P-51D, 3 types of flights online

[Captain Orso]

I think any reports of the P-51D being an excellent dog-fighter can be relegated to propaganda. During the war they had to represent it as superior in newsreels for morale purposes, and after the war, well the winner always paints the picture the way they want, and film makers are interested in selling films and not in historical truth. After the war nobody was making the WWII equivalent of Apocalypse Now or writing the equivalent of Dispatches by Michael Herr.

 

The USAAF developed the P-51D as a long range bomber escort, which it did better than any other A/C I know of during the era. But if you develop for long range, you are going to have to neglect other flight aspects to do that.

 

The German's developed the Bf-109 as a gun platform. They did everything to allow the pilot to put the guns on target and didn't have to consider long range, nor in the early stages of the war, very high altitudes.

[Solty]

I think any reports of the P-51D being an excellent dog-fighter can be relegated to propaganda. During the war they had to represent it as superior in newsreels for morale purposes, and after the war, well the winner always paints the picture the way they want, and film makers are interested in selling films and not in historical truth. After the war nobody was making the WWII equivalent of Apocalypse Now or writing the equivalent of Dispatches by Michael Herr.

 

The USAAF developed the P-51D as a long range bomber escort, which it did better than any other A/C I know of during the era. But if you develop for long range, you are going to have to neglect other flight aspects to do that.

 

The German's developed the Bf-109 as a gun platform. They did everything to allow the pilot to put the guns on target and didn't have to consider long range, nor in the early stages of the war, very high altitudes.

I think you need to read a bit more about the Mustang and you will come to a different conclusion.

 

The P-51 was not created for escort missions, it was converted to such a role with P-51B/C/D which had an added fuselage fuel tank and wing drop tanks.

 

P-51 was an aircraft built for the British as a replacement aircraft for the Curtiss P-40. It was suppose to be faster and more maneuverable than the P40 and meet other requirements that RAF had. It met all of them and exceeded them as well.

 

The aircraft was an excellent dogfighter. Compared to the standard German Bf109G6 and Fw190A7 from late 1943-1944, when P-51B was introduced, the Mustang has shown superiority in maneuvrability and speed especially at high altitude. Many P-51B/C's were upgraded to the new V-1650-7 engine (same as the P-51D) before the P-51D was even complete and were flying with 8th AAF with 72' and 75' MAP.

You can read more about different P-51 models here: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors

 

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

When P-51D arrived, Germany's main aircraft were still Bf109G6 and Fw190A7,8. A month after Bf109G14 was introduced and few months down the road first Fw190D9 and then K4 came along. Both of those aircraft were made in small quantities by the end of 1944. So they were barely noticable. Although they were noticed. They were refered to as long nose Fw190 and Me109M or "the Mean 109" (109K4).

 

In a direct comparison, of the standard engagement between the P-51 and 109 of 1944 would look like this, a Bf109G6 (most mass produced aircraft of Luftwaffe) vs the P-51B/C/D (depending on a month of operation). The Bf109G6 was still built in 1945 even though K4 and G14 were already long in production.

 

P-51D could match both the 109G6 and the G14 in maneuvering (as we can even see in DCS against the K4) but additionally was faster and far easier to handle than the 109, especially at high speed. This is a factor that cannot be replicated in simulation. You can only imagine how in a tight and small 109, the G force sits on you, like an elefant making you black out while you are fighting with the stick froces that progressively rise at high speeds. While, a P-51 pilot has a G-Suit and his airplane is light on the controls.

 

I suggest reading combat reports from the USAAF and watching guncameras and few more documentaries on how the P-51 got its reputation.

 

What I think is the main issue here is miscommunication. The P-51D was a great fighter. But it was not indestructable. Many fighters were shot down. What we are talking here is comparisson of planes. And its not as if German aircraft were bad or incapable, but the P-51D even though it has 6xtimes the range of a German airplane, can still keep with it in combat and can disengage at will, because it is faster.

 

If you read how most dogfights went, (of the victorious pilots). They got into a high speed turn, P-51 was outturning the 109. After half of the turn, 109 dives for safety, Mustang follows, catches him, shoots. German either bails or dies. The end.

 

Of course there were complicated dogfights, as the one that 3xAce, Bud Anderson had in his P-51B vs Bf109G. But these were a rarity among most normal engagements which were concluded within seconds and mostly the pilot, didn't even see the enemy aircraft that shot him down.

