P-51 vs 109

[golani79]

109 controls are getting very stiff at certain speeds - have you flown the 109 yourself Helihead?

[DefaultFace]

The 109 it has both ailerons shot off and out turns the P51 with no damage, Thats the point i make. The rudder turns it "Far" more than it actually could in real life I have placed hits on the 109 and it keeps flying without regard to the damage and out turns out climbs out dives. - I just wish the DM was even for the type.

 

Are you talking about ailerons or the rudder now? Not sure what you mean by "turns it far more"??? I have flown plenty of 109 and even landed it with some pretty sketchy damage, but missing both ailerons is go home criteria as you have to balance it out with the rudder. No way anyone is still dogfighting like this. Its not a spitfire where you can still get kills with one wing missing.

 

My point here being: the damage model is not good, it has not been good for a long time. It is being updated. You can get away with things in all of the aircraft you shouldnt be able to, and they all can be very tanky depending on where they are hit. This idea that the 109 is tougher to kill than the allied aircraft is bs and mostly comes from people crying in the forums.

 

Also remember that you are flying on a server located in eekz basement in Minsk somewhere. DCS netcode can be shoddy at the best of times but add a ping of 300+ to the mix and it doesn't help these things. Unfortunately high ping to overseas servers is part of living in Australia. I know because I used to live there myself.

 

The 109E at 400 MPH the pilot should have Very Stiff Aileron control to the point where pulling with all his strength can only apply 1/5th Aileron with the time to bank 45 Deg being 4 seconds

This is from Test flights carried out on a captured 109E.

 

A 109E is a very different aircraft to the K we have in DCS. New wings, new ailerons etc etc. Either way stick forces are modelled in DCS, and certainly the 109 has a much tougher time with these than any of the other aircraft.

 

Dose anyone know if this was addressed in later models?

 

Yes the K had the elevator gear ratio redone to reduce stick forces. Although this may or may not be accounted for in the FM as it is all based off of a G-2. Go read Yo-Yos post in the 109 forum if you want to know more.

 

High speed dives where not the 109's strengths

 

Again very subjective. Shall I pull out some quotes from Spit or P-38 pilots talking about how the Germans standard disengagement tactic was to Split S and dive away from them, and how they felt they had a tough time following that?

 

Either way in DCS they are not. The stick forces make it difficult to achieve anything while booming and zooming. Especially since you can still hear other aircrafts engines over your own in DCS. Should I now find some quotes about how the 109 was mostly a boom and zoom aircraft and that Germans used hit and run tactics?? If it was so good at this how did the pilots hit anything with these stick forces? Obviously this means the stick forces are too high no?

[OnlyforDCS]

. This idea that the 109 is tougher to kill than the allied aircraft is bs and mostly comes from people crying in the forums.

 

Just wanted to weigh in, not stirring the pot or anything, but most of the complaints come from the fact that the other airplanes in the game do not have centrally mounted weapons, which makes using them quite a bit harder to use successfuly than in the 109K.

 

In addition to that the K's cannon is extremely potent when fired at very close ranges, much more so than the 51D's .50 cals, which in all honesty feel like pea shooters in comparison.

 

So yeah, while the damage model is bad for all planes, the fact remains that the Mustang suffers the most here due to the fact that the caliber of it's guns underperforms severly due to these DM limitations.

[DefaultFace]

Its all a bit of a matter of perception, but I would tend to disagree.

 

As you say the weapons on the 109 are concentrated on the nose and the theory here was that if you focus all those weapons at one point you get a nice concentrated amount of rounds at whatever you are shooting at. Its a little less this way on the K-4 because of the ballistics of the MK108 not matching the 13mms as well but that was the theory anyway.

 

The downside to all this is that aerial gunnery is hard, and if you aren't a good shot then you will easily send your tightly packed salvo of ammunition into the sky around or behind your target. ie if you shoot well, all of your ammo will go into the target, but if you're even just a little off you'll miss entirely. I can't remember what book its in anymore but pilots at the time knew this, and some loved it, others didn't.

