P-51 vs 109

I'm not sure whats so weird about 11 G pull in Spitfire ? I mean, wings fail as some posted above, sometimes they dont. But still, what is ultimate structural limit for Spitfire wing which would prove/disprove that this is realisitc/unrealisitic ?

A6M Zero airframe has standard load limit of 7 G and ultimate load limit of 12.6 G with 1.8 safety factor. So what's so special about Spitfire being able to reach 11 G ? P-51 Galloping Ghost reached 16-17 G and wings remained intact (though elevator trim tab didnt, and neither did its pilot). If something is wrong with Spitfire, than surely there is evidence to prove that ?

Amazingme, DD_Febrir, Lixma 06, I think you're confused. Amazingme, you (quite at random) posted a video on the Spitfire, talking about Gs. Wrong thread, you want the Spit/109/190 thread that I've been following the topic on. Not this one.

"Plane X is ridiculous, plane Y is nerfed, you should fix now"

Exactly what makes me furious sometimes. Some eejits wandering in from the virtual street loudly claming things are 100% wrong, yet never presenting any credible evidence. I'm of the opinion myself that these people are children regardless of their age.

into stupid fights about which team has it easier and why that makes someone the better pilot

'twas ever thus. Used to be much worse, even, back in the day. But we won't get into that here.

amazing can you quantify

1. why this is inaccurate

and

2. how this is actually effective in combat

being able to pull 11G at max energy doesn't matter if after one turn 109 will be at such a high energy advantage that regardless of your turning capability you will never be able to go nose up with him again.

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.

the P-51 is, literally speaking, double inferior.

there is no complaint here, fren- the thread is "how do i beat the 109?" and the answer is: you are double inferior, so here is what you do: enter the fight with an advantage, and as soon as your advantage leaves, you should follow it immediately. the mig-21 is double inferior to the F-15, but that does not mean you will always lose. really, the -51 is a perfectly capable plane because as long as you draw lead and shoot, he falls down. it's advantages are strategic rather than tactical, and so in a tactical situation, you simply play your game as best you can and leave when it is a good idea.

but no kidding, it is double inferior. go nose up with a 109, you lose. turn fight with a 109, you also lose. describing the situation is not complaining about it.

if you offered me 72" as long as it's historical i would take it, but realistically that would probably still not actually make you single inferior. it would just give you an extra vertical turn before you dive and run.

Amazingme, DD_Febrir, Lixma 06, I think you're confused. Amazingme, you (quite at random) posted a video on the Spitfire, talking about Gs. Wrong thread, you want the Spit/109/190 thread that I've been following the topic on. Not this one.

You're perfectly right! My mistake, thanks for the heads up! :thumbup:

the P-51 is, literally speaking, double inferior.

 

 

there is no complaint here, fren- the thread is "how do i beat the 109?" and the answer is: you are double inferior, so here is what you do: enter the fight with an advantage, and as soon as your advantage leaves, you should follow it immediately. the mig-21 is double inferior to the F-15, but that does not mean you will always lose. really, the -51 is a perfectly capable plane because as long as you draw lead and shoot, he falls down. it's advantages are strategic rather than tactical, and so in a tactical situation, you simply play your game as best you can and leave when it is a good idea.

 

 

but no kidding, it is double inferior. go nose up with a 109, you lose. turn fight with a 109, you also lose. describing the situation is not complaining about it.

 

if you offered me 72" as long as it's historical i would take it, but realistically that would probably still not actually make you single inferior. it would just give you an extra vertical turn before you dive and run.

I dont think 72 is historical. And neither 25 lbs spitfire is. Blue planes are fine. But we needed g14 and a8 in game not the fictional k4 and d9. But people voted k4 and d9.

I dont think 72 is historical. And neither 25 lbs spitfire is. Blue planes are fine. But we needed g14 and a8 in game not the fictional k4 and d9. But people voted k4 and d9.

If people voted for non-historical versions of the Fw 190 and Bf 109, why not add the 72" MAP for the Mustang? It sounds fair to me.