 

 

:smartass::pilotfly:

Edited September 1, 2016 by Solty

[horseback]

I think any reports of the P-51D being an excellent dog-fighter can be relegated to propaganda.

I'm not sure I'd go that far; we don't use it in its natural element and the opposition is more practiced, skilled and knowledgeable about the relative strengths and weaknesses than the average wartime LW pilot was compared to the average Allied pilot (plus, the LW aircraft modeled are a year later generation compared to the wartime P-51D, which entered production about 5-6 months before it arrived in-theater--it's a long way by boat from Fort Worth to East Anglia).

 

However, there are multiple occasions where Mustang flights caught at low level did very well against apparently skilled opposition, so some important part of the equation is either not making it to the computer screen or is not being used by the community in general.

[Integrals]

I flew the 109 in ACG for the first time yesterday (logged about .5 hours total) and I know where all of my troubles come from now. It is much easier to fly, feels faster and more nimble, can climb better. The only thing that I found worse than the mustang was high speed dive (discussed previously), right roll rate (left seemed acceptable), and the gun sight. Visibility was no where near as bad as I expected. It is definitely not quite as good as the P-51 but I had expected tracking to be much much more difficult than it was and I didn't miss the rear warning radar at all.

 

On top of all of that the feeling of actually being able to do something about seeing a P-51 behind you was incredible. I landed shots in my first multiplayer fight against people I know fly the 51 fairly regularly. It wasn't a kill but I was expecting it to be much more difficult than it was.

 

I did manage to blow the engine up on it at least, so at least I know that isn't a unique characteristic of the P-51 now :P.

 

Having done that I think I'm going to really change how I fly the mustang... I somehwhat understand how easy I was making things on the 109 pilots.

[Brigg]

Could you please tell me how tow operate the rear radar please. thx

[OutOnTheOP]

Could you please tell me how tow operate the rear radar please. thx

 

Look at right side of cockpit. Turn radar power switch to on. Wait a couple minutes for radar to warm up. Done.

 

You can flip the test switch to test if it's done warming up yet. The light to the left of the gunsight will illuminate yellow and a bell will ring when the radar detects something. It *will* get returns off the ground, so it will go off constantly at altitudes of less than about 3000 feet above terrain.

[Brigg]

Look at right side of cockpit. Turn radar power switch to on. Wait a couple minutes for radar to warm up. Done.

 

You can flip the test switch to test if it's done warming up yet. The light to the left of the gunsight will illuminate yellow and a bell will ring when the radar detects something. It *will* get returns off the ground, so it will go off constantly at altitudes of less than about 3000 feet above terrain.

 

ok cool thx :thumbup:

[karlmeyer25]

I think you need to read a bit more about the Mustang and you will come to a different conclusion.

 

The P-51 was not created for escort missions, it was converted to such a role with P-51B/C/D which had an added fuselage fuel tank and wing drop tanks.

 

P-51 was an aircraft built for the British as a replacement aircraft for the Curtiss P-40. It was suppose to be faster and more maneuverable than the P40 and meet other requirements that RAF had. It met all of them and exceeded them as well.

 

The aircraft was an excellent dogfighter. Compared to the standard German Bf109G6 and Fw190A7 from late 1943-1944, when P-51B was introduced, the Mustang has shown superiority in maneuvrability and speed especially at high altitude. Many P-51B/C's were upgraded to the new V-1650-7 engine (same as the P-51D) before the P-51D was even complete and were flying with 8th AAF with 72' and 75' MAP.

You can read more about different P-51 models here: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors

 

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

When P-51D arrived, Germany's main aircraft were still Bf109G6 and Fw190A7,8. A month after Bf109G14 was introduced and few months down the road first Fw190D9 and then K4 came along. Both of those aircraft were made in small quantities by the end of 1944. So they were barely noticable. Although they were noticed. They were refered to as long nose Fw190 and Me109M or "the Mean 109" (109K4).

 

In a direct comparison, of the standard engagement between the P-51 and 109 of 1944 would look like this, a Bf109G6 (most mass produced aircraft of Luftwaffe) vs the P-51B/C/D (depending on a month of operation). The Bf109G6 was still built in 1945 even though K4 and G14 were already long in production.

