Spitfire better than P-51D for online matches?

[rel4y]

After flying the Spitfire more, I'm beginning to wonder how the allies ever won the air war. If these planes are actually true to their real world counterparts. Somebody must have been really lucky........:lol:

 

I wonder how the allies won the ground war? If Wittmann really took out half the 7th British armored division alone.. Could the allied tanks really have been this bad? Maybe it helped that 70% of all German troops were bleeding out on the eastern front and that the troop numerical superiority and industrial capacity of pretty much the whole world vs little tiny axis powers was not even worth the comparison?

 

Many allied sim pilots burn their E like is a sport and then wonder why they get completely obliterated. After a head-on the usual spit standard is a high G level turn. Immelman or Chandelle for energy conservation? No thanks. Another all time favorite is reversing right in front of german gun sights. Watch t4t and then tell me the mustang is no match. The guy never gives you angles. The spit has superior roll rate than the 109 at all speed ranges, never seen one use it yet.

[Solty]

Doesn't really matter on what setting these engines can run with post war cooling systems.

Nobody sad they can't handle it. However, according to that paper the higher setting came with a price and this should not be ignored.

 

 

And everybody can get cancer. What's the point?

 

Point is that the test is for a different engine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Mustang_Mk.X

[IronJockel]

Point is that the test is for a different engine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Mustang_Mk.X

 

So the paper is a valid source to prove an increase in performance but it's not valid to prove a possible reliability issue that comes with it and since all engines can fail it doesn't matter anyway?

[Solty]

So the paper is a valid source to prove an increase in performance but it's not valid to prove a possible reliability issue that comes with it and since all engines can fail it doesn't matter anyway?

 

Umm... No? It's just invalid. But there are a few more tests of 75' MAP and Gen. Doolittle's approval of the 150oct fuel and high power settings.

 

:smartass:

[OutOnTheOP]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/AL_963.pdf

 

I wonder, if anbody of the +23 fraction has read page 4 of that paper.

 

"...... some severe handling tests to check rapid opening up and acceleration, an internal mechanical failure of the pump occurred, ......."

 

 

Irrelevant. That was the test of a 1943 EXPERIMENTAL modification (and was likely a -B or -C model, though never explicitly stated). Note that in the modifications list, the pump (to deliver the required fuel flow) was listed as a new part. The 1944 P-51D, however, ran at up to 81" with the standard pump. The mechanical reliability is not transferable from this test aircraft to a production aircraft. The performance, however, IS. Horsepower is horsepower. If the engine did not change the exterior profile of the aircraft (aerodynamics), did not change the overall weight of the aircraft, and did not change the center of balance, it will perform the same when provided the same horsepower to the prop, regardless of what model engine is providing that horsepower. The Merlin 65 may have weighed a few pounds more or less than the Merlin 66, but not so much that the performance difference would be greatly out of line with the testing.

 

I will grant, however, that as the -B and -C are marginally lighter than the -D, the climb rate increase seen on a production -D may have been marginally lower. Perhaps +850 fpm instead of the +960 fpm noted in the test. The Mustang did gain 9% weight moving from the -B/-C to the -D, so +873 feet per minute would be the extrapolated gain.

 

It isn't all sunshine with higher boost settings.

 

No, but then again, there are documented references to the DB605 shattering crankshafts under MW50, and no such documentation for the regular failure of Merlins under +75", so... careful what you wish for. I'd be perfectly fine with the Merlin failing at WEP occasionally... as long as the DB605 fails catastrophically many times more frequently. Only realistic, you know...

 

And about the P51 H thing: If it was so great, why didn't it replace the D even after the war????

 

Gee, I can't imagine why they didn't continue making fighters from an entirely obsolete line of development after the introduction of jet engines. I just cannot fathom why....

 

Or do you mean "why did they use -D models in Korea instead of -H?" In which case, the answer is: because the Mustangs were used for CAS instead of air superiority, and therefore the increased performance wasn't required, but having plenty of spares on hand was useful. Not that many spares (either airframe or parts) available for the -H.

