Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?

There's another option. Leave the P-51 as is and turn the K4 into a G6. That would balance that fight. Then we have the Jug and Dora to battle.

Adding a 3rd German plane wouldn't be fair unless we can have 3 American and 3 British planes too that are a match.

As is the Germans have the edge and you all want to add another German plane? Keep it up and you'll be just fighting other Geman planes.

For a sim that supposedly stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of fidelity there is more talk of balancing here than on any other flight sim forum.

67" (or whatever engined mustang we have, though a period correct model for the bird would be nice) mustangs fought K-4 and D-9 variants.

The K-4 and D-9 were not some super secret super rare bird.

Would a G-6AS or G-14 be nice? Hell yes, but it's not like the matchup we have is ludicrous or ahistorical.

Give the dev team and 3rd party modders time and we will have quite a sandbox in which to play.

For a sim that supposedly stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of fidelity there is more talk of balancing here than on any other flight sim forum.

Because it makes for better fights, or do you just enjoy having the edge?

If we have the best 109. Give us the best P-51 too.

The idea is to get a commonly-utilized variant that's a roughly even competitive match for the 67" P-51D at normal multiplayer altitudes, not another mismatch like the K-4. Sounds like your variant would be a poor fit.

at this rate it be simpler and less of a rework to give a P51D with 8th Air force settings , (72/75 Hg and 150 octane fuel) it be better match up against the K4, and its appropriate for the ETO anyhow even if it was just for the 8th Air force, and not all Theatres or Air groups. 8th AF is a big enough of size and a major player in ETO to include a second variation of the P51D but merely with aforementioned boosted performance.

In nay case im not saying i wouldnt want to see earlier 109 and FW190 variations especially for time Appropriation but i dont want to see Current existing axis planes replaced by any means. i paid for those variations and i dont want to have them downgraded. for something i didn't pay for. They will certainly feel more at place when we get later period ETO maps.

For a sim that supposedly stands head and shoulders above the rest in terms of fidelity there is more talk of balancing here than on any other flight sim forum.

If you just like flying planes around, or only fly single-player then balance doesn't much matter. If you enjoy competitive multiplayer combat then IMHO it's a lot more fun for both sides if the planes are reasonably well balanced .. and we do this for fun, right?

I'm very much of the opinion that the performance of individual planes should be faithful to the numbers. However, the selection of which planes are available should be balanced. There are lots of planes that probably did fly against each other (Brewster Buffalo vs A6M2 .. Gloster Gladiator vs 109F) but that doesn't mean it's a fun engagement to simulate.

The other things I'm happy to be "balanced" are things that are a bit of a guestimate anyway, such as the relative strength of MG vs cannon armament. DCS could sincerely use a bit of this IMO.

Back to the original topic. I'd love to see some earlier 109 variants, but for the purposes of balance giving the P-51 access to 72" and upping the damage of MG armament would help it a lot.

605AM -powered 109 G is another 1800hp, 3000kg, monster like the K-4.

Arguably better armament, as well.

+9000

This nails its. Historically its either a G-6 or a Methanol Monster. There was nothing in between, just like there is nothing that is historical and could be reasonably called 'intermediate' between an Allison and a Merlin Mustang.

MG vs Cannon is not really what I would label as guesswork. There were certainly various theories and analysis behind why certain aircraft were equipped with the weapons they were or the layout/positioning of such weapons. I'm sure all sides conducted plenty of testing in an attempt to optimise these things for their intended purpose as well. Upping "damage" of any weapon for balance is a bad idea imho. Obviously there isn't data for every aspect of everything but I would think that a developer who is familiar with the subject matter should be able to make an educated guess. As long as the assumptions are made in a consistent matter there shouldn't be any need for balancing any part of aircraft performance.

Edit: also yeah pretty much what Kurfürst and JST said

Nobody is asking the P-51 .50's to be more than they were. Let's make sure they're not less than they were too.

That's how I define being fair. If all planes and weapons are as they should be. I'm good with it and can deal better with anything being lopsided.

Of course the MG .50 cal rounds are weak in DCS.. since you spray and pray from 1 mile away and you want to do the same damage as a MK108 fired from 30m behind the target. Seriously, come to your senses ppl..

Of course the MG .50 cal rounds are weak in DCS.. since you spray and pray from 1 mile away and you want to do the same damage as a MK108 fired from 30m behind the target. Seriously, come to your senses ppl..

Are you putting everybody in one neat little box? Pretty narrow minded.

No.. but I'm fed up with all these whining from all of you..

The only whining I see is from you.

All I want is for all the planes to be as accurate as possible. If they are, fine. Let's move on.

MG vs Cannon is not really what I would label as guesswork. [..] Upping "damage" of any weapon for balance is a bad idea imho.

Well the figure I've read is that the US testing generally estimated that 2-3 .50 cal rounds were about equivalent to a single 20mm cannon shell. And those really were estimates ... it could be more, it could be less.

So should it be closer to 2 ... or closer to 3? Because that's actually quite a big difference.

Here is a nice read about bullet damage on german aircraft. (supposedly 13mm, but Do 17 sounds more like BoB)

german fighter damage.pdf

+9000

 

This nails its. Historically its either a G-6 or a Methanol Monster. There was nothing in between, just like there is nothing that is historical and could be reasonably called 'intermediate' between an Allison and a Merlin Mustang.

\but there is kind off. TheG14 would be the intermediary 109 fighter in between G6 andd K4 productions.

\but there is kind off. TheG14 would be the intermediary 109 fighter in between G6 andd K4 productions.