 

P-51D could match both the 109G6 and the G14 in maneuvering (as we can even see in DCS against the K4) but additionally was faster and far easier to handle than the 109, especially at high speed. This is a factor that cannot be replicated in simulation. You can only imagine how in a tight and small 109, the G force sits on you, like an elefant making you black out while you are fighting with the stick froces that progressively rise at high speeds. While, a P-51 pilot has a G-Suit and his airplane is light on the controls.

 

I suggest reading combat reports from the USAAF and watching guncameras and few more documentaries on how the P-51 got its reputation.

 

What I think is the main issue here is miscommunication. The P-51D was a great fighter. But it was not indestructable. Many fighters were shot down. What we are talking here is comparisson of planes. And its not as if German aircraft were bad or incapable, but the P-51D even though it has 6xtimes the range of a German airplane, can still keep with it in combat and can disengage at will, because it is faster.

 

If you read how most dogfights went, (of the victorious pilots). They got into a high speed turn, P-51 was outturning the 109. After half of the turn, 109 dives for safety, Mustang follows, catches him, shoots. German either bails or dies. The end.

 

Of course there were complicated dogfights, as the one that 3xAce, Bud Anderson had in his P-51B vs Bf109G. But these were a rarity among most normal engagements which were concluded within seconds and mostly the pilot, didn't even see the enemy aircraft that shot him down.

 

 

:smartass::pilotfly:

 

Lots of good stuff in this post, thanks Solty. What is your current opinion of the DCS modeled match up of the DCS K-4 and the 51D?

 

I'd also appreciate any tips you, or others may have for winning 109 engagements.

 

-SLACK

[Coyote Duster]

ok cool thx :thumbup:

 

I think you need to read a bit more about the Mustang and you will come to a different conclusion.

 

The P-51 was not created for escort missions, it was converted to such a role with P-51B/C/D which had an added fuselage fuel tank and wing drop tanks.

 

P-51 was an aircraft built for the British as a replacement aircraft for the Curtiss P-40. It was suppose to be faster and more maneuverable than the P40 and meet other requirements that RAF had. It met all of them and exceeded them as well.

 

The aircraft was an excellent dogfighter. Compared to the standard German Bf109G6 and Fw190A7 from late 1943-1944, when P-51B was introduced, the Mustang has shown superiority in maneuvrability and speed especially at high altitude. Many P-51B/C's were upgraded to the new V-1650-7 engine (same as the P-51D) before the P-51D was even complete and were flying with 8th AAF with 72' and 75' MAP.

You can read more about different P-51 models here: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors

 

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

When P-51D arrived, Germany's main aircraft were still Bf109G6 and Fw190A7,8. A month after Bf109G14 was introduced and few months down the road first Fw190D9 and then K4 came along. Both of those aircraft were made in small quantities by the end of 1944. So they were barely noticable. Although they were noticed. They were refered to as long nose Fw190 and Me109M or "the Mean 109" (109K4).

 

In a direct comparison, of the standard engagement between the P-51 and 109 of 1944 would look like this, a Bf109G6 (most mass produced aircraft of Luftwaffe) vs the P-51B/C/D (depending on a month of operation). The Bf109G6 was still built in 1945 even though K4 and G14 were already long in production.

 

P-51D could match both the 109G6 and the G14 in maneuvering (as we can even see in DCS against the K4) but additionally was faster and far easier to handle than the 109, especially at high speed. This is a factor that cannot be replicated in simulation. You can only imagine how in a tight and small 109, the G force sits on you, like an elefant making you black out while you are fighting with the stick froces that progressively rise at high speeds. While, a P-51 pilot has a G-Suit and his airplane is light on the controls.

 

I suggest reading combat reports from the USAAF and watching guncameras and few more documentaries on how the P-51 got its reputation.

 

What I think is the main issue here is miscommunication. The P-51D was a great fighter. But it was not indestructable. Many fighters were shot down. What we are talking here is comparisson of planes. And its not as if German aircraft were bad or incapable, but the P-51D even though it has 6xtimes the range of a German airplane, can still keep with it in combat and can disengage at will, because it is faster.

 

If you read how most dogfights went, (of the victorious pilots). They got into a high speed turn, P-51 was outturning the 109. After half of the turn, 109 dives for safety, Mustang follows, catches him, shoots. German either bails or dies. The end.

