72"

Jeebus I did not mean to open this can of worms.

 

It's a small improvement, sure, but it's still an improvement nonetheless.

Exactly! It's better than getting nothing. No reason to pick it apart with petty arguments.

Exactly! It's better than getting nothing. No reason to pick it apart with petty arguments.

Not speaking for anyone else here but I for one am just tempering expectations. A lot of bad and just plain wrong information has been presented in this, and other threads. The worst of which is that Eagle Dynamics will actually give the Mustang this increased manifold pressure. This has not been confirmed by Eagle Dynamics anywhere.

I wouldn't mind seeing it. Of course every little thing helps, especially if you fly Mustangs exclusively. But this won't make the Mustang into something it's not. If you are consistently flying the Mustang at 20% fuel load, looking for trouble at 5,000 feet, you are doing it wrong.

Not speaking for anyone else here but I for one am just tempering expectations. A lot of bad and just plain wrong information has been presented in this, and other threads. The worst of which is that Eagle Dynamics will actually give the Mustang this increased manifold pressure. This has not been confirmed by Eagle Dynamics anywhere.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing it. Of course every little thing helps, especially if you fly Mustangs exclusively. But this won't make the Mustang into something it's not. If you are consistently flying the Mustang at 20% fuel load, looking for trouble at 5,000 feet, you are doing it wrong.

I don't think anybody wants the P-51 to be something it wasn't. Maybe some do, but I sure don't. Don't fly the P-51 because it's the best or worse plane. Fly it because you love it. I could care less how it compares to the other planes in DCS. It is what it is and i'm flying it.

I've loved the old girl since 1950.

Since I've learned the P-51, what I find I want more than anything is the G-suit (too bad it was taken away). The P-51 excels at high speed maneuvers vs the 109, but it's hard to employ them because you'll more than likely blackout as you try to pull lead.

Next of course is the damage model update, and lastly I wouldn't mind having a little extra power. I've been in many dogfights where I was just outside the envelope, and if I could have gotten a smidge more power I could have come out victorious (earlier XD!).

The Mustang's serious mass advantage over the 109 will prevail at any altitude, if you keep it fully fueled and fight to your advantage.

So you say. When our P-51D engages our 109K, at 5,000 feet, and then decides to dive away and extend after the initial merge, how quickly can he leave effective gun range of the 30mm cannon? How about that of a 20mm cannon?

The G you keep harping on about [...] would turn better.

This is ... debatable. Having a bit less mass but a bit more drag doesn't necessarily mean it'll do better in sustained turns. It may even turn worse, depending on how much it gains and loses of each of those two. So far, several people (e.g. yourself) have assumed that it'll turn better because of the decreased mass (compared to K), but no one has established whether or not the gain in sustained turning ability from the mass decrease is greater than the loss in sustained turning ability from the drag increase. If the latter is greater than the former, then the G will have inferior sustained turn than the K. Only if the former is greater than the latter would the G have superior sustained turn to the K.

Edit: oh, forgot to add—that paragraph is applicable only to the G-14 and/or the "upper-end" G-6. The lower-end G-6 (you know, the aircraft most likely to face a P-51, historically) certainly has worse sustained turn than the K-4, because not only is the former draggier, it also has a worse thrust-to-mass ratio. But I'm repeating myself again; I pointed this out just a few days ago in one of the (sigh) two concurrent threads on this subject.

So, your statement is debatable—not established to be true—even when referring to the upgraded G-6 and the G-14, and it is downright inaccurate when referring to the downgraded G-6. That downgraded G-6, by the by, was the most common historical opponent of the P-51 ... funny how the "historical accuracy only" crowd turn a blind eye to this—but, this is the wrong thread for that discussion.

Edit: oh, forgot to add—that paragraph is applicable only to the G-14 and/or the "upper-end" G-6. The lower-end G-6 (you know, the aircraft most likely to face a P-51, historically) certainly has worse sustained turn than the K-4, because not only is the former draggier, it also has a worse thrust-to-mass ratio. But I'm repeating myself again; I pointed this out just a few days ago in one of the (sigh) two concurrent threads on this subject.

 

So, your statement is debatable—not established to be true—even when referring to the upgraded G-6 and the G-14, and it is downright inaccurate when referring to the downgraded G-6. That downgraded G-6, by the by, was the most common historical opponent of the P-51 ... funny how the "historical accuracy only" crowd turn a blind eye to this—but, this is the wrong thread for that discussion.

I think 4 people have told you by now at least a dozen times that starting spring 44 MW50 was standardized and these were mainly sent to the higher tech western front. After that there were no more "low end" G6 produced. So repeating this false statement for the tenth time doesn't make it any less false. Maybe the B models historically met mostly the early G6, but what do you even base this statement on concerning the D model? Just by looking at the introduction date of the 5NA it doesn't make any sense. Allied reports of May/ June clearly state most aircraft that could be ided had methanol injection and caused some concern in the British intel units. And before you mention it again, no there is no intermediate version.