Edited January 24, 2017 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

Many allied sim pilots burn their E like is a sport and then wonder why they get completely obliterated. After a head-on the usual spit standard is a high G level turn. Immelman or Chandelle for energy conservation? No thanks. Another all time favorite is reversing right in front of german gun sights. Watch t4t and then tell me the mustang is no match. The guy never gives you angles. The spit has superior roll rate than the 109 at all speed ranges, never seen one use it yet.

 

And my experience is that Kurfurst pilots in-game do exactly the same thing. The performance available in the airframe makes them lazy, and that makes them stupid.

[OutOnTheOP]

Point is that the test is for a different engine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Mustang_Mk.X

 

Not exactly. The test I posted was for a test conducted with a standard Mustang, using a standard Merlin 65 modified for increased fuel flow rate in order to test out what the performance gains for the airframe would be if it mounted an engine of higher power production. The test was commissioned in preparation for fielding the new Merlin RM14SM engines.

 

As it happened in reality, the Packard V 1650-7 Merlins as mounted into the USAAF P-51D were capable of pulling +75" for 7 hours straight with no pump failures (or any other failures of any type, besides possibly spark plug fouling, easily avoided by periodically running the engine at high power setting for a short while) when fed 44-1 fuel. The point of my posting that test was to show the level of performance increase from the airframe, given the extra power. It is not, however, the same engine that was used in service to *provide* that extra power (as Solty has already pointed out).

 

So the performance numbers are of use; the failure stats are not.

Edited January 24, 2017 by OutOnTheOP

[IronJockel]

Irrelevant. That was the test of a 1943 EXPERIMENTAL modification (and was likely a -B or -C model, though never explicitly stated). Note that in the modifications list, the pump (to deliver the required fuel flow) was listed as a new part. The 1944 P-51D, however, ran at up to 81" with the standard pump. The mechanical reliability is not transferable from this test aircraft to a production aircraft. The performance, however, IS. Horsepower is horsepower. I will grant, however, that as the -B and -C are marginally lighter than the -D, the climb rate increase seen on a production -D may have been marginally lower. Perhaps +850 fpm instead of the +960 fpm noted in the test.

 

Why didn't you use a more representative paper then, if the content of this one is irrelevant?

According to Solty, these exist.

 

Gee, I can't imagine why they didn't continue making fighters from an entirely obsolete line of development after the introduction of jet engines. I just cannot fathom why....

 

Or do you mean "why did they use -D models in Korea instead of -H?" In which case, the answer is: because the Mustangs were used for CAS instead of air superiority, and therefore the increased performance wasn't required, but having plenty of spares on hand was useful. Not that many spares (either airframe or parts) available for the -H.

 

They faced the La-9 over Korea, the top notch Russian prop plane of that time. How dare i to assume that it would be logical for the US Airforce to equip their pilots only with their best aircraft. :music_whistling:

[OutOnTheOP]

Why didn't you use a more representative paper then, if the content of this one is irrelevant?

According to Solty, these exist.

 

The paper isn't entirely irrelevant, only your note about the pump failures is irrelevant. Papers exist that show the raw performance from the +75" Mustangs, yes. Other papers exist that show the mechanical reliability of the up-rated Merlins (running for up to 7 hours straight on WEP in acceptance testing). Yet other papers exist that show the performance from +67" Mustangs.

 

I chose *this* paper because it provided a convenient comparison between the performance of a Mustang at +67" AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT SAME MUSTANG WITH NO CHANGES BEYOND INCREASING HORSEPOWER. The point is that it shows that if you increase from a +67" rating to a +75" rating ON THE SAME AIRFRAME, exactly what performance increase you get. The fact that the horsepower increase was gained through an engine modification is irrelevant; the later V 1650-7 did not require the experimental fuel pump in order to attain +75" (or indeed, +81") power ratings. Therefore, the pump failures referenced are irrelevant as well. That pump cannot fail on the V 1650-7 Merlins, because the Mk II pump did not exist on the V 1650-7.