 

Of course there were complicated dogfights, as the one that 3xAce, Bud Anderson had in his P-51B vs Bf109G. But these were a rarity among most normal engagements which were concluded within seconds and mostly the pilot, didn't even see the enemy aircraft that shot him down.

 

 

:smartass::pilotfly:

 

Can I get an encore? This man will always tell it like it is, and he's a great wingman

[Captain Orso]

I think you need to read a bit more about the Mustang and you will come to a different conclusion.

 

The P-51 was not created for escort missions, it was converted to such a role with P-51B/C/D which had an added fuselage fuel tank and wing drop tanks.

 

P-51 was an aircraft built for the British as a replacement aircraft for the Curtiss P-40. It was suppose to be faster and more maneuverable than the P40 and meet other requirements that RAF had. It met all of them and exceeded them as well.

 

I agree, 100%.

 

The aircraft was an excellent dogfighter. Compared to the standard German Bf109G6 and Fw190A7 from late 1943-1944, when P-51B was introduced, the Mustang has shown superiority in maneuvrability and speed especially at high altitude. Many P-51B/C's were upgraded to the new V-1650-7 engine (same as the P-51D) before the P-51D was even complete and were flying with 8th AAF with 72' and 75' MAP.

You can read more about different P-51 models here: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors

 

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

When P-51D arrived, Germany's main aircraft were still Bf109G6 and Fw190A7,8. A month after Bf109G14 was introduced and few months down the road first Fw190D9 and then K4 came along. Both of those aircraft were made in small quantities by the end of 1944. So they were barely noticable. Although they were noticed. They were refered to as long nose Fw190 and Me109M or "the Mean 109" (109K4).

 

In a direct comparison, of the standard engagement between the P-51 and 109 of 1944 would look like this, a Bf109G6 (most mass produced aircraft of Luftwaffe) vs the P-51B/C/D (depending on a month of operation). The Bf109G6 was still built in 1945 even though K4 and G14 were already long in production.

 

P-51D could match both the 109G6 and the G14 in maneuvering (as we can even see in DCS against the K4) but additionally was faster and far easier to handle than the 109, especially at high speed. This is a factor that cannot be replicated in simulation. You can only imagine how in a tight and small 109, the G force sits on you, like an elefant making you black out while you are fighting with the stick froces that progressively rise at high speeds. While, a P-51 pilot has a G-Suit and his airplane is light on the controls.

 

I suggest reading combat reports from the USAAF and watching guncameras and few more documentaries on how the P-51 got its reputation.

 

What I think is the main issue here is miscommunication. The P-51D was a great fighter. But it was not indestructable. Many fighters were shot down. What we are talking here is comparisson of planes. And its not as if German aircraft were bad or incapable, but the P-51D even though it has 6xtimes the range of a German airplane, can still keep with it in combat and can disengage at will, because it is faster.

 

If you read how most dogfights went, (of the victorious pilots). They got into a high speed turn, P-51 was outturning the 109. After half of the turn, 109 dives for safety, Mustang follows, catches him, shoots. German either bails or dies. The end.

 

Of course there were complicated dogfights, as the one that 3xAce, Bud Anderson had in his P-51B vs Bf109G. But these were a rarity among most normal engagements which were concluded within seconds and mostly the pilot, didn't even see the enemy aircraft that shot him down.

 

 

:smartass::pilotfly:

 

I see no evidence of the P-51D being more "maneuverable" than the earlier 190's and 109's in your reference.

 

There is no "standard" engagement, only commonality. And we never see the most common type of engagement between 51's and 109's and 190's in DCS, those which occurred while the 51 was escorting bombers at high altitudes.

 

While in no way claim that the Bf-109 K-4 and FW-190 D9 were not improvements over their predecessors, in my mind the greater question is the environment and nature of an engagement.

 

The air war in WWII was not fought like an air-quake mission, and I would speculate that there were practically never any such engagements.

 

Even if DCS provided every German A/C available in '43 and '44, and only the most common were used in an air-quake mission, it will still just be a fantasy mission, and not representative of how the air war was conducted during those years.

[Solty]

I agree, 100%.

 

 

 

I see no evidence of the P-51D being more "maneuverable" than the earlier 190's and 109's in your reference.

 

There is no "standard" engagement, only commonality. And we never see the most common type of engagement between 51's and 109's and 190's in DCS, those which occurred while the 51 was escorting bombers at high altitudes.