Yes it was.G6 was made in so many variants Germans wanted to standardise it and failed with the G14. Ultimately they put new engine, improved aerodynamics a bit and fixed some issues but started doing the same what they did with G6 making many variants. K4 was finally the plane that was suppose to be standard of the 109 models... But that kind off failed as well as G6 and G14 (and all their variants) were also in production up to 1945 and were more common than K4. Not to mention the "Bastard of Earla" Bf109G10 which was made with both DB605DB and AM engines and was another variant of the 109 that stood in way of production standardisation.

\but there is kind off. TheG14 would be the intermediary 109 fighter in between G6 andd K4 productions.

The G-14 is a Methanol Monster as well and its arguably a better than K-4 late 109 at the typical sub 4-5000 dogfight altitudes. Its lighter, has the same power and a more practical high velocity/large capacity 20mm cannon for fighter vs fighter dogfight, unlike the K-4 that is clearly geared for high altitude bomber interception.

Not to mention the "Bastard of Earla" Bf109G10 which was made with both DB605DB and AM engines and was another variant of the 109 that stood in way of production standardisation.

Very few Erla G-10s of the earliest batch were ever made with ASM engines and none whatsoever with AM. A few also had ASB engines which are basically A type engines with most of the 605DB/DC improvements. ASB vs ASC and respectively DB vs DC engines had no mechanical difference, just engine settings eg fuel type & boost.

\but there is kind off. TheG14 would be the intermediary 109 fighter in between G6 andd K4 productions.

A G-14 is a relabled G-6 with standardized Methanol injection, the same as the G-6 AM/ASM produced in 44 after the very first batch of GM1 to MW conversion aircraft. In some factories there was no discrimination between G-6 and G-14, or the name was based on which U/R was used and so it was that G-6/14 production ran alongside having no real discernable difference. G-6/14 ASM/ASB/ASC variants again having almost no different specs & performance than a G-10. The whole G line past spring 44 was pretty much one and the same thing independent of the numeration as JST and Kurfürst have already said. Some optimized for low alt and some optimized for high alt, some for shoting fighters some for bombers.

The G-14 is a Methanol Monster as well and its arguably a better than K-4 late 109 at the typical sub 4-5000 dogfight altitudes. Its lighter, has the same power

Surely the decrease in drag wasn't smaller than the increase in mass. I find it difficult to believe that, out of the large hodgepodge of 109 variants between the G-6 and the K, none of them were "in between" in terms of low-altitude performance. I'm not one to mistake prior flight sim/games for resources (they were often wrong, aside from being a "quaternary resource"), but there's always been at least one such "in betweener" 109 portrayed in those, and I do know that there was a wide range of capabilities and qualities amongst those G variants.

I'm not a 109 expert, unfortunately. I devoted nearly all of my research to the P-38, and that was many years ago. I no longer have the time/energy for researching warbirds, beyond the shallowest of levels (idle Wikipedia stuff). You, Kurfurst, are a 109 expert. I don't always agree with your assessments, as you sometimes appear to let your emotions get in the way of the facts that you know. But, despite occasional loss of objectivity, you know more about the 109 than anyone I know of, and I respect that.

And so I ask you again a question which you've dodged in the past. What models/blocks/variants do you think would make the best competitive match for P-51D versus Messershmitt 109? As in: with money on the line, and equal training in each aircraft, you'd feel equally comfortable in either aircraft, in a standardized adversarial arrangement under normal multiplayer conditions. Historically, there were enough blocks, variants, & configurations that I'm certain there was a better overlap than 67" P-51D versus 109K. What are your thoughts on this?

I know I am not Kurfürst, but here are my thoughts anyway. ;) Why not stay historical?

Block 5NA/10NA vs G-6/14

Block 15NA and up vs G-6/10/14/K-4

What does competetive in this case even mean? Both aircaft are better in some ways than the other and have their advantages. 9th airforce never went higher than 67" boost and 8th did.

I still dont know what you mean by an intermediate/ in between 109. Either with or without MW, there is your variation. You can do that in the ME right know. The change in approximate frontal flat area drag between K-4 and G-6AM is 0.0812 m^2 and the difference in weight ~150-200kg.

I think he was referring to the difference between the K-4 and a non AS version (ie with bulges). I don't recall the speed difference between the 2 engine cowlings but there is data for it somewhere (17km/h comes to mind but maybe this was for the gondolas? 8km/h was the difference for the tailwheel I think).

I know I am also not Kurfürst but I think what rel4y says here makes alot of sense. 'Better' or Competitive depends on how you define it. The big problem in my eyes with the Mustang in a dogfight is just that it is too heavy (Try flying the lighter TF-51 against a K4 in a knife fight and you'll see a big difference). Unless you get a significantly lighter P-51 I doubt much will change on the dogfight front, especially not against a lighter 109 with a low altitude propeller etc etc. In the big drawn out boom and zoom high speed high altitude things that are starting to appear in DCS (and are probably closer to historical air combat than duels on the deck) then the top speed difference might make more of a difference, but the Mustang isn't bad at this as it stands anyway. TBH I wouldn't say its bad at dogfighting either, it just requires an understanding of dogfight maneuvres other than a hard level turn to win (against good pilots, bad 109 pilots can still be handily outturned by a good Pifty-one driver who uses flaps correctly).

Obviously you can talk about AS or non AS but everything you gain in advantage at high altitude you lose down low. And obviously removing MW50 (a 40% reduction in engine power) will make a big difference. IIRC it appeared around early-mid 44 but in what numbers and whether it can be considered standard is not necessarily a simple question to answer.

Sorry my mistake, the delta drag figure includes the bulges already (also tailwheel, wheelwell covers). The faired cowling gives a speed increase over the bulges of about 5-6 kph.

Why not stay historical?

Why are you suggesting that I suggested anything that is not historical?