 

The Mustang on the other hand has its guns more spread out, and instead of being setup with a convergence towards a point has them set to achieve "burst patterns" at several ranges. Think more Shotgun/machinegun vs Bolt action rifle. ie you don't have to aim laser precisely (which is difficult if not impossible in a dogfight anyway) just put him in a box and most of your ammo will probably hit him.

 

The thing about the DCS DM is that angle of impact seems to play a large role in how effective your ammo is. If I can hit a target from behind above the tail (think steady turning fight) with a decent tracking burst its usually enough to cut a tail/wing off or destroy the targets engine. This works in the 109 and the Pony. On the other hand if you are shooting from directly behind (think both of you flying in a straight line one behind the other) the Machine guns are much less effective. Especially if your target then decides to do what most "noobs" do online which is spaz around up and down on the stick or kick the rudder back and forth. Youll get plenty of little hits but no steady tracking bursts usually. The little hits tend to not really do a whole lot cumulatively in the DCS dm.

 

This is where the 30mm is a bit handy because if you can get close and just spray and pray a bit you can usually do enough damage to make a difference (even though it is itself a bit weaker than it should be). I don't think its enabled anymore but on the ACG server you used to be able to see what weapon people killed their targets with. Most of the 109 players made most of their kills with the 30mm in this way. In fact most newer players can't shoot very well and tend to just get close and then blast away as much as they can. Of course in this case the 30mm cannon wins. With the Mustang its harder to do since it doesn't have a cannon, and the guns are spread out on the wing so at close range if you have the target in the crosshair most of your bullets are going left and right of his tail. You have to aim to the side a bit at extreme close range so you get all 3 guns from one wing hitting the tail.

 

Personally I prefer the Mustangs guns. The lead required is much more intuitive and I find I can hit things much further out (even without the K-14) much more consistently than with other aircraft. Its also much easier to "shoot from the hip" during fleeting snapshot opportunities.

[amazingme]

Just wanted to weigh in, not stirring the pot or anything, but most of the complaints come from the fact that the other airplanes in the game do not have centrally mounted weapons, which makes using them quite a bit harder to use successfuly than in the 109K.

 

In addition to that the K's cannon is extremely potent when fired at very close ranges, much more so than the 51D's .50 cals, which in all honesty feel like pea shooters in comparison.

 

So yeah, while the damage model is bad for all planes, the fact remains that the Mustang suffers the most here due to the fact that the caliber of it's guns underperforms severly due to these DM limitations.

I beg to differ. The 30mm rounds are nerfed as they are right now. You can check yourself and let us know how many rounds of 30mm you use to shoot down an allied plane. Just try it yourself and see...

[Cik]

pony is double inferior, but most of the time it doesn't really matter. 6000' advantage means you are single superior and you can win fights all day. simply a gunnery problem.

 

 

real issue is: axis outnumber allies most times- fights tend to be deck where superior horizontal energy maintenance matters a lot- difficult as hell to make VID from beyond point blank range so swooping attacks are less effective than they probably oughta be.

 

 

personally in mustang i never worry about guns not killing things. usually, quarter second tracking shot if well aimed turns axis into slowly drifting confetti. ammo is deep enough that you can make a half-ace in one sortie or so with some reliability if you can find a semi-cooperative target and aim well.

 

 

it makes me grouchy that it's a K-4, which is probably a little more advanced than the real axis front line at the time. but eh whatever. there are much worse matchups in this game, in a gunfight all that matters is your ability to apply your guns and that is usually not superlatively difficult currently.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Cik

[birdstrike]

I beg to differ. The 30mm rounds are nerfed as they are right now. You can check yourself and let us know how many rounds of 30mm you use to shoot down an allied plane. Just try it yourself and see...

 

my experience is, that when the enemy pulls a continuous turn, it takes about 3-4 cannon bursts at a distance of 150-200m, to make him go down, on average.

and the higher the distances, the less effect they have when hitting the target, which i find kind of confusing as it shouldnt be dependant on kinetic energy?