I dont think 72 is historical. And neither 25 lbs spitfire is. Blue planes are fine. But we needed g14 and a8 in game not the fictional k4 and d9. But people voted k4 and d9.

who voted? the k4 was from the kickstarter, and i cant remember that people had a vote there about which 109 we would get. it was stated that the k4 was chosen because they had the most detailed documentation about it.

and the d9 is entirely EDs choice.

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:

K4 is one of the best but it does not invalidate things like the la7 or d9 which will simply outrun it and gain more altitude in chandelle type maneuvers.

p47, 38 and p51 are another league they are heavy weight. And heavy weight is not useful weight in a dogfight. Spitfire well its sloww.

Still i find that large fuel tank is a good advantage for the p51 sometimes.

72" is very much historical. But it was only used for Mustangs based in england for a period between about mid44 and early-mid 45. From what I can tell the Mustangs we have were around maybe for the last month or 2 of that if at all in the ETO.

And neither 25 lbs spitfire is. .

This probably belongs in the Spitfire discussion, but seeing as the content is here:

No.1 Sqn RAF converted to 25lb Spitfire Mark IX in May 1944.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg

However No.1 Sqn was not part of the 2nd TAF and was not based in Normandy in support of the ground forces there.

It looks like the May 1944 conversions were for Non-TAF Groups of Fighter Command.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

No.165 Squadron also converted to 25lb Spitfires in May 1944

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no165_25lbs.jpg

No.157 Squadron converted in July 1944

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/157sqdn-ORB-25lbs-3july44.jpg

The 2nd TAF units do not appear to have conducted large scale conversion until November 1944, well after breakout from Normandy.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

2nd TAF seems to have been using 130 Octane at this point.

However, No.1 Sqn did fly operations over Normandy/ France during the Falaise Gap period, but from airfields in southern England, and not from 2ndTAF bases in France.

In any case, the 25lb Mark IX was being flown operationally by the RAF in June 1944. However, its numbers were few as a proportion of all operational Spitfires and I am unable to find evidence of 25lb Spitfires with the 2nd TAF at that time.

I loved the Mustang III in IL-2.

Thing went like the clappers.

P-51 vs 109

72” was very historical and so was +25 boost. It’s a lot of info, but if your truly interested you can take a look at this page. Scroll to the bottom! It’s has tons of historical data about the P51 including the actual army air corps clearance from April 1944 releasing the Pony to use 150 octane fuel giving it up to 75” manifold in WEP. There’s also detailed accounts from actual flyers ranging from July 44- March 45 of using 72” manifold during combat. There’s also a few mentions of the 25+ boost used in the Spitfire.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't understand what the controversy is? Nazi Germany gets the best possible variant of the 109 which was not very common, why don't the allies get one of the best performing variants of the P51 that saw combat?

It would make the P51D much more viable, it still wont out turn a K4 but will out run a K4 on the deck. Which gives the P51D a way to break away from a fight at low alt, which is where most of the fights occur.

At the moment we have a 61" P51 only. You can use WEP and go to 67", and enjoy having your engine instantly seize at a random given time regardless of how long you used it for.

AND then you have the damage model. I find it strange that most of the time I am shot when in the P51D the propeller governor is knocked out. Or so I have been told. All I know is the RPMs go nuts and you have to fly really slow to not destroy the engine. But I'm guessing this will be fixed with the new damage model that is being worked on.

As it stands the P51 is just not much fun to fly in combat online, which for a sim called digital COMBAT simulator, is not great.

Just a side note, my favorite plane ever in history has always been the 109. I think it's the coolest looking plane and sounding plane EVER!!! Especially with the sweet whistle of the supercharger. It was one of the first DCS modules I ever bought.

The funny thing is I don't fly so much in DCS combat any more because it's kind of too easy. You know there is an issue when you have second thoughts of shooting someone down because you feel bad for them because you know they don't have a chance and they are there to have fun.

This kind of match up is not good if you want more players and to keep them, which I do cause I love DCS(maybe not the damage model, not yet anyway).

Which brings me to the sad part. I am finding it hard to stick with DCS considering these issues and like many others who I know, I am considering giving up on it. The only reason I have been sticking with it is because ED has given me the impression that they are serious about DCS WW2 and are working to improve it. But after the recent P51D update, which just gave us a reskin of the same plane I'm starting to be a bit apprehensive about my commitment to this sim.