 

They faced the La-9 over Korea, the top notch Russian prop plane of that time. How dare i to assume that it would be logical for the US Airforce to equip their pilots only with their best aircraft. :music_whistling:

 

The Lavochkins were swept from the skies in weeks, and it wasn't the P-51s that were tasked to do it. As I mentioned already, they were doing CAS work.

 

...I guess that means you want to re-equip all of the A-10 squadrons with F-22s, because clearly it is the wisest decision to give high-end air superiority airframes to CAS squadrons? You know... just in case?

Edited January 24, 2017 by OutOnTheOP

[IronJockel]

The Lavochkins were swept from the skies in weeks, and it wasn't the P-51s that were tasked to do it. As I mentioned already, they were doing CAS work.

 

...I guess that means you want to re-equip all of the A-10 squadrons with F-22s, because clearly it is the wisest decision to give high-end air superiority airframes to CAS squadrons? You know... just in case?

 

Guess all you want. :lol:

[DD_Fenrir]

The choice of 18lb Spitfire is entirely logical given both the upcoming map, and the lifespan of the aircraft; only in the last three months of the war did those units with the highest percentage chance of meeting the Luftwaffe (2nd TAF) start using 150 octane fuel. For over a year and a half previously the Mk.IX was only ever at 18lb boost - ergo those Mk.IXs in use by 2nd TAF over Normandy in June of 1944 were the same, with only a very limited number of Air Defence Great Britain Mk.IXs (2 squadrons IIRC) cleared for 25lb.

 

The representative Mk.IX for the map and for the lifespan of the a/c logically should be 18lb boost.

 

The trouble is, and always has been the choice of Luthier and his team to include variants of the Luftwaffe fighters that did not enter operational service until 2-3 months after the Normandy campaign.

 

However this 18lb version of the Spitfire would have faced these precise versions of the 109 and 190 throughout the late autumn and winter of 1944 including during the Ardennes offensive. It is an entirely historical match-up.

 

As for my personal take? Online I get a mixed bag. I completed an evening the other night in the Spit on Burning Skies with an 11-1 kill ratio. Two nights later it was 1-1. It depends entirely upon the calibre of the opponents you face. True the Spit is outmatched in some regards but I find if I have my wits about me and keep my six clear I can survive if not prevail against a sharp operator in the 109 or 190, more so than the Pony but I guess the Spit better suits my style of fighting.

[OutOnTheOP]

Guess all you want. :lol:

 

No, I don't think I will bother. You bring nothing of value to the conversation, and it is not worth wasting any more time on your trolling.

[MaxDamage]

I wonder how the allies won the ground war? If Wittmann really took out half the 7th British armored division alone.. Could the allied tanks really have been this bad? Maybe it helped that 70% of all German troops were bleeding out on the eastern front and that the troop numerical superiority and industrial capacity of pretty much the whole world vs little tiny axis powers was not even worth the comparison?

 

Many allied sim pilots burn their E like is a sport and then wonder why they get completely obliterated. After a head-on the usual spit standard is a high G level turn. Immelman or Chandelle for energy conservation? No thanks. Another all time favorite is reversing right in front of german gun sights. Watch t4t and then tell me the mustang is no match. The guy never gives you angles. The spit has superior roll rate than the 109 at all speed ranges, never seen one use it yet.

 

80+%. and then the spitfire.. cant help but notice how it is quite backwards by design. Look how k4 and lf mk9 have the same weight and engine power and the diffirence in speed and vertical ability... All plane designers strived to increase the speed of their aircraft. Which the large wings of a spitfire exactly prevent from acheiving.

[DD_Fenrir]

Backward?!?

 

Pardon my incredulity but in an epoc of many hundreds of also rans, out-evolved or downright failed aircraft concepts an aircraft whose variants were produced throughout the war and remained competitive if not superior in most of it's forms could hardly be considered backwards.

 

The design concept of the Spitfire was not obsolescent - merely a different conceptual approach to a similar brief when compared to the 109.