 

things get considerably worse, if the enemy starts to pull and push on the stick like a crazy cook whirling up his soup.

then the enemy can be directly in front, spinning around directly in your gunsight for several seconds without changing direction, a few meters in front of you, and although you know that your bullets should be definitely hitting, they seem to not cause much if any effect.

i fear, that this is a deep underlying problem in how dcs is processing the FM and probably not even a damage model problem.

 

it feels as if as soon as they go haywire on the stick, dcs has a hard time to cope with the sudden input changes and loses track of exact position and attitude in space...and therefore doesnt recognize whether a bullet hit or not.

Edited January 5, 2019 by birdstrike

[amazingme]

my experience is, that when the enemy pulls a continuous turn, it takes about 3-4 cannon bursts at a distance of 150-200m, to make him go down, on average.

and the higher the distances, the less effect they have when hitting the target, which i find kind of confusing as it shouldnt be dependant on kinetic energy?

 

things get considerably worse, if the enemy starts to pull and push on the stick like a crazy cook whirling up his soup.

then the enemy can be directly in front, spinning around directly in your gunsight for several seconds without changing direction, a few meters in front of you, and although you know that your bullets should be definitely hitting, they seem to not cause much if any effect.

i fear, that this is a deep underlying problem in how dcs is processing the FM and probably not even a damage model problem.

 

it feels as if as soon as they go haywire on the stick, dcs has a hard time to cope with the sudden input changes and loses track of exact position and attitude in space...and therefore doesnt recognize whether a bullet hit or not.

You're perfectly right! The underlying cause can only be fixed by ED. We all hope that with the new damage model these issues will be fixed also. It might have something to do with the netcode too. The way it is right now the WWII is a big disappointment for many of us who used to enjoy flying and fighting in the 109 or Dora, as a matter of fact.

I don't want to start anything here, but my feeling (and not only mine) is that WWII is getting too much biased towards allied planes with these 'bugs' that affect axis planes. Which is real sad as DCS is moving rapidly away from what it used to stand for... a simulation of the real aircraft.

[DD_Fenrir]

I don't want to start anything here, but my feeling (and not only mine) is that WWII is getting too much biased towards allied planes with these 'bugs' that affect axis planes. Which is real sad as DCS is moving rapidly away from what it used to stand for... a simulation of the real aircraft.

 

:doh:

[birdstrike]

You're perfectly right! The underlying cause can only be fixed by ED. We all hope that with the new damage model these issues will be fixed also. It might have something to do with the netcode too.

 

of course we all know that the damage model has big problems. the older the aircraft are, the more obvious this is. we know its being worked on, but i fear the new damage model will not solve this issue.

 

bullets go "through" your target without hitting...the damage model can be detailed next to none,

it will not help if it "doesnt" recognize that your target should be actually hit.

it seems this is either a netcode or FM problem, or a combination of both.

 

for the 109 especially it also doesnt help that we have still the wrong cannon loadout, proven by rely and i think confirmed by Yo-Yo.

 

i fear that even after the introduction of the new damage model, we will still see these jerk-off manouvers in multiplayer for a long time which is a shame as this completely ruins the otherwise pretty good immersion i get out of dcs dogfights usually.

Edited January 7, 2019 by birdstrike

[amazingme]

of course we all know that the damage model has big problems. the older the aircraft are, the more obvious this is. we know its being worked on, but i fear the new damage model will not solve this issue.

 

bullets go "through" your target without hitting...the damage model can be detailed next to none,

it will not help if it "doesnt" recognize that your target should be actually hit.

 

for the 109 especially it also doesnt help that we have still the wrong cannon loadout, proven by rely and i think confirmed by Yo-Yo.

 

i fear that even after the introduction of the new damage model, we will still see these jerk-off manouvers in multiplayer for a long time which is a shame as this completely ruins the otherwise pretty good immersion i get out of dcs dogfights usually.

You mean the new overly abused P51 manoeuvre, where they jinx all over the place (mostly up and down) with no drag penalty? It's cute.. :)

[birdstrike]

You mean the new overly abused P51 manoeuvre, where they jinx all over the place (mostly up and down) with no drag penalty? It's cute.. :)

 

yeah this...well imo it looks :doh: and is not something dcs should show in an advertisment video.