 

While in no way claim that the Bf-109 K-4 and FW-190 D9 were not improvements over their predecessors, in my mind the greater question is the environment and nature of an engagement.

 

The air war in WWII was not fought like an air-quake mission, and I would speculate that there were practically never any such engagements.

 

Even if DCS provided every German A/C available in '43 and '44, and only the most common were used in an air-quake mission, it will still just be a fantasy mission, and not representative of how the air war was conducted during those years.

Yes, and I said it myself in one of the threads, the mission will always be artificially changed because its a video game and not a real war. And I am not asking for a real war. Rather disputing your claims that P-51's ability to fight is only work of propaganda.

 

'Common' and 'standard', thats just semantics. You very well know what I mean.

 

That doesn't mean that the pilot's didn't know what they were facing or that they didn't care. A quote that supports this is from Don Bryan from 352nd FG "The P-51(D) would outperform the normal 109 and the 190 at any altitude."

So they did care, and had vague, but some knowledge what they were fighting. As I said those new planes were known to the pilots.

 

Mission is important and mission objectives as well and I think it was discussed to the death how pilot training, pilot skill affects fighting and how all that changes the idea. There were accounts of combating German fighters at low altitude, like during Operation Bodenplatte where P-51's showed they are not at a great disadvantage there. Battle of Y-29 is the best example of that, where Germans lost 24 airplanes and not a single P-51 was shot down.

 

Finally, I have a question for you. What is maneuvrability for you? Because I feel your defenition is different than mine.

[harf4ng]

Maybe one day we will get a flight sim that behaves like a mmorpg with thousands of players around the world and real time missions with a persistant universe, a world active 24/24 with bombers going on their mission with escort planes, and so on, so this will be the most realistic missions we can have, if the enemy do not know when there will be an attack and therefore has to do patrols, patrols that sometimes are pointless and sometimes not.

 

A bit like eve online in zero security space, but not in space, and a flight sim... :)

[Captain Orso]

Yes, and I said it myself in one of the threads, the mission will always be artificially changed because its a video game and not a real war. And I am not asking for a real war. Rather disputing your claims that P-51's ability to fight is only work of propaganda.

 

You can never fully simulate "real war", because unless you kill the player, maim him, or injure him physically, the player will never react exactly as somebody in a real war. That does not mean that one cannot simulate the same environmental situation as occurred during some period of some conflict, and allow the player to virtually experience the same actions and decisions.

 

Again, I didn't say the P-51D could not fight! I said it was not designed as a dog-fighter nor given the characteristics of an great dog-fighter.

 

'Common' and 'standard', thats just semantics. You very well know what I mean.

 

Semantics have meaning. I'm sure you would agree that between saying, "he's a slow learner", and "he's retarded", although they both convey the same information, carry different connotations.

 

That doesn't mean that the pilot's didn't know what they were facing or that they didn't care. A quote that supports this is from Don Bryan from 352nd FG "The P-51(D) would outperform the normal 109 and the 190 at any altitude."

So they did care, and had vague, but some knowledge what they were fighting. As I said those new planes were known to the pilots.

 

Mission is important and mission objectives as well and I think it was discussed to the death how pilot training, pilot skill affects fighting and how all that changes the idea. There were accounts of combating German fighters at low altitude, like during Operation Bodenplatte where P-51's showed they are not at a great disadvantage there. Battle of Y-29 is the best example of that, where Germans lost 24 airplanes and not a single P-51 was shot down.

 

They were also fighting in specific environments, which include the fact that German A/C were not produced to their planned quality, with their planned quality of material, nor did their newer pilots have anywhere near the training that new USAAF pilots had. In fact, veteran pilot actually shunned new LW pilots, refusing to get to know them or trying to mentor them, knowing that most of the new pilots would be dead within a few weeks of starting active combat flying. The same thing happened in the US Army with replacements, especially during hard-fighting battles like the Bulge, Hürtgenwald, and many of the battles in Italy.

 

Finally, I have a question for you. What is maneuvrability for you? Because I feel your defenition is different than mine.

 

Maneuverability includes all aspects of changing the mode of flight; accelerating, maintaining speed, turning*, climbing* (*while losing the least energy/speed), and diving (gaining the most speed without losing the ability to control the A/C). To me, the better an A/C can do these gives that A/C a better rating in that category.