[MaxDamage]

Backward?!?

 

Pardon my incredulity but in an epoc of many hundreds of also rans, out-evolved or downright failed aircraft concepts an aircraft whose variants were produced throughout the war and remained competitive if not superior in most of it's forms could hardly be considered backwards.

 

The design concept of the Spitfire was not obsolescent - merely a different conceptual approach to a similar brief when compared to the 109.

yeah well the era of turnfighting is 1930s ie prewar era. Spitfire is a tough turnfighter and it sacrifices a hand and a leg to turn well. It is 50 kmh slower then its rivals designed with speed in mind hence it cant have speed and it cant go vertical.

 

all frontline fighters evolved to be better at vertical and speed. Spitfire did, too but its general designe implies it will lose in speed and in a vertical against a plane with smaller wings.

[IronJockel]

No, I don't think I will bother. You bring nothing of value to the conversation, and it is not worth wasting any more time on your trolling.

 

I got my answers from Solty already. Nobody forced you to "waste time" on anything.

 

80+%. and then the spitfire.. cant help but notice how it is quite backwards by design. Look how k4 and lf mk9 have the same weight and engine power and the diffirence in speed and vertical ability... All plane designers strived to increase the speed of their aircraft. Which the large wings of a spitfire exactly prevent from acheiving.

 

If you consider he Mk9 backward i wonder why not the K4 aswell.

Both are not great in high speed manoeuvring in an environment where high speed surprise attacks became the norm and slow turning fights in the vertical or horizontal the exception.

Both are planes from the 30s on steroids.

[Solty]

Well I have not thoroughly read the test and it seems it was not the engine but the pump that failed. I am no engineer but I wouldn't use test of a high power DB605 to claim that DB 601A can can achieve the same power.

 

If wiki is to be believed Merlin 65 and 66 are virtually the same engine. And the test mentioned that its nature was severe, and lead to a pump failure, not the engine itself. And that the pump was modified.

 

I do not see the reason for all this hostility. Is there a reason why you are you so against such addition. Especially that we have a January 1945 model of Fw190D9 with gap seal MW50 and Ez42 gun sight which is a highly irregular model.

 

Still, I do not understand why such a heated debate takes place. It was proven countless times that higher boost and octane fuels were used by the USAAF and mainly 8th AAF.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Solty

[IronJockel]

Well I have not thoroughly read the test and it seems it was not the engine but the pump that failed. I am no engineer but I wouldn't use test of a high power DB605 to claim that DB 601A can can achieve the same power.

 

If wiki is to be believed Merlin 65 and 66 are virtually the same engine. And the test mentioned that it was severe and lead to a pump failure, not the engine.

 

I do not see the reason for all this hostility. And do not understand why Iron Jockel are you so against such addition. Especially that we have a January 1945 model of Fw190D9 with gap seal MW50 and Ez42 gun sight which is a highly irregular model.

 

 

Still, I do not understand why such a heated debate takes place. It was proven countless times that higher boost and octane fuels were used by the USAAF and mainly 8th AAF.

 

I never said i am against the addition of higher boost settings. Actually i am in favour of it. Every possible additional variation of an aircraft is a good thing. Hostility also wasn't my intention. All i did was to point out that this particular test noted a mechanical fatal failure. (How dare I??)

The reason for why he used the paper was edited in after i got accused of being a troll, instead of before.

[Krupi]

The choice of 18lb Spitfire is entirely logical given both the upcoming map, and the lifespan of the aircraft; only in the last three months of the war did those units with the highest percentage chance of meeting the Luftwaffe (2nd TAF) start using 150 octane fuel. For over a year and a half previously the Mk.IX was only ever at 18lb boost - ergo those Mk.IXs in use by 2nd TAF over Normandy in June of 1944 were the same, with only a very limited number of Air Defence Great Britain Mk.IXs (2 squadrons IIRC) cleared for 25lb.

 

The representative Mk.IX for the map and for the lifespan of the a/c logically should be 18lb boost.