I will see what the damage model brings, and if with it, some improvements are made to the P51D in particular. But it's getting hard to stick with DCS WW2.

Fully agree, best thing to do is go elsewhere for a fully functional combat sim and come back and check dcs every six months. Maybe one of these years it will actually be fully fleshed out.

it will actually be fully fleshed out

It'll be fully fleshed out enough the moment we get the Mosquito. Not that groundpounding in the Dora isn't crazy fun either, albeit hard. And who cares about airquake furballing anyway?

which just gave us a reskin of the same plane

See my sig.

It'll be fully fleshed out enough the moment we get the Mosquito. Not that groundpounding in the Dora isn't crazy fun either, albeit hard. And who cares about airquake furballing anyway?

"This isn't my favorite thing to do in a video game so obviously no one else likes it either. And anyone who does is wrong." :doh:

Also the new P-51 is quite literally a reskin. The only other thing they are working on is a higher engine rating/higher octane fuel. This doesn't make it a different airplane/variant.

Yeah, they're working on a higher octane and engine rating. I know, see my sig. But why are airquakers still throwing their toys out of the pram?

"The only other thing"? So what do you want, nukes?

Should have gotten a Gustav Messerschmitt...

A Biffer G? Yah, could be. But this is what we're living with. Should prolly get a timeshift ahead for Red and Blue both.

Said Before - But My 2 Cents

AI FW-190 Dora outperforms P-51D Mustang - How Real is That ?

Thought I summarize my experience with the 'AI' Dora:

Scenario: Instant Action - P-51D - Caucasus Map - Dogfight FW-190

I really enjoy the above setup. But I've noticed that the AI FW-190 seems to aerodynamically outperform the Mustang (On Power-Based Performance: Climb, Acceleration, Top-End Speed).

Here are a few of my observations:

- Many times I'll be trapped in a Lag Pursuit Tail Chase where I'm unable to close and bring my Nose to Bear. I'm always able to keep the Dora in my

forward Quadrant - The FW-190 never threatens my 6 o'Clock - it's just that I can't quite get a tracking Guns Shot.

- In the above Tail Chase, the FW-190 is working the Vertical (must have a power advantage) where he seems to out-climb the Mustang, then the P-51D closes somewhat in the Dive.

- Sometimes if the Tail Chase results in a Prolonged Stalemate - the Dora Bugs Out by just Pointing away - He out-accelerates, out-climbs, and out-speeds the Mustang - walking away to come back and fight another day.

I thought the 'Stang' (was supposed to have) had a slight Speed advantage - but that's not the Case in DCS World. Once the German turns tail for Home - there is no Catching him.

I've looked at a lot of W.W.II Aviation Web sites comparing the the Performance Stats of both Aircraft. Their Numbers look pretty close, but depending on whose facts (tech specs) you are looking at - there is some conflicting data on which aircraft is faster.

Example:

Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/fw-190-dora-9-vs-p-51d-mustang.3151/

Compare Aircraft Results - North American P-51 Mustang vs Focke-Wulf Fw 190 (Wurger)

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.asp?form=form&aircraft1=77&aircraft2=95&Submit=COMPARE

Which is the better WW2 fighter plane - the Fw 190 or the American P-51 Mustang, and did they fight against each other during the war?

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-better-WW2-fighter-plane-the-Fw-190-or-the-American-P-51-Mustang-and-did-they-fight-against-each-other-during-the-war\

Focke-Wulf Fw 190

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190

North American P-51 Mustang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

PS: My FW-190 Kills usually involve pulling aggressive lead (reducing angle off), then unloading to reduce Aspect, and getting a quick Snap-Shot.

Depending on the Number and Quality of Hits - the German might be walking home to Supper. If I don't get him - I'm back in a Tail Chase until I have the energy to try again. :pilotfly:

My understanding is that the late war 190's increased their performance at high altitude but were still not as strong as the 51. When it came to low and medium alt the 190 performed much better and gave them the edge one on one.

Fighting the A.I. is probably not the best way to judge it. I don't know if A.I. performance has been updated. Although I must say that the A.I. fly's the 190 like I would if going against a 51.