[Magic Zach]

You mean the new overly abused P51 manoeuvre, where they jinx all over the place (mostly up and down) with no drag penalty? It's cute.. :)

That's been around since I got the module in 2016, its not anything new (if by new you mean the last 2 or 3 updates).
Edited January 7, 2019 by Magic Zach

[71st_AH Rob]

It's also very hard to hit a 109 or a MiG-15 doing this, it is not restricted to Mustang pilots.

[Cik]

do 109 pilots actually complain about being unable to kill P-51? you guys can climb to the moon in a straight shot without blowing your engine, why not just yoyo and shoot?

 

 

you are in a double superior plane, if you position yourself well there is near 0% chance of losing 1v1s.

[DD_Fenrir]

do 109 pilots actually complain about being unable to kill P-51? you guys can climb to the moon in a straight shot without blowing your engine, why not just yoyo and shoot?

 

 

you are in a double superior plane, if you position yourself well there is near 0% chance of losing 1v1s.

 

Apparently the 109 was the ultimate viceless, out-run, out-turn, out-climb, out-roll, one-shot-kill, Uberplane of WW2 that paralyzed all opponents into non-defensive stupor upon appearing within gun-range and should ergo be victorious in every encounter.

 

:doh:

[amazingme]

Watch this, first attempt:

 

[Cik]

why is that even useful though?

[DD_Fenrir]

Questions

 

1. Is the Spitfire in reality unable to reach this G level and survive? You provide no documentary evidence that Spitfires could not.

 

2. Did your pilot blackout? Not much use pulling 11-12G if immediately afterwards you're taking a g-nap in the middle of a dogfight.

 

3. Did you attempt any further g loading manoeuvres after this case? It has often occurred that with myself and others in my squad that one heavy handed pull-out damaged the structure so significantly that a subsequent pull-out, even at much reduced g-levels, resulted in wing failure.

[Lixma 06]

Quick tests.

 

Spitfire - two runs - catastrophic failure at 11.7G

 

 

This next test was three 9G (appx) pull-outs (only second & third are shown) - the fourth attempt induced failure at 9G so the air-frame appears to weaken with abuse.

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Lixma 06

[philstyle]

Quick tests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Lima. Good to see someone persisting with sustained G over time (repeat tests) and actually showing the break-points as modelled.

[DefaultFace]

It's also very hard to hit a 109 or a MiG-15 doing this, it is not restricted to Mustang pilots.

 

Absolutely. Its a bit harder to do in the 109 here because of the stick forces but at lower speeds or by rolling you can still do "gamey" things no matter what aircraft you are flying. Its a general issue with combat flightsims. Unfortunately simulating motion sickness or something like that would not go too well and would likely end up like what one of the older sims tried with anthropomorphic controls that didn't work very well.

 

do 109 pilots actually complain about being unable to kill P-51? you guys can climb to the moon in a straight shot without blowing your engine, why not just yoyo and shoot?

 

 

you are in a double superior plane, if you position yourself well there is near 0% chance of losing 1v1s.

Apparently the 109 was the ultimate viceless, out-run, out-turn, out-climb, out-roll, one-shot-kill, Uberplane of WW2 that paralyzed all opponents into non-defensive stupor upon appearing within gun-range and should ergo be victorious in every encounter.

 

:doh:

 

:megalol: you two sound like little children. You run around screaming about how hopelessly outmatched you are in allied planes and then get angry and call people names when they do exactly what you are doing just the other way around. :doh:

 

Watch this, first attempt:

 

 

Without wanting to continue the derailment of this thread into talking about the spit: There is no reason that this is unusual. There is an aerodynamic limit to instantaneous turn performance for every aircraft, and it is independent of speed (Decreasing turn radius via increased lift is proportional to v^2, Increase in turn radius that results from increased speed is proportional to v^2. Cancels out.). Flying a path with the same radius results in much higher Gs at a high speed than it does at low speeds.

 

This is why turn performance is structurally limited at high speeds in most aircraft (or by pilot strength in the DCS 109), and not by how much lift the aircraft can produce. FBW aircraft will stop you from killing yourself this way but a spitfire will not. Not saying the FM is perfect in every way but this is not an issue.