 

The trouble is, and always has been the choice of Luthier and his team to include variants of the Luftwaffe fighters that did not enter operational service until 2-3 months after the Normandy campaign.

 

However this 18lb version of the Spitfire would have faced these precise versions of the 109 and 190 throughout the late autumn and winter of 1944 including during the Ardennes offensive. It is an entirely historical match-up.

 

As for my personal take? Online I get a mixed bag. I completed an evening the other night in the Spit on Burning Skies with an 11-1 kill ratio. Two nights later it was 1-1. It depends entirely upon the calibre of the opponents you face. True the Spit is outmatched in some regards but I find if I have my wits about me and keep my six clear I can survive if not prevail against a sharp operator in the 109 or 190, more so than the Pony but I guess the Spit better suits my style of fighting.

 

It is incredibly annoying that we now have to struggle along with an older aircraft until the XIV makes an appearance or someone gets given the nod to make the G6 or G14 the later of which would have been the correct choice.

 

The whole it wasn't EDs response is beginning to wear very very thin, they could and should have changed it now the allies are on the back foot and if a 109 or 190 decides to run you can't do anything about it.

 

Add to this the 109 and 190 pilots and squads that have had years to learn the aircraft and the situation gets a whole lot worse.

 

I am counting on VEAO to change the quite frankly awful status quo I don't think ED care about the miss match unfortunately.

[rel4y]

Well I have not thoroughly read the test and it seems it was not the engine but the pump that failed. I am no engineer but I wouldn't use test of a high power DB605 to claim that DB 601A can can achieve the same power.

 

If wiki is to be believed Merlin 65 and 66 are virtually the same engine. And the test mentioned that its nature was severe, and lead to a pump failure, not the engine itself. And that the pump was modified.

 

DB601A? That's the engine of 109Es. Think you got something mixed up..

 

In case you mean DB605A.. Yeah, if looking at the early/mid 44 versions like the ASM, then that's pretty much the same engine as the DB605D. The DB605ASM G6/G14 models with 1800hp output were btw the ones encountered over Normandy by the allies.

[Krupi]

yeah well the era of turnfighting is 1930s ie prewar era. Spitfire is a tough turnfighter and it sacrifices a hand and a leg to turn well. It is 50 kmh slower then its rivals designed with speed in mind hence it cant have speed and it cant go vertical.

 

all frontline fighters evolved to be better at vertical and speed. Spitfire did, too but its general designe implies it will lose in speed and in a vertical against a plane with smaller wings.

 

Oh dear... You do realize that the kurfust was a rare aircraft, look at the G6 and G14 much closer in terms of performance.

 

Now look at the Griffin spitfires and tempest which were the front line fighter in the timeline of the kurfust.

 

The IX in late 1944/1945 was ever increasingly used for CAS missions

Edited January 24, 2017 by Krupi

[Solty]

DB601A? That's the engine of 109Es. Think you got something mixed up..

 

In case you mean DB605A.. Yeah, if looking at the early/mid 44 versions like the ASM, then that's pretty much the same engine as the DB605D. The DB605ASM G6/G14 models with 1800hp output were btw the ones encountered over Normandy by the allies.

 

I said I wouldn't, because I assumed there is significant difference between Merlin 65 and 66, such as between DB 601 and 605, but it seems those engines are a lot more similar which nullifies my first comment on the validity of Merlin 65 as a example for 66 series. :)

 

Tldr I was wrong about Merlin 65l.

It was 1800ps. A slight difference, but a difference non the less :3

Edited January 24, 2017 by Solty

[Zimmerdylan]

I wonder how the allies won the ground war? If Wittmann really took out half the 7th British armored division alone.. Could the allied tanks really have been this bad? Maybe it helped that 70% of all German troops were bleeding out on the eastern front and that the troop numerical superiority and industrial capacity of pretty much the whole world vs little tiny axis powers was not even worth the comparison?

 

Many allied sim pilots burn their E like is a sport and then wonder why they get completely obliterated. After a head-on the usual spit standard is a high G level turn. Immelman or Chandelle for energy conservation? No thanks. Another all time favorite is reversing right in front of german gun sights. Watch t4t and then tell me the mustang is no match. The guy never gives you angles. The spit has superior roll rate than the 109 at all speed ranges, never seen one use it yet.

 

 

The Mustang burns E with very little effort. Recovering it is a serious task when the 109 seems to retain it and recover it so much easier, and is on the P51's a$$ after it loses momentum. If you do fights with the AI AC, you will notice that the P51's tactic is to totally try and stall the 109 and force it to overshoot or lose it's energy. The P51 AI doesn't fight using B&Z or energy. It in fact does the complete opposite. This tells me that The AI is using the simplest and most practical means of fighting with the plane that it's working with. And on line players who try and out turn, or out fly the 109 find themselves full of holes in short order more often than not. The AI 109 goes for the jugular as soon as the match starts, using energy and turn fighting, and is always on the aggressive even if it's been repeatedly hammered by the P-51's underpowered guns. The two AI planes could not use more different methods in air to air. That tells me something about the way they are set up and the practicality of it. The p-51 is an inferior fighter.

I have no problems getting the 109 or 190 in the sights of the Spitfire. It is a very maneuverable plane. The problem after I get it there is that the plane (early release issue I believe) is so sensitive on the rudder, and stick that keeping my adversary in the sites is not easy. It's way more sensitive than the other planes, even with curves. But even when I get the axis planes to where they're taking good damage, they just speed off when they've had enough and I am left with little chance of catching them.

I can see why both of the Allied planes would do well in a huge fur ball. Especially the Spitfire. I can see where they both could potentially shine in that scenario. But 90% of the air battles in DCS are 1 or 2 on 1 or 2. This shows both plane's weaknesses rather than strengths.

If all battles (according to many but it has not been my experience) were held at 20,000 ft. with a lot of planes then maybe the P51 would find it's mark. But even during the war, these battles weren't at that altitude. The Germans were too smart for that. They'd come down on the bombers from above, do as much damage as they could on one run, and drop altitude as quickly as possible. In DCS, the same is likely to happen, but the DCS 109 is better at all altitudes than the P51 from what I have seen. And it would be a rare thing to see servers with 20K plus fighting, even on the Normandy servers.

From what I see in the servers, the Spitfire was all the rage for about 2 weeks, and now.....you don't see it being flown much at all. The P51 is used more. Every time I go to get in a WWII plane, the Spitfire seems to be fully available because people have gone back to the Mustang, and the Axis fighters are usually the majority.

As for myself, I don't fly any of them for fighting lately. It's such a lop sided battle that I don't bother with it. I've gone back to helis, and the A10 for the most part. I only get into the WWII planes for just fun flying, and maybe a ground attack mission. I've got my 4 WWII planes and probably not likely to purchase any more of them. I'll leave them to the guys who can seem to pull more out of them than I am capable of.

[rel4y]

The AI has a completely different flight model than the player aircraft though. The AI flight model is stored in the same file as where one can set the weapon load out and convergence, while the player FM is a series of large container files in a folder structure. All AI do exactly the same maneuvers, they try to outturn you and once you get on their tail they go vertical. The by far hardest AI is the spitfire, as its energy retention in tight turns is godlike.

 

I agree with you on the damage model, but let us hope this problem soon is history.

[Kurfürst]

Oh dear... You do realize that the kurfust was a rare aircraft, look at the G6 and G14 much closer in terms of performance.

 

Since this notion repeatedly crawls back to discussions, there is already a separate thread addressing the issue of availability and difference in performance etc. between late 109G and K models of 1944.

There is no need to spill that discussion over and over again to other threads.

 

Short version: the G-14 would be actually a tougher costumer at these typical sub 4000 meter altitudes in DCS. Its basically lighter, marginally slower but otherwise better-at-everything 109K, with a 20mm instead of the Rainbow 108.