 

But maneuverability is not the only thing to consider, if you want to assess the quality of an aircraft, it depends greatly on what is required of its mission. Operational range and armaments also play important roles.

 

EG if hypothetically, the US had developed the ME-262 instead of the P-51D, it would have been of little use to the allies. It would certainly be very affective in fighting enemy A/C, but it could not escort bombers.

 

In the same way, the P-51D's ability to fly very long distances, its engine to provide a high amount of power at high altitudes, or its ability to maintain speed and maneuverability in a dive, play little to no role in a low level dog-fight. It cannot turn as quickly as the 109 without losing power (speed), cannot climb as quickly, unless it has previously gained considerable speed from a dive, nor can it accelerate as quickly as the much lighter 109.

 

You say, "its a video game and not a real war". But that is not the question. The question is, do we want to fly missions emulating 'real war' situations, which would give virtual pilots different goals than simple low-level dog-fights, and which would bring different quality of opposing A/C into the forefront?

[Solty]

USAAF training thing is overrated. Pilots knew how to fly and that's it. Many trained at different types and had no idea how air combat works. They trained at P39, got Europe and got P51B which they saw for the first time and got to talk with a P38 pilot who told them to turn to the right against the 109. And that's it. That is why pilots had a saying, "fly five and stay alive" because u understood combat by that time.

 

I told you already that P51 is a better performer even at low altitudes than bf109G and Fw190A. And is capable of keeping with them at most speed ranges and has better overall maneuverability to the 109 due to high speed handling and is comparable at medium speed.

 

The only advantage that 109 has is low speed sustained turn. 190 has better low speed roll rate and more powerful armament.

 

The difference in ROC is negligible because p51 can gain enough speed to follow a 109 in climb.

[Kurfürst]

When P-51D arrived, Germany's main aircraft were still Bf109G6 and Fw190A7,8. A month after Bf109G14 was introduced and few months down the road first Fw190D9 and then K4 came along. Both of those aircraft were made in small quantities by the end of 1944. So they were barely noticable. Although they were noticed. They were refered to as long nose Fw190 and Me109M or "the Mean 109" (109K4).

 

In a direct comparison, of the standard engagement between the P-51 and 109 of 1944 would look like this, a Bf109G6 (most mass produced aircraft of Luftwaffe) vs the P-51B/C/D (depending on a month of operation).

 

Solty repeats this propaganda piece regardless how many times we correct him, and although at first I believed its simply a case of being misinformed himself, now I am quite convinced that it is rather the case of intentially repeating the same old lies over and over again until they stuck in the heads. Its a fantasy world where the P-51D becomes the practically only USAAF fighter worths mentioning in the very month the first few dozen flew their first sorties, while evil Nazi aircraft produced in the thousands are 'barely noticable'. :D

 

Because, you know, P-51s were common in the first half of 1944. Kinda. Somewhat. Oooops, not. P-38s and 47s were.

 

 

Let me give an example.

 

The Bf109G6 was still built in 1945 even though K4 and G14 were already long in production.

 

Indeed, it was built, that's technically true. In the entire 1945 period, Messerschmitt in Regensburg built ten (10) of them, WNF in Vianna built two (2) methanol boosted recce versions, while ERLA produced 64, presumably for training purposes only. That's out of the 2800 other 109s they produced in the same period.

 

Out of the 16506 109s produced in 1944/45, only about a third, 6165 were G-6s and their production - and most of them were quickly upgraded to G-14 standard (=merely fitting of MW booster tank) from the spring of 1944 anyways, which was probably the hottest 109 below 4000 m until 1945.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Kurfürst

[karlmeyer25]

I told you already that P51 is a better performer even at low altitudes than bf109G and Fw190A. And is capable of keeping with them at most speed ranges and has better overall maneuverability to the 109 due to high speed handling and is comparable at medium speed.

 

The only advantage that 109 has is low speed sustained turn. 190 has better low speed roll rate and more powerful armament.

 

It certainly doesn't feel like this in game. Having flown both now for a bit, the 109 feels a lot better in a dog fight. While not as responsive as the P-51D, the aircraft seems to rocket out of a turn while in boost, it hardly ever stalls on sudden AOA changes, and since most 1v1's end up slow, the P-51D's only option is to exit the fight before falling under 250 mph. I have never loss an aerial battle in a 109, especially when the fight gets below 250. Also, even in a fast turn, the P-51D pilot seems to black out A LOT more than the 109 pilot, which blows my mind if DCS is trying to model a G-suit on the player as well.