 

See below if it helps: In the top graph the line on the right is the structural limit (turn radius for which you reach the G-limit of the aircraft at that speed) and the left is the turn radius at Clmax for that speed considering bank angle required to maintain level flight. Absolute min radius is at 90° bank (all lift used for turning).

Edited January 8, 2019 by DefaultFace

[Campbell]

Hahaha OMG 109 flyers complaining about the P51, Seriously!!! The 109 has every advantage and is practically indestructible! It takes almost every bullet to bring down the K4. I fought one yesterday shot off half’s it’s elevators, took off one aileron, had his engine pouring black and white smoke and he flew away and returned home. The engine never ever fails, doesn’t matter how many bullets you put into it. It never slows down no matter how many holes you put in its wings, fuselage and elevator and it’s always 100% combat capable no matter the damage. The 109 can fart at the current P51 and the govern will blow (98% of the time) or instant pilot death. Not to mention the horrible unreliability of the Pony engine and it’s random failures. I killed a Spit with a 190 yesterday, one burst and it exploded. Nerf!!! Whatever....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DD_Fenrir]

:megalol: you two sound like little children. You run around screaming about how hopelessly outmatched you are in allied planes and then get angry and call people names when they do exactly what you are doing just the other way around. :doh:

 

Hi Default,

 

Correction; my anger is not from claiming to be "hopelessy outmatched", and whilst as frustrating as it can be in trying to have a fun fight with 109K/190D drivers who - quite rightly - keep the fight on the run and exploit the best capabilities of their aircraft, I have never attacked anyone on the strength of their prefered ride.

 

The plane set I have questioned since day 1; that however is a moot point and we have what we have.

 

I don't even get angry when people come in questioning certain features of the FM: certain behaviours I have not expected have been explained and well represented, so that even if it feels a bit strange at least Yo-yo can justify his reasoning and say "where we don't have specific data we have extrapolated from X, Y or Z" and you can say, well, even if it isn't 100% correct, the argument makes sense and will have to do until better corroborating information is found.

 

I do, however get angry when people with very little knowledge of apparently anything (but have bucketful of opinions based on a few out of context anecdotes or quotes) come wandering petulantly in saying how ED have got in wrong, "Plane X is ridiculous, plane Y is nerfed, you should fix now" with absolutely bugger all in the way of evidence - or even understanding - of just how complex the level of simulation is that is being attempted. All they see is they can't get insta-win in their fave-plane and have no understanding of the restrictions on the operators of their opposing aircraft.

 

Their lack of self-awareness, self-discipline and sense of humility, and ultimately talent, drive them here to insult ED, insult those who would be their opponents, and then have the temerity to demand "fixes" for aircraft that already - when flown to their strengths - provide plenty of advantages over their opponents if flown in the appropriate manner - well pardon me for finding that ignorant, rude, arrogant and ill-mannered, and getting riled by it.

 

Please note that none of the above applies to you. With the exception of the quoted paragraph I have agreed with every assessment you have made thus far.

Edited January 8, 2019 by DD_Fenrir

[DefaultFace]

Hi Default,

 

Correction; my anger is not from claiming to be "hopelessy outmatched", and whilst as frustrating as it can be in trying to have a fun fight with 109K/190D drivers who - quite rightly - keep the fight on the run and exploit the best capabilities of their aircraft, I have never attacked anyone on the strength of their prefered ride.

 

The plane set I have questioned since day 1; that however is a moot point and we have what we have.

 

when flown to their strengths - provide plenty of advantages over their opponents if flown in the appropriate manner.

 

I agree with you on the planeset. And your statement in bold. 100%

 

Maybe I exaggerated a bit with hopelessly outmatched but it wasn't directed at you or 1 person in particular, just in general at posts like the ones from Cik, or Campbells above yours, or generally people calling others luftwhiners or whatever. These threads always start out well with decent discussion of relative performance and devolve into stupid fights about which team has it easier and why that makes someone the better pilot.