Firstly, 67' that reaches 375mph is not optimistic, it is an actual test, not a calculation. Secondly, that P51D reaches the 375mph with wing racks attached.

That test is the only test showing these speeds and it was conducted with a sanded and polished aircraft. There are photos around of the wings with paper covering the wings against insects at start. Sounds like standard procedure of the 8th AF, doesn't it. D type wing racks btw only subtracted around 1-2 mph and should not be compared to B type racks. But anyway, I'm perfectly fine with it, just don't cry about it underperforming...

There is also a test about sanding the 109 which added 10-12 kph, wouldn't it be fair..?

There is another test of a P51B reaching 380mph with 75hg and wing racks on and 388mph with them off, but what is interesting is that P51B is going only 364mph with 67'.

It is a common misconception that D is less aerodynamic than B due to the bubble canopy. But D version sports few refinements like better wing racks and better gun ports that cut less speed. If we add that 8mph to the rackless P-51B we get 372mph at 67'. The main reason why D version is suppose to be worse aerodynamically is due to early P-51D having stability issues due to lack of the tail fin.

I would stay away from referencing any other sims here for FM's, even the Pro’s in those sims agree that there only perhaps 75 percent simulation and 25 percent game. DCS is a much more accurate simulation, especially at the edges of the simulated flight envelopes.

It seems that some here are just trying to make a nice close even fight out of two planes that were designed to do different tasks, yes both are fighters, but designed differently, like in the P-51’s needed to travel long distances at first when it was designed.

Bf -109

high-speed, short range interceptor

P-51D

The need for an effective bomber escort or another way to put it, a single-engined high-speed fighter with the range of a bomber.

I’m not biased here, but I do believe the 109 to be the slightly better pure fighter aircraft design here.

Fuel capacities

Bf 109 K-4

105 Gallons Drop tank 80 Gallons

P51-D

184 gallons Auxiliary 85 gallon tank

Drop tank(s) 75-gallon and 110-gallon capacities.

What some here are just trying to say all along is (It’s just not fair in MP) So would like everything that can be done to make it a more fair and even fight 1 vs 1 / pro vs pro against the better fighter design down low in MP.

Question, what would the fuel load for each aircraft be “most of the time” once over Normandy around the time of D-Day? I.E. Drop the tanks, but full internal load in the merge?

Was there any fuel strategy for the flights to try and get some advantage if encountering the enemy or just group strategies?

What do you guy’s think would have been the “average” norm at the time of D-day for fuel at merge etc?

That's how 1 vs 1 or 4 vs 4 competition should be worked out and agreed upon I think, because that would have been the norm back then around the time of D-day.

So fighting 1 vs 1 down low in multiplayer is not the norm or good for the P-51 IRL in any form right, it’s up high with the bombers are or higher, that’s what the aircraft was built for first when designed, once the Allies had the numbers and air dominance they attacked down low, including the airfields.

So to make this “more fair” and realistic at the same time, the mission is really more important here to get the 190’s and 109’s higher up and to go after the B-17’s bombers. Then it would come down to the P-51’s sticking to Doolittle's tactics and sticking with the bombers and forcing the 109’s up high.

Quote

"The numerical superiority of the USAAF fighters, superb flying characteristics of the P-51, and pilot proficiency helped cripple the Luftwaffe's fighter force."

“The Bf 109 k4 remained comparable to opposing fighters until the end of the war. However, the deteriorating ability of the thousands of novice Luftwaffe pilots by this stage of the war meant the 109's strengths were of little value against the numerous and well-trained Allied fighter pilots.”

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Doolittle#Doolittle.27s_breakthrough_in_fighter_tactics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants

I think 4 people have told you by now at least a dozen times that starting spring 44 MW50 was standardized and these were mainly sent to the higher tech western front. After that there were no more "low end" G6 produced. So repeating this false statement for the tenth time doesn't make it any less false.

Excuse me? This is the first time that anyone has ever mentioned such a thing to me, as far as I'm aware. I vaguely recall a discussion about MW50 use in 109s, some months ago, but "at least a dozen times" is more than a gross exaggeration. It would have been one time, at most (during that MW50 discussion, if ever), and I'm pretty sure there never was any such exchange regarding the 109G-6, specifically.

I do recall someone saying that MW50 is extremely easy to produce, and that it must have been widely available as a result. But even this strikes me as a dangerous assumption, given the poor state of the German logistical situation later in the war. I remember one German pilot mentioning two neighboring airfields, one with lots of ammo but no fuel, and the other with lots of fuel but no ammo. The right hand didn't know what the left was doing. The point: one can't simply assume that MW50 being easy to produce meant that it was universally available.

You've consistently taken a pro-109, anti-P-51 stance in every one of the many discussions we've had on the subject, which causes me to doubt that you're entirely objective about the subject. Do you have some sort of documentation to demonstrate that the majority of 109G-6s were the upgraded sort, or is this an assumption? I've always heard that the most commonly-produced 109 was the G-6, and that most of them were on the lower end of the spectrum. You, and perhaps one or two other diehard 109 fans here, are the first people I've encountered who would deny this.