 

The P-51D is legendary for sure, but in DCS the aircraft is a chore to fight in unless something is wrong with the modeling. I love the P-51's gun sight, and superb visibility, but I'd take an airframe that responds better to hard AOA changes and can out climb the opponent any day. It just sucks there is such a lopsided Blue vs Red situation now on MP that for fun I have to fly the P-51 to see any action.

 

It could be the 109 K-4 modeling is "nerfed" for lack of a better term. Integrals made the point that if even if the Germans put novices in the cockpit of these things it stands to reason that if they operated in the real world like they do in DCS then the Luftwaffe would've stood a better chance.

 

-SLACK

[Solty]

@Kurfurst:

What are you talking about? When did I say that P-51 was the only USAAF fighter worthy of note? Everyone knows that the most produced and used fighter of the war in Europe was the P-47, but when 8th AAF (note not whole USAAF) started to bomb targets deep inside Germany and even in occupied Poland (eg. Gdynia), the 8th AAF under General Doolittle was using mostly (not exclusively) P-51's.

 

Do I have to spell it out in big letters that, what I am talking here is comparison between P-51B/C/D and typical German Aircraft of 1944.

 

And, how many times I have to tell you, your K4 and D9 are NOT COMMON, by any standard (except for yours, maybe) in 1944.

 

 

@karl

 

Again, thats because there is a big difference between Bf109G6 and Bf109K4. Those are two different planes. Different engine and different airframe even weapons (although G6/U4 had the same Mk108 cannon)

 

You do not need high AoA to do combat effectively. You have to learn how to do energy managment properly and you have to remember that DM is unfinished which makes .50cals weak in compratisson to what the 109K uses.

 

When Spitfire comes, it will probably suit your much more than the P-51D.

 

American warbirds require precision and pacience coupled with consciousness of what your airplane is capable of doing and what it is not.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Solty

[harf4ng]

I would take the p51 just because it is an American plane, and I would not be on German side in ww2 :)

Though maybe one day I'll buy German planes as well just for versatility :)

 

But what I want is a corsair, a pacific map, to be in the skin of papy boyington...

[Kurfürst]

@Kurfurst:

What are you talking about? When did I say that P-51 was the only USAAF fighter worthy of note? Everyone knows that the most produced and used fighter of the war in Europe was the P-47, but when 8th AAF (note not whole USAAF) started to bomb targets deep inside Germany and even in occupied Poland (eg. Gdynia), the 8th AAF under General Doolittle was using mostly (not exclusively) P-51's.

 

Well I can see two (3) P-51 groups, all others are P-47/38.

 

Never let yourself distracted by the facts, Solty.

 

 

And, how many times I have to tell you, your K4 and D9 are NOT COMMON, by any standard (except for yours, maybe) in 1944.

 

You can tell that unsubstantiated propaganda piece as many times as you want, and I will always correct it every time you repeat it. Both D-9s and K-4s were common in 1944 and in fact, the P-51D25 we have in DCS (with the aerodynamic fixes that prevent it from falling apart in dives and the K-14 gyrosight and tail-warning radar) come at the same time as them or even later.

[Solty]

Can you even read what you have attached? Only 2 units were not converted into P-51 before 1945. Only 1 was never converted into P-51's and in 45 that group was using the P-47M which is the elite 56th FG known as the Hub Zemke's Wolfpack.

 

7 of those units were using P-51 since or before June.

 

EDIT: The talk here is not about other aircraft. It is about the P-51D alone, not other US aircraft. So stop making it a recap of the war. We are discussing the P-51D alone.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Solty

[Kurfürst]

Well then stop talking nonsense about 'other' aircraft, which you started, thank you very much.

[Solty]

Well then stop talking nonsense about 'other' aircraft, which you started, thank you very much.

I did not bring any other US aircraft into the equasion. You did.

[Brigg]

Well then stop talking nonsense about 'other' aircraft, which you started, thank you very much.

 

He didn't, you did :doh:

[harf4ng]

Can you stop arguing and just jump into your planes and end the talking with your guns? :)

[Brigg]

I would be glad too :pilotfly: