P51 not fun due to so many problems.

What would be the difference in the higher octane fuel in the allied fighters? Here is your answer:

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

 

If you read all the way you will see the US fighters in Europe had this by July 1944,

So basically you get a 12 to 16mph speed increase and increased climb speed by 600ft per minute with 75"(compared to 67"). Below critical altitude of course.

The P51D 75" would be about 17mph faster then the 109K4 below about 7000 feet or so. About the same speed from 12000 to 22000 and then a little slower above 23000ft. This is just a rough estimate.

Though if WEP can be used reliably the P51D at 67" its slightly faster then the K4 below 10000ft but is slower at all other altitudes and becomes up to about 20mph slower between 17000ft and 23000ft.

I'm just worried about the FW190D9 because at the moment its an even fight vs the P51D 67" from my experience. I would rather have a P51D 67" that can use WEP and a competitive FW190D9 reliably then a 75" P51D.

.

Just a brief comparison of climb performance between 75" P51D and the 109 K4(with wing cannons). It looks like the P51D climbs a little better on the deck and then performs about the same in climb to the K4 at higher alts. If the 75" P51D climb performance is similar to the K4 probably a bit slower but close enough then it may tip the balance too far to the allies. The superior climb rate is the mane advantage both the D9 and K4 have to use.

If they lose that then I think the balance could be way worse in favor of allies.

This is just from a quick glance. I could be wrong of course. But if the German planes those their only significant edge then it could end up being a turkey shoot. As it stands at the moment I don't think 67" P51D is that bad, as long 67" can actually be used reliably.

I want the high grade fuel because it is historical for the setting (at least the 25, don't know about the Pacific Mustang), but the performance boost I'm seeking isn't the speed increase, but the increase in climb rate. That's what gets my attention the most. However if the Mustang gets this, I think it's also right that the Spitfire does as well.

And I prefer this wouldn't be forced on the module as a strict update, but added as an optional loadout

I want the high grade fuel because it is historical for the setting (at least the 25, don't know about the Pacific Mustang), but the performance boost I'm seeking isn't the speed increase, but the increase in climb rate. That's what gets my attention the most. However if the Mustang gets this, I think it's also right that the Spitfire does as well.

And I prefer this wouldn't be forced on the module as a strict update, but added as an optional loadout

I prefer balance because I want other people to fly againts and there won't be anyone flying DCS WW2 if it's a turkey shoot.

If you prefer balance then just do like we used to do and fly cammo'd p51s vs regular painted ones...dont get much more balanced than that!

Personally I'd prefer the most accurate and historical versions applicable loadouts and variants for our stable of warbirds.

If you prefer balance then just do like we used to do and fly cammo'd p51s vs regular painted ones...dont get much more balanced than that!

 

Personally I'd prefer the most accurate and historical versions applicable loadouts and variants for our stable of warbirds.

We already have accurate and historical aircraft. All these aircraft were common in 1944 to the end of the war. The 67" P51D was used in both Europe and the Pacific to the end of the war.

We already have accurate and historical aircraft. All these aircraft were common in 1944 to the end of the war. The 67" P51D was used in both Europe and the Pacific to the end of the war.

Those which escorted bombers yes sure they had 67" but those which operated down low probably had 75"

+25lbs spit that one will be a pain with climb over killing even k-4

Think all the fuel talking is a little overdone. For example, flying the Dora without using MW50 (due to the engine blow bug) does not really makeca difference. When you get jumped by surprise MW50 doesn't help and when you fly disciplined it doesn't matter much also. Keep altitude and speed, fight the fights you can win, avoid the ones you may loose. Easiercsaid than done, I am working on it lol.

MW50 helps chasing running enemies down though, makes a 5 percent difference or so.

We already have accurate and historical aircraft. All these aircraft were common in 1944 to the end of the war. The 67" P51D was used in both Europe and the Pacific to the end of the war.

For 9th airforce p51's sure but its pretty well known that the 8th widely used 72 in. of manifold pressure also for their mustangs. I'm just saying that not including a power setting that "was historically used" for balance purposes, which is the way i read your previous post, is not really a really good argument. Its not like it was a rare thing only 10 or 20 planes ran with.

For 9th airforce p51's sure but its pretty well known that the 8th widely used 72 in. of manifold pressure also for their mustangs. I'm just saying that not including a power setting that "was historically used" for balance purposes, which is the way i read your previous post, is not really a really good argument. Its not like it was a rare thing only 10 or 20 planes ran with.

Historically mustangs were running 81" that is quite a boost :)

Like i said that would be super stupid to send 75" p-51s on bomber escort missions :)

Btw server owner could limit amount of 150 fuel available, this would not be so harsh as removing mw50

+1 on the 25lbs and 75 in boost especially considering they have MW50 and 2.0 ata boost...

Kinda silly the P-51D has these settings considering it was using 70~72 as soon as the 51D hit shelves in Europe

Historically RAF Mustang Mk III (P-51Bs) that were assigned to squadrons in ADGB during the summer of 44 (and were therefore involved with chasing V-1s) were the only Ponies running at 81".

ADGB returned to 130 octane in October to simplify the transfer of squadrons between it and 2nd TAF, which never used 150 octane in 1944 - only in Feb of 45 do we see it's widespread use by the RAF on the continent, with ADGB (now retitled Fighter Command) following suit. At this time all Mustang Mk.III/IV units were providing long range escort to Coastal Command Mossies over Norway, 2 Group attacks in the low countries/Denmark or daylight raids over Germany by Bomber Command.

8th Air Force (Strategic) Mustangs flew at a rated 72" @ WEP

9th Air Force (Tactical) Mustangs flew at a rated 67" @ WEP

Dunno how many of you boys fly 6-8hr bomber escorts in DCS, but I generally find myself under 20,000ft, dive bombing or CAPing tactical targets...

Historically RAF Mustang Mk III (P-51Bs) that were assigned to squadrons in ADGB during the summer of 44 (and were therefore involved with chasing V-1s) were the only Ponies running at 81".

 

ADGB returned to 130 octane in October to simplify the transfer of squadrons between it and 2nd TAF, which never used 150 octane in 1944 - only in Feb of 45 do we see it's widespread use by the RAF on the continent, with ADGB (now retitled Fighter Command) following suit. At this time all Mustang Mk.III/IV units were providing long range escort to Coastal Command Mossies over Norway, 2 Group attacks in the low countries/Denmark or daylight raids over Germany by Bomber Command.

 

8th Air Force (Strategic) Mustangs flew at a rated 72" @ WEP

 

9th Air Force (Tactical) Mustangs flew at a rated 67" @ WEP

 

Dunno how many of you boys fly 6-8hr bomber escorts in DCS, but I generally find myself under 20,000ft, dive bombing or CAPing tactical targets...

Like i said if plane was doing bomber escorts there was no point to increasing MP to 75 or 72 or any other higher boost because plane's engine wasn't capable of this boost at high alt any way.

But if you are chased by 2-3 k-4s at the deck it will help

Being on the deck with a K4 is foolish in real life or DCS. Never play into the enemy's strength.

Being on the deck with a K4 is foolish in real life or DCS. Never play into the enemy's strength.

How not be when most of them flying on the deck hehe :P

Think all the fuel talking is a little overdone. For example, flying the Dora without using MW50 (due to the engine blow bug) does not really makeca difference. When you get jumped by surprise MW50 doesn't help and when you fly disciplined it doesn't matter much also. Keep altitude and speed, fight the fights you can win, avoid the ones you may loose. Easiercsaid than done, I am working on it lol.

 

MW50 helps chasing running enemies down though, makes a 5 percent difference or so.

Removing MW50 was mentioned regarding the 109K4 not the FW199. Without MW50 the 109 is way slower and would not stand much of a chance.

Though MW50 does make a big difference for the FW190D9. People used to be way more aggressive with the FW190 until MW50 was broken. Hardly anyone flew the FW190D9 while MW50 was broken and the people that did relied on jumping people and running.

For 9th airforce p51's sure but its pretty well known that the 8th widely used 72 in. of manifold pressure also for their mustangs. I'm just saying that not including a power setting that "was historically used" for balance purposes, which is the way i read your previous post, is not really a really good argument. Its not like it was a rare thing only 10 or 20 planes ran with.

Why is that not a good argument? Balance is important in a multiplayer environment. No one will fly multiplayer if there is no balance.

I would prefer the plane we already have worked properly and then perhaps some more WW2 aircraft instead of another slight variation of an aircraft we already have.

+1 on the 25lbs and 75 in boost especially considering they have MW50 and 2.0 ata boost...

Kinda silly the P-51D has these settings considering it was using 70~72 as soon as the 51D hit shelves in Europe

Not all P51Ds were using 150 octane fuel or 72" MP.

Not all P51Ds were using 150 octane fuel or 72" MP.

From where this 72" came from. From docs which i read it turn out that -7 was cleared for 75"

alisons to 70"

Ok i got it tests results recomended 75" but high command finaly decided for 72"

And late p-51 run 81"

Still spit IX used 25lbs boost same as mustang III

Removing MW50 was mentioned regarding the 109K4 not the FW199. Without MW50 the 109 is way slower and would not stand much of a chance.

 

Though MW50 does make a big difference for the FW190D9. People used to be way more aggressive with the FW190 until MW50 was broken. Hardly anyone flew the FW190D9 while MW50 was broken and the people that did relied on jumping people and running.

It is not possible to remove mw50 only for bf109 if you remove mw50 it will be gone for both

It is not possible to remove mw50 only for bf109 if you remove mw50 it will be gone for both

You can remove it for just 109s. It is a setting you can change on individual aircraft. You could have some 109s with MW50 and some without if you wanted.

You can remove it for just 109s. It is a setting you can change on individual aircraft. You could have some 109s with MW50 and some without if you wanted.

But if you leave mw50 in airfield supply everyone can refuel mw50 i think

Guys at the end of the day this is meant to be a study level combat simulator so it is meant to mimic real life, war is not balanced in real life, i say if a time period is chosen where a great deal of aircraft were using it then it should be added, if it was using it at a different time then why not add it and leave to mission makers to deal with it.

if someone can find sources of the p51s we have using 150 then share it.