Speaking of MW50, was that really the only difference between the high-end G-6s and the low-end G-6s, barring production quality? Were there only two variants of G-6 (one without MW50 and one with MW50)? Can someone who doesn't fly 109 primarily/exclusively confirm? I'm kinda tired of hearing most of my 109 info from people with a vested interest in portraying it optimistically.

I do believe the 109 to be the slightly better pure fighter aircraft design here.

I would agree that the 109 was generally a better fighter than the P-51, if range wasn't a war-winning factor. But, let's ignore range for now; presumably, "pure fighter" was meant as opposed to "logistical fighter." So, yes, then, the 109K was a better fighter than the P-51, in my book. Aside from having vastly superior ergonomics & engine management, its only real flaw in the air was its rear visibility. Its thrust-to-mass ratio was potentially better than the P-51's, by an enormous amount. Had the Daimler-Benz been boosted to the degree that the Merlin et al. were, later in the war, it would have made a massive discrepancy in the dogfight. It would have meant similar speeds and much greater maneuverability, under most conditions.

However, the fact remains that the German fighters' engines were, on average, fettered more strictly than those of the U.S. fighters. So, while the 109K was unarguably the better design for dogfighting (other than the visibility), the U.S. practice of continually using higher and higher WEP ratings meant that the disadvantages in thrust-to-mass were less, on average, then they are in DCS.

And that's the part you're overlooking. The 109K was, overall, a better fighting airplane than the P-51D, when the two were both using factory boosts, but the German late-war logistical nightmare meant that, on average, the German fighters were running lower boosts than their U.S. counterparts. The U.S. was producing engines to burn, and so the USAAF started using higher-than-factory ratings even before 150-grade fuel came into the scene. For this reason, the P-51s in reality were less handicapped vs. the 109s they faced, generally, than our P-51 is vs. our 109 in DCS.

So, in real life, not only was the average P-51D running a higher WEP rating than ours, but also the average 109 they faced surely wasn't in as good of condition as ours, either (the MW50 discussion aside). I'm keenly aware that the German pilots were depleted and outnumbered by the end of the war, but this has nothing to do with the actual performance of the two fighters. The phenomenon certainly affected pilots' perception of the relative performance (because any given 109's potential usually wasn't seen), but not the actual fighter performance.

So to make this “more fair” and realistic at the same time, the mission is really more important here to get the 190’s and 109’s higher up and to go after the B-17’s bombers.

Seriously? You expect the community to be happy with climbing all the way up to 30,000 feet, in between every fight? Are you trying to kill the playerbase? 'Coz, that's what "just fight at high altitude" amounts to—I promise you that you'll end up with nothing but ghost servers. If the only two choices are climb up to high altitude between every fight, or not fly on that server, the majority of even serious simmers will take the latter choice. Your way makes for a terrible rate of learning, and it's also simply a waste of time that could be spent doing something more enjoyable (like, you know, dogfighting). Very, very few hardcore simmers consider long, uneventful climbs to the combat area to be enjoyable, even if you disregard the abysmal combat/hour ratio for learning purposes.

Or are you advocating air-start missions (which are also bad, for reasons which should be obvious)?

Seriously? You expect the community to be happy with climbing all the way up to 30,000 feet, in between every fight? Are you trying to kill the playerbase? 'Coz, that's what "just fight at high altitude" amounts to—I promise you that you'll end up with nothing but ghost servers. If the only two choices are climb up to high altitude between every fight, or not fly on that server, the majority of even serious simmers will take the latter choice. Your way makes for a terrible rate of learning, and it's also simply a waste of time that could be spent doing something more enjoyable (like, you know, dogfighting). Very, very few hardcore simmers consider long, uneventful climbs to the combat area to be enjoyable, even if you disregard the abysmal combat/hour ratio for learning purposes.

 

Or are you advocating air-start missions (which are also bad, for reasons which should be obvious)?

More a figure of speech really, about the situation between the aircraft and how they first fought etc, that's all.

How high will the bombers fly in MP on the Normandy map then? 5000 Feet? Not very realistic, even on the other ww2 sims they setup the missions more accurately with height and they still have a good player base.

My question then to you, if ED adds the 72' to the P-51, will this satisfy the debate for low combat in MP? or will G suits etc come back up next if the 109 seems to still get more kills online?

I think If ED adds the 72' it would be very interesting to see how close many battles are against a few pro's online, To see if this levels it up some.

On that note, what is the level now against two pro's down low in MP 70/30 - 60/40 ? Whats your estimate?

I would agree that the 109 was generally a better fighter than the P-51, if range wasn't a war-winning factor. But, let's ignore range for now; presumably, "pure fighter" was meant as opposed to "logistical fighter." So, yes, then, the 109K was a better fighter than the P-51, in my book. Aside from having vastly superior ergonomics & engine management, its only real flaw in the air was its rear visibility. Its thrust-to-mass ratio was potentially better than the P-51's, by an enormous amount. Had the Daimler-Benz been boosted to the degree that the Merlin et al. were, later in the war, it would have made a massive discrepancy in the dogfight. It would have meant similar speeds and much greater maneuverability, under most conditions.

 

However, the fact remains that the German fighters' engines were, on average, fettered more strictly than those of the U.S. fighters. So, while the 109K was unarguably the better design for dogfighting (other than the visibility), the U.S. practice of continually using higher and higher WEP ratings meant that the disadvantages in thrust-to-mass were less, on average, then they are in DCS.

 

And that's the part you're overlooking. The 109K was, overall, a better fighting airplane than the P-51D, when the two were both using factory boosts, but the German late-war logistical nightmare meant that, on average, the German fighters were running lower boosts than their U.S. counterparts. The U.S. was producing engines to burn, and so the USAAF started using higher-than-factory ratings even before 150-grade fuel came into the scene. For this reason, the P-51s in reality were less handicapped vs. the 109s they faced, generally, than our P-51 is vs. our 109 in DCS.

 

Are you talking here around the time of D-Day? I was thinking, one of the main reasons that caused the depletion of 109 / 190 aircraft and the skilled pilots, was the height of the bombers. The bombers brought the 190 and 109s up to a more equal ground for the P-51's, then add in the extra numbers and better overall training of the P-51 pilots. Guess that is also what I was trying to say about the battles back then and how they became more even, because of the altitude, then slowly more dominated because of resources and numbers. Guess we are trying to find that middle ground here or the right time frame that makes it more equal / balanced for these two fighters to fight together down at sea level. I hope something like the 72' will be enough to settle it somewhat.

Excuse me? This is the first time that anyone has ever mentioned such a thing to me, as far as I'm aware. I vaguely recall a discussion about MW50 use in 109s, some months ago, but "at least a dozen times" is more than a gross exaggeration. It would have been one time, at most (during that MW50 discussion, if ever), and I'm pretty sure there never was any such exchange regarding the 109G-6, specifically.

You have got to be kidding me.. The following quotes are from two/three weeks ago.

Some sort of later G-6 would be ideal, I think. Something with more power than the average G-6 (so that it doesn't get eaten for lunch), but something that isn't as much of a monster as the K-4.

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

Any MW50 -retrofitted (605AM) G-6 or G-14 past spring 1944 fits the description. Common.

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.

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.

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 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 only thing that the G-6 did better than the K-4, as a fighter, was firepower. The 20mm was better at taking down fighters, while the 30mm was better at taking down bombers. So, even here, "superior" only counts if you mean "as a fighter" rather than "as an interceptor."

No, as said many times before a G-6/14AM will climb and accelerate better below rated altitude.

Take a look at what flight regimes parasitic drag matters and why weight (difference ~5% of total) will be the decisive factor for the "same" airframe if the difference in parasitic drag is a mere 0.0812 m^2. Several german data sheets confirm this btw. We dont make this stuff up and it has been said numerous times now.

Just saying that a K4 is better than the G6/14 because it came after is an oversimplification. This is what the last few pages of this thread have been trying to tell you.

This goes on and on.. Do you actually read what other people are trying to tell you?

I do recall someone saying that MW50 is extremely easy to produce, and that it must have been widely available as a result. But even this strikes me as a dangerous assumption, given the poor state of the German logistical situation later in the war. I remember one German pilot mentioning two neighboring airfields, one with lots of ammo but no fuel, and the other with lots of fuel but no ammo. The right hand didn't know what the left was doing. The point: one can't simply assume that MW50 being easy to produce meant that it was universally available.

You've consistently taken a pro-109, anti-P-51 stance in every one of the many discussions we've had on the subject, which causes me to doubt that you're entirely objective about the subject.

No I am taking a pro fact stance. I never said the P-51 was anything less it was. You are the one propagating superpowers. I think the assessment I made earlier in this thread is by all means very objective. I own and fly all the warbirds, may I ask you if you even own any german DCS aircraft?

But I wouldnt hype people too much for the benefits of 72", they might be disappointed once its actually here. It wont change the tactics used in combat. The Mustang will still be faster than the K-4, it will still roll better at high speeds, it will still turn better at high speeds, it will still turn worse at low speeds, it will still climb significantly worse at all altitudes, it will still accelerate worse in level, it will still be about a ton heavier. Sure there may be a bit more room for error with more excess power, but on the contrary not so much in engine management.

However, the fact remains that the German fighters' engines were, on average, fettered more strictly than those of the U.S. fighters. So, while the 109K was unarguably the better design for dogfighting (other than the visibility), the U.S. practice of continually using higher and higher WEP ratings meant that the disadvantages in thrust-to-mass were less, on average, then they are in DCS.

So, in real life, not only was the average P-51D running a higher WEP rating than ours, but also the average 109 they faced surely wasn't in as good of condition as ours, either (the MW50 discussion aside).

Anyway, this is getting nerve wrecking and I give up. You either dont read what other people tell you, are extremely forgetful or trolling us and laughing to yourself about us not realizing it.

 

You either dont read what other people tell you, are extremely forgetful or trolling us .

You're right.He doesn't even play the Mp missions, doesn't own the german planes ,doesn't watch videos of the game , doesn't read the full post. I don't know what he's doing here :lol:.

 

I didn't watch the videos

 

I stopped reading your post at this point.

Also :

Do you have some sort of documentation to demonstrate that the majority of 109G-6s were the upgraded sort, or is this an assumption?

First asking for documentation .Accusing someone of making assumptions.

I've always heard that the most commonly-produced 109 was the G-6, and that most of them were on the lower end of the spectrum.

Then he's "documentation " is an assumption.

the problem with 72" i think would be that it would move the balance too much in favor for P-51 (mainly against the Dora).

i think the pony would be perfect with tiny bit less drag (like 5-7 kph faster at sea level) and a bit more durability for the engine at 67" (like 3-5 minutes more at full power in a medium speed turn fight).

this, i feel, would be enough to leave the P-51 slightly less (but less enough perhaps?) in disadvantage when decented to the floor and to be about to start the slow fight (scissors etc). or to give a proper chance to extend if(!) decision to do so was made in time.

at the moment when you have slowly decented to the deck, you're allready overheated, and in energy trap. or attemp to extend, even when decision has been made in time, is next to impossible. this, i can understand is very frustrating to the pony jocks. but could be resolved with very little adjustement of the performance values, while still remaining within historical data.

but anything more imo, would ruin the the balance of the planeset (both axis and allies) which ED has put so much thought in (every plane is unique, and has it's own advantages).

this is my impresion i have got from flying the pony aswell as it's adversaries regulary in mp.

Well I want the Dora to have the Junker's Tecnical Field Service (TAM) upgrade bringing emergency power up from 1750 to 1900hp!! :)

The following quotes are from two/three weeks ago.

 

Do you actually read what other people are trying to tell you?

For crying out loud! None of those lines you just quoted actually say what you're saying they do. None of them (including "all of them, taken together") is a statement to the effect of, "There were only two variants of 109G-6, one without MW50 and one with, and the one with it was the more common of them." If that statement is true, it's news to me. I have no idea why you're telling me that this has been told to me before, let alone many times.

Edit: okay, if I look at certain pairs of those quotes together, I can kinda see where you're coming from. But, the wording isn't so clear.

I own and fly all the warbirds, may I ask you if you even own any german DCS aircraft?

As you may or not be aware, I cannot fly flight sims anymore due to joint injuries. I can use neither joystick nor pedals without pain. This has been the case since before the 109 was introduced in DCS. If I were able to use joystick & pedals, the 109 would be my primary ride; out of all the aircraft that are currently in the sim, the 109 is my favorite (yes, I'd rather own an Me 109 than a P-51, IRL).

Until the release of the P-47, the 109 would be my DCS ride, regardless of current dominance (that is, I'd fly it primarily, regardless of whether or not it were the most competitive fighter for multiplayer). So, see, my advocacy of 72" to balance out the P-51 vs. 109 situation (without reducing historical accuracy—it's a shame that I have to point this part out every damn time, but if I don't, someone's sure to start hollering about how balance isn't as important as accuracy) is not out of some supposed 109 hate, but is rather objective. It's simply a good thing to have reasonably balanced teams in multiplayer, if this can be done without reducing the fidelity of the sim. Happily, the addition of 72" doesn't reduce historical accuracy in the slightest, and it's an appropriate historical match for the 109K. It's win-win (except for the players who prefer 109 to dominate P-51).

To a true sportsman, it is no more desirable for the opponent to have an unfair handicap than it is to have that handicap oneself. That some desire their opponent to have such a handicap is proof of their dishonesty; they are "poor sports" and do not belong in multiplayer.

With 44-1 fuel the USAAF increased their MAP as well.

And, as I've mentioned repeatedly, they increased their MAP even when using the standard fuel. I've seen documents authorizing some of the mid-range WEP ratings on 130, with the caveat that the engines will wear out faster. The 150 extended the engine life, but wasn't necessary for e.g. 72". The false idea that the large majority of U.S. fighters ran exclusively factory ratings, with only the groups which had access to 150-grade fuel using higher ratings, is a result of the fact that USAAF manuals were not properly updated (as several wartime pilots said, many of the pilots never even saw a manual). Instead, they issued periodic "memorandums" containing the authorizations (and, of course, not all crews waited for the memo).

Anyway, this is getting nerve wrecking and I give up. You either dont read what other people tell you, are extremely forgetful or trolling us

I've carefully read everything that everyone has posted in all of these discussions (with the exception of Otto's posts since the exchange in posts #142–146, when I concluded that, for whatever reasons, he & I cannot effectively communicate with each other). While my memory certainly isn't what I'd like it to be, I am absolutely not trolling. I'm here because, even though I can't fly DCS (or any other flight sim-game realistic enough to require a joystick), I love these airplanes and this is the most lifelike portrayal of them in any simulator, to the best of my knowledge.

Look, I'm not unreasonable. Maybe I didn't make it clear, last post, but I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong about the G-6 situation. What you suggest about it simply isn't something I've encountered before. I'm not a 109 expert, nor a P-51 expert; the P-38 was my area of relative expertise, and even that was a long time ago. So, most of what I "know" about the 109 comes from hearsay, and it so happens that the idea I've heard repeatedly was that there was a range of G-6 variants, and that most of them did poorly, compared to a factory-rated P-51 and later (or even earlier!) models/blocks of 109.

If this is wrong, I'm actually quite open to correction, but at this point, I'd rather not take it from the fanatically pro-109 clique on this forum (which isn't the majority of 109 fliers, mind you, but roughly five guys who just can't accept that the two fighters were generally more equal in reality than they are in the sim). If I've mis-characterized you as being one of that group, then I genuinely apologize, but everything I recall you saying in any discussion on the P-51 and 109 ends up supporting the 109.

So, if you could simply point me toward a reasonable source (e.g. not Wikipedia and not a sim-fan's 109 page) where I can concisely (as a result of my health, I don't have the energy for hardcore research these days) read up on G-6 variants, I'd be happy to try to improve my understanding of this subject. And, if I'm wrong about the G-6 mostly being garbage compared to other 109 blocks, I am willing to retract my statements to that effect. I'm not going to bullheadedly stand by mistakes; I merely haven't been convinced at this point, because, so far, it's just been a few diehard 109 fans saying, basically, "No it isn't."

This is nerve-wracking for me, too. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, or contradicting me; how else could I learn, if I'm wrong? What's unpleasant is the battle to figure out which of them to believe; some do so honestly, while others have an ultertior motive (namely, preferring to skew multiplayer balance in their favor). I have no choice but to doubt the latter, and that doesn't make me a "P-51 fanboy." (I'm really not; I've always believed that the P-51 stole the P-38's credit—so to speak—and the P-47's, to a lesser extent.)

the problem with 72" i think would be that it would move the balance too much in favor for P-51.

If I'm not mistaken, before your edit, you were specifically referring to P-51 versus FW 190D? In which case, yes, I definitely agree that 72" P-51 is too much for our FW 190. However, the 67" P-51 would remain, which at least gives the option to have a mission with a good match for FW 190 and another mission with a good match for 109. Right now, there's no option for a mission with a good match for the P-51 (without going high-altitude, which has been established to be generally non-viable for multiplayer).

As it so happens, I do own the FW 190D module. It was a gift from a friend, who told me that it should be less hard on my hands than the P-51, but I haven't flown it (or any other fighter) because of aforementioned health situation. I'm waiting for the Normandy map et al.; at that point, I plan on hooking up the ol' simming equipment, firing up the FW 190, and gingerly doing some basic touch & goes. But I won't be able to do any real flying with it. I digress a bit; point is, the FW 190D is the fighter which I have the best chance of being able to dogfight in, if my medical situation should improve a bit, and so I actually do have a good reason to not want to see the 190 fall behind the P-51 in competitive play.

So, I share your concern about the FW 190. The 72" is too much for the 190 at current boost. However, if you believe that 72" would move the balance too much in favor of the P-51 vs. the Me 109, then I must disagree. 72" P-51 is still going to be inferior in dogfights to the 109, while still only being slightly faster. It's going to be less disadvantaged, but it isn't going to have a net advantage over the 109.

@Echo38: Sorry to hear about your inabilites to fly and appreciate this fine (no, make that BEST) sim out there.

Most of us here are all for historical accuracy, regardless of the plane. Unfortunately you seem to be in the minority who DOES have a horse in the race. It just isn't a plane. The Horse being BALANCE. Unfortunately this horse has been beaten to death around here, and Im sorry to tell you that it's pretty much dead and gone.

What I and a few very patient other virtual pilots (who actively fly ALL of the warbirds in the sim) are trying to get across to you and others pushing for 72" of manifold pressure, high octane fuel, and god knows what else, is simple. It's that it won't make a difference. Not really.

You consistently ignore this, and keep trying to push for balance. DCS is not about balancing planes. It's about accuracy. With regards to the WWII birds, historical accuracy. It's up to the mission designers to design their missions for balance or whatever else they feel like.

This is my last attempt at getting across to you. Like rel4y I pretty much gave up after I read some of those presposterous things you wrote about the handling and performance qualities of the WWII birds we have in the sim. I thought you were a troll, but I realize now that you simply don't know what you are talking about.

Thats ok, Im no expert either. But I have researched and found out a lot about these planes over the years, and Im very happy that DCS confirms most of what I thought to be true (and a few things that I believed were true, but turned out to be completely wrong) and does not conform to the games of yesterday which were mostly based on propaganda.

So for the last time: A 72" Mustang will not change it into a killing machine capable of beating the 109 in a turn fight (either the K, or any G model). It will make absolutely no difference in how it fights and will probably cause even more crying on the forums for "balance" when people realize that....lets face it if these forum "warriors" put even 1% of the time they spend on their forum efforts, in learning how to fight in their favorite airplane they would actually start to see their K/D ratio improve.

This is my main reason for not supporting these "tune-ups" to airframes, no matter how historical they may have actually been. Strongarming the developers into doing this will eventually, bit by bit lead into a full on virtual arms race, and will turn this wonderful historical sim, into just another game.

However, if you believe that 72" would move the balance too much in favor of the P-51 vs. the 109, then I must disagree. 72" P-51 is still going to be inferior in dogfights to the 109, while still only being slightly faster. It's going to be less disadvantaged, but it isn't going to have a net advantage over the 109.

i dont, but i also DONT think the P-51 should be on par with the 109. All I want against 109, is a chance to take advantage of good decision made during combat, ie extending at the right moment.

If you cant take the upperhand in time against 109, you should extend, and have a chance with that decision (hence the plea for slightly less drag).

but if you stupidly decide to remain in the fight that you have allready "lost", you should pay the price for it and eat the dirt.

or take a huge risk and try to take the fight to scissors or something similar, but even then have a small chance (hence the plea for few extra minutes at 67") to get the upperhand back to your self, BUT understanding that it IS a huge gamble that has odds against you.

Ps. sry for the editing part, wanted to add something and accidentally deleted that 190 part. /:

A 72" Mustang will not change it into a killing machine capable of beating the 109 in a turn fight

I know that! I said that! Several times in this thread ... on this very page, even. Why act like you think I don't understand this? That's a straw-man.

Most of us here are all for historical accuracy, regardless of the plane. Unfortunately you seem to be in the minority who DOES have a horse in the race. It just isn't a plane. The Horse being BALANCE.

 

DCS is not about balancing planes. It's about accuracy. With regards to the WWII birds, historical accuracy.

We've been over this too many times. Good balance, without sacrificing historical accuracy ... should I put that on my shirt? There was a wide enough range in these birds' configurations, in reality, that you don't have to pick a mediocre P-51 config to face a good example of a 109. You are, again, setting up a straw-man (namely, suggesting that my argument is to reduce historical accuracy in order to improve balance).

some of those presposterous things you wrote about the handling and performance qualities of the WWII birds we have in the sim [...] I realize now that you simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

Thats ok, Im no expert either. But I have researched and found out a lot about these planes over the years, and Im very happy that DCS confirms most of what I thought to be true (and a few things that I believed were true, but turned out to be completely wrong) and does not conform to the games of yesterday which were mostly based on propaganda.

I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the fine points of which block/variant/configuration of 109 had what, no. I'm not even an expert on P-51 blocks & ratings (and I don't think I've ever presented myself as such). Still, at one point, I did some pretty decent research (including specific dedicated books) on the P-38, and this led me to a survey-level understanding of the encompassing stuff. Namely, a good understanding of how both logistics & fighter performance were involved (one way or the other) in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, with the reason for the fall of Nazi Germany being logistical and not technological.

You imply that I don't have a clue what's going on in DCS because I haven't done any significant dogfighting since the 109 was released. This is a reasonable assumption, but you also seem to be implying that I'm getting all of my ideas from old IL-2 etc. That isn't an accurate assessment; while I do have less experience in DCS than I did in the older sim-games, I did get to fly the DCS P-51 for several hundred hours, which was enough for an already-proficient dogfighter to get a good understanding of how things differ between DCS and the older, lesser sim-games. For one example, due to superior modelling of both overheating and drag, flying sustained turns with flaps fully deployed is a terrible idea here, unlike in the lesser sim-games. But in many other areas, things work largely the same.

While I don't have any first-hand experience with the DCS 109 (other than some dogfights against the AI, which doesn't behave the same as human players), I don't need to have that in order to understand that it's easily more maneuverable than the P-51 at normal multiplayer altitudes (as it should be) while also being almost the same speed. Why, just yesterday, someone told me that the DCS P-51 is once again slower than the 109 on the deck, although I (of course) can neither confirm nor deny this, what with the joystick thing. What I do know, from talking to all of these DCS users, and from watching videos, is that the speeds of the two are close enough that the P-51 does not, in fact, have a clear, decisive speed advantage at low altitudes. Any advantage in speed (if there even currently is one) is smaller than the disadvantages in acceleration, turn & climb.

I don't need to actually fly P-51 vs. 109 in DCS to know what I'm talking about in matters such as this; my experience with the DCS P-51 module—coupled with my observations of, and conversations with, pilots I know to be highly skilled (from past experience duelling them), as they fly the newer fighters—allow me to extrapolate, with a good degree of accuracy, my experience from the lesser sim-games. E.g. my understanding that being slightly faster doesn't do much good if the other guy has much better acceleration (along with turn and climb). That's true in DCS as well as in the lesser sims.

Is it possible that I'm wrong about that, and that the DCS P-51's speed advantage is enough that a good pilot can consistently engage and then safely disengage from a well-flown 109, below 10,000 feet? It's possible, yes, but unlikely enough that I'm comfortable with believing the pilots I know to be skilled, who say that I'm not wrong, rather than believing the "109 first" crowd on the forum who say that I am.

If everybody wants to be historic. A lot more should fly the P-51 so it out number the 109K. That would be simulating real life instead of air quake with everybody taking the best fighter.

Of course, that won't happen, because most want an edge. That's fine if you just want to boost your ego and turn DCS into a game.

You all want everything accurate, except when it comes to the battles.

Mediocre 51. Really? So the entire 9th Air Force operated roster of Mustang 51 "D"s were mediocre. Historical accuracy. Right? Lol...

I've explained why I don't agree with these kinds of requests for "balance" in my previous post. You chose to ignore that in your reply and focused on restating your previous points. Fine. We're done here I guess. You win.

Mediocre 51. Really? So the entire 9th Air Force operated roster of Mustang 51 "D"s were mediocre.

Compared to a well-made 109K? Yes. "The P-51 won the air war in Europe" primarily by superior numbers and a steadily-replaced pilot pool (we're in agreement on this), with the Luftwaffe being further constrained by material shortages and supply-line disruption (resulting in degraded fighter performance, on average). Had the logistics been equal, I expect the 9th Air Force would begun rapidly losing, as a result of its retention of the factory rating.* At which point, I expect they would have raised the boost like the 8th did, with or without 150-grade fuel. Which air force would have ultimately been dominant in an equal-logistics situation? Without bringing range into it, my guess would be the Luftwaffe, but this would have necessitated them keeping up in the boost "arms race" (in which, I have no doubt, the Daimler-Benz & Jumo 213 were capable of succeeding, had the logistical situation allowed it).

* I assume you're correct when you say the 9th only used 67"; I have insufficient information on that point.

I've explained why I don't agree with these kinds of requests for "balance" in my previous post. You chose to ignore that in your reply and focused on restating your previous points.

I'm not trying to ignore any actual response of yours. I simply haven't seen you say anything which counters my point about historical accuracy and balance. As far as I've seen, it's mostly just been "balance doesn't matter, only historical accuracy," and ignoring the fact that having both is entirely possible, without making any concessions to fidelity or historical accuracy. I mean, you said that it's up to mission makers to balance things, but how are they supposed to balance a low-altitude P-51 vs. Me 109 engagement with only two basic choices (109K with MW50 or 109K without MW50), neither of which can result in an even match?

my observations of, and conversations with, pilots I know to be highly skilled (from past experience duelling them), as they fly the newer fighters.

I'm curious.Who are these pilots ?

I don't see why everyone seems to be against adding it.

If it's accurate and was used at the time then it should be added to the sim, regardless of whether it makes a difference or not.

Same goes for the G suit, if it was used and is accurate then it should be added.

This goes for the German aircraft as well, if the German aircraft are missing anything then it should be added if it's historically accurate.

Personally I hate balance, balance ruins sims imo. I want to see the aircraft preform and have the things that they had historically, even if it means that the aircraft is inferior or superior to the others.

I'm curious.Who are these pilots ?

The only one I've talked to directly in the last few months is Solty. While I don't always agree with his assessments (flying any aircraft exclusively can make it difficult to remain objective about it, both in sims and IRL), he is an excellent virtual pilot who is more familiar with the P-51 than most fliers ever will be with their chosen aircraft. If he says that the P-51 isn't able to reach its listed speed at sea level, then I'm going to assume that this is the case until someone posts an up-to-date video of the P-51 reaching its listed speed at sea level.

Compared to a well-made 109K? Yes. "The P-51 won the air war in Europe" primarily by superior numbers and a steadily-replaced pilot pool (we're in agreement on this), with the Luftwaffe being further constrained by material shortages and supply-line disruption (resulting in degraded fighter performance, on average). Had the logistics been equal, I expect the 9th Air Force would begun rapidly losing, as a result of its retention of the factory rating.* At which point, I expect they would have raised the boost like the 8th did, with or without 150-grade fuel. Which air force would have ultimately been dominant in an equal-logistics situation? Without bringing range into it, my guess would be the Luftwaffe, but this would have necessitated them keeping up in the boost "arms race" (in which, I have no doubt, the Daimler-Benz & Jumo 213 were capable of succeeding, had the logistical situation allowed it).

 

* I assume you're correct when you say the 9th only used 67"; I have insufficient information on that point.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to ignore any actual response of yours. I simply haven't seen you say anything which counters my point about historical accuracy and balance. As far as I've seen, it's mostly just been "balance doesn't matter, only historical accuracy," and ignoring the fact that having both is entirely possible, without making any concessions to fidelity or historical accuracy. I mean, you said that it's up to mission makers to balance things, but how are they supposed to balance a low-altitude P-51 vs. Me 109 engagement with only two basic choices (109K with MW50 or 109K without MW50), neither of which can result in an even match?

Just jumping in here, but how about creating an escort bomber mission at 30000 ft? If the 109s don't want to come up and play then their base gets bombed

Or make it 15-20k if you want more advantage one way or the other

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk