 30 mg bullets vs your p51

 

VQKhMxtDUt4

 

Just 2 mg on 109 vs 51.

 

d5Lu6IdMIT8

 

So it's possible to kill with 2 mg on the 109 from above but not with 6 of the 51 ?

 

I flown p51 for years before the d9 and 109 were available so to a certain point i got bored of it. But i like the german planes more.Just like you like the 51 more. And i admit that .I's no secret.

 

Now shot me one of your 109 kills. Because i want to have fun too. :D .

Edited June 15, 2016 by otto

[gavagai]

Hahahahahahahhahahaha! Nailed it. It really is just air quake at the moment.

 

Airquake? We should be so lucky. Real airquake servers have 24:7 dogfights. I'd kill for a good airquake server in DCS for WW2.

[Merlin-27]

Indeed.

 

How on earth is a K4 "above the Mustang when engagement happens", unless you were to start at the same airfield (at the same time)?

 

If you have the height advantage you can even dictate whether to engage or not.

 

Quite a number of answers to this one.

 

Firstly, dropping two M64s from 10,000 feet is less than ideal. Not every mission is a fighter sweep or a bomber escort. Now, there are plenty of ways to still accomplish this with top cover, but staying at altitude is not always an option.

 

Secondly, spotting aircraft below you in DCS leaves a bit to be desired. Most descend in hopes of seeing some action while flying combat. It's just the nature of things on MP. AI bombers would/will help adjust the engagement altitudes a bit.

 

Thirdly, the 109 climbs like a bat out of hell. Think you have a chance of climbing away to "ideal altitude" in a P-51D with a K4 in chase? Just because it performs better up high doesn't mean it can get there easier. It takes work to get the Stang up there. The 109 is basically effortless in the climb and a good zoom climb can place you above a Mustang almost instantly.

 

I'm not complaining about anything, just answering your question.

[otto]

Indeed.

 

How on earth is a K4 "above the Mustang when engagement happens", unless you were to start at the same airfield (at the same time)?

 

If you have the height advantage you can even dictate whether to engage or not.

 

I don't get this either. Lots of p51 pilots fly into combat at 1000-2000 m .

 

blIbQ3_ATOs

 

P51 doesn't climb that bad.

[msalama]

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

Yes, you seem to be arguing for so-called "game balance" in order to prevent either side from ever gaining an edge, including scenarios when said advantage(s) would be historically accurate and realistic - and this, because you think OL players would throw their toys out of the pram. Or in other words, you'd want to turn a good sim into a stupid furball game just like the others as I said...

[gavagai]

Whether or not to furball has nothing to do with the accuracy of the flight model, systems, ballistics, and damage model.

 

Multiplayer flight sims need a place to train against other humans. Furball servers provide a place to get in a lot of combat per hour of seat time. Otherwise you're lucky to get 5-10 minutes of combat in an hour, which is too little for the purpose of improvement.

 

Every multiplayer flight sim with well-attended historical play has had furball servers packed with people. I'm yet to see a multiplayer flight sim with well-attended historical play that also lacked furball servers.

 

Again, we would be lucky if DCS WW2 had furball/airquake. When we consistently have a server with 40 pilots shooting each other to pieces we will know to expect other rewarding types of play.

[msalama]

And how does having realistic scenarios and accurately modelled, warts and all, hardware, prevent one from putting up a furball server, pray tell? Because I don't think it does, TBH.

[5tuka]

Thirdly, the 109 climbs like a bat out of hell. Think you have a chance of climbing away to "ideal altitude" in a P-51D with a K4 in chase?

Hence why you climb before getting into an engagement and not after. I've equally been able to catch up with Doras and 109s who thought they could outclimb me but too late to get out of gunrange.

 

The P-51 must be flown defensively and is very rewarding in this regard. Mind you defensively does not equal running like a chicken on first sight of a higher oppoment but being aware of the actions you need to take if meeting one so you can evebtually turn the tide and win.

 

The Mustangs abilities like good high airspeed manouvrebility, very good energy rentention (if flown smoothly) and good dive acceleration are helpfull in this regard if you know how to utilize them.

 

Does that mean that the current Mustang is an equally capable performer as the 190 and 109? No, surely not, but that does not mean it's a worse fighter at all.

[gavagai]

Oh, you are right, it is definitely possible. I've hosted a few times with, perish the thought, air starts for mindless air quake. Those with the motivation to set up a dedicated server in DCS aren't into that, probably because it is very uninteresting for those who like to design maps.

[Zimmerdylan]

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.

 

Not to pour salt on this gaping wound. But I just have to answer to this post.

 

In one of my posts about this issue in the past. I specifically went into detail about how I did exactly what you are saying. I did this at your request (Sith). And I posted the results in that forum thread. And out of the 5 identical missions I ran using all IA AC, P-51 against ME 109. The 109 came out victorious in 4 of the 5 missions. And in two of those cases, they took all 5 of the Mustangs without a single casualty. And in one of the missions, they broke even. SO my findings are completely different. I tried these missions under different configurations and results always came out in favor of the 109.

I'm not saying that you are wrong or complaining about it. I just get completely different results. I pretty much have accepted that the P-51 is not on par with the German planes and just don't fly it against them anymore. And as one person posted, the ideology on line with people who do not post here is that the P51 isn't worth the time or energy. And again....I'm only going on what I see and hear on TS and in servers.

I enjoy the way the P-51 flies. I love putting it in a ground support

scenario. It's a lot of fun. But I won't dogfight in it. It's not a contest, it's a suicide.

I am no expert on the flight dynamics of these planes. I do not spend time researching it in depth. All I know is that from what I have read about these planes and seen WWII pilots say, the P51 seems to underperform. yet I have been argued to death on this by DCS and many people. Evidently my lack of knowledge is misleading me and causing my gap in the understanding of the whole thing. I accept that and I accept that the P51 is the much weaker fighter of the 3 planes.

 

But it's kind of hard when others are saying that it is equal to the others. If it is.....I could never pull that kind of performance out of it.

 

My opinions are just that .....opinions. But my test results were real, and I know that I saw. Even though it was different than what Sith saw in his testing.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Zimmerdylan

[NineLine]

In your tests were the 109's focused 1st on the bombers? I think that's important. One issue with the 109 AI is the fact that they use the cannon in dogfights, and they are perfect with it. Its not really realistic, and does skew the results.

[x39crazy]

Well that's the problem.

Everyone gets the idea that the P-51 vs 109 should see the 51 win all the time because 'Murica won the war, so it's better!

But we don't see the critical element here, which is the bombers and 109s ordered to ignore fighters and attack the 4 motors. Oh and last we forget the 109s are outnumbered 10 to 1.

 

1 v 1 there wasn't much the 109 didn't do better than the mustang, particularly the late G and K. The top speeds were similar, the 109 turned far better at dogfight speeds, it climbed way better and had heavier firepower. The mustang could fly farther, higher, and dive faster.

Is it really any surprise that similar quality pilots in 1 v 1 would see the 109 best the mustang? Not really.

You simply can't RE enact the environment where the mustang got its reputation right now, so your stuck in a scenario where the deck isn't stacked against the 109. Till it is the 109 will make a very strong showing.

[Solty]

Well that's the problem.

Everyone gets the idea that the P-51 vs 109 should see the 51 win all the time because 'Murica won the war, so it's better!

But we don't see the critical element here, which is the bombers and 109s ordered to ignore fighters and attack the 4 motors. Oh and last we forget the 109s are outnumbered 10 to 1.

 

1 v 1 there wasn't much the 109 didn't do better than the mustang, particularly the late G and K. The top speeds were similar, the 109 turned far better at dogfight speeds, it climbed way better and had heavier firepower. The mustang could fly farther, higher, and dive faster.

Is it really any surprise that similar quality pilots in 1 v 1 would see the 109 best the mustang? Not really.

You simply can't RE enact the environment where the mustang got its reputation right now, so your stuck in a scenario where the deck isn't stacked against the 109. Till it is the 109 will make a very strong showing.

 

First of all. Your generalisation is very far from what history accounts say. The 109's on many ocasions were escorts to the heavier Fw190A which were attacking the bomber formations, while 109's engaged the escorts. Secondly, Germans on many ocassions, during bombing raids had numberical superiority. Not all fighters could be present at the same time to escort the bombers because not even the P-51 can stay with a slow bomber without using all of its fuel. While Germans massed their airplanes on the path of the bombers and were able to outnumber the escorts 2:1 or more(highest count was 10:1).

 

Another aspect of it is that (as I have stated many times) most 109's during 1944 were either G6 and it's subvariants or G14 and its subvariants. While K4 started to show up at the end of 1944 and became prominent in 1945. At the same time main user of the P-51D Mustang in ETO (8th AAF) was using more powerfull engine settings to combat the new evolving German planes, like the 262.

 

EDIT: No one claims that P-51D should have the upperhand against the 109 in 1v1 dogfight at equal energy states, with both pilots beeing very experienced(especially at low altitude and and low speed). But P-51 is all about speed and the 109K4 has closed the gap between them to such a degree that even running is nearly impossible. So the P-51 is nearly always fighting on 109's terms. And it shouldn't due to historical evidence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reputation the Mustang was built around it's combat effectivness. Greatest example of P-51's capability was the battle known as the "legend of the Y29" where 352nds FG clashed with JG11(skirmish developed during the operation bodenplatte). Zero mustangs were lost even though that Germans caught them taking off, while Germans lost 24 aircraft and allies lost one P-47.:book:

Edited July 16, 2016 by Solty

[Zimmerdylan]

In your tests were the 109's focused 1st on the bombers? I think that's important. One issue with the 109 AI is the fact that they use the cannon in dogfights, and they are perfect with it. Its not really realistic, and does skew the results.

 

 

Yes....I stated that in my initial post on that thread. I did it with the 109's not focused, and the 109's as the bombers as the only objective. Did not make much difference in my scenarios. Yeah....watching the fights, it did not take much from the 109's to down the Mustangs. And I was told at the time that the simplified dynamics of the AI planes were probably why the 109's won a majority of the time. I love flying the 109, 190, and Mustang. But I never use the German planes for ground support. They're not all that great at it. And, I never dogfight with the mustang unless it's against another Mustang. The outcome is very satisfactory to me. I'm not a 4 hour a day flier. I might have an hour a day to dedicate to it and sometimes I'm on the road and won't do it for weeks. So I am a hardly an expert on what flies better than what. I'm OK with that.

[saburo_cz]

"legend of the Y29" where 352nds FG clashed with JG11 is really not good example of everything about engine power, especialy using more powerfull engine settings ...

 

first: German pilots were ordered "Do not engage any air to air combat, just focus on ground targets" and they strictly obeyed it. (ref. Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe's Last Hope -The Attack on Allied Airfields, New Year's Day by John Manrho, Ron Pütz)

 

second: 8th AF fighter units operating from the Continent (352nd during that skirmish) were used only 100/130 fuel with 67"inHg. (wwiiaircrafterformance)

 

and last: pilots skills, the most German pilots were with wery low training and many of them flew their firs (and last) combat sortie. (ref. Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe's Last Hope -The Attack on Allied Airfields, New Year's Day by John Manrho, Ron Pütz, and others sources related to Air war)

[Solty]

Yes indeed they used 130oct fuel because they were on 9th air force base., but as I said most 109s were not k4s (many 190A's, 109G's) and c39crazy pointed out that Mustang renown was only known due to numerical superiority. While during that time odds were in favour of Germans and dogfights developed.I will edit my previous post to make the two topics more clear.

 

And pilot accounts say about dogfights that took place there. In fact they were suppose to hit the airfield itself and there was barely visible damage on the field.So the Germans did not in fact ignore the Americans.

 

Pilot training is no excuse to me really. Germans were not well trained then true, but so were British pilots during BoB that sometimes had less than 7h on Spitfire/Hurricane. So were the soviets who flew only two flights before the battle. So this is not exclusive to the Germans, and yet it is never brought up when discussing German victories over pilots from UK and USSR during early war periods.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Solty

[otto]

First of all. Your generalisation is very far from what history accounts say. The 109's on many ocasions were escorts to the heavier Fw190A which were attacking the bomber formations, while 109's engaged the escorts. Secondly, Germans on many ocassions, during bombing raids had numberical superiority. Not all fighters could be present at the same time to escort the bombers because not even the P-51 can stay with a slow bomber without using all of its fuel. While Germans massed their airplanes on the path of the bombers and were able to outnumber the escorts 2:1 or more(highest count was 10:1).

 

:

 

I would say that considering the US+UK air force was much larger force than Luftwaffe and so was Russian air force,that Germany had to split it's army and airforce to fight with these two superior forces.And considering the lack of fuel at the end of the war,the fact that Germany was sending children to fight in late 1944 until the end of war i would say it's highly unlikely that Luftwaffe had any kind of superiority after Normandy 1944,in aircraft , trained men ,or fuel .

 

The legend of y29? I've seen the same legend many times in DCS with any possible plane.

 

Why not have 109 on the Allied side on one server .It's a "little" historic because there were 109 vs 109 fights between Romania and Germany , Czech airorce and Germany. That was 109g vs 109G14,k but i don't mind.

Edited July 16, 2016 by otto

[Cool-Hand]

I personally feel like a lot of the problems with the current DCS P-51 vs 109 matchup regardless of engine ratings or altitudes fought stem from the damage models or lack of them. From other sims I've played from the German perspective, the radiators are a real weak point being so prominent on the wings of the 109. All it took was a lucky nick from a .303 from a spit or hurricane and then your time in that airframe is down to ~5mins max depending on how you ran the engine or the severity of the leak. Unfortunately DCS doesn't have this right now, you get the white smoke but it's just for decoration it seems at the moment.

 

I mean online with all that lead flying from the P51 guns, it's very probable to nab both radiators with a mid to long range shot. If that really mattered you wouldn't see P51's dumping half their load into a 109 to knock off a wing/tail, catch it on fire, or kill the pilot which seem to be the majority of the way planes go down aside from the ever present prop governor going.

 

If the damage model was up to par with the complexity of the flight models I think a lot of the turning and burning you have to do as a Mustang driver would be cut down a lot to nab a 109. As it stands now, the 109 has all the performance advantages with very few of the design compromises. I mean it's a small airframe, if you hit it with 6 fifty cals for 2 seconds you are going to hit something vital. That something vital is most likely going to make it combat ineffective pretty soon or at least for the pilot to make a choice to disengage or troubleshoot in a dogfight.

 

The armament for fighter on fighter action is definitely in favor of the Mustang along with the high speed maneuverability. The 109 enjoys quite a few other performance advantages along with very effective radiators that don't take damage unless the pilot of hamfisted in Engine Management, I haven't flown the latest patch but also to what I recall their guns don't overheat. So you have quite a few unique design features with none of the compromises they entail. Same with the Mustang, it's radiator is quite exposed to ground fire, but it's pretty rare if ever that I've experienced an airframe loss to that. It's either the radiator motor goes or the prop governor goes.

 

So to compare the two planes at this state isn't a very historical or realistic one at all unless you do it sans weapons.