K-4 is a P51 Killer

As well as the fact 75" was never used on any operational P-51 in the USAAF.

I don't recall ever seeing a source that says that it was, but then I spent the vast majority of my time examining the P-38 and not the P-51. However, I must ask: are you certain that it was never used, or have you merely not found a source that suggests or confirms its use? If the latter, then that would leave the matter in question. Or do you have authoritative sources which definitively state that 75" was never used on operational USAAF P-51s?

Officially 72" was the max but that is not to say 75" was not used unofficially.

So the 9th AF must have been based in GB because it is along way from Italy to the Normandy beaches.

 

There was 2 FGs equipped with P-51s in the 9th AF, the 354th and 363rd.

:music_whistling:

Unfortunately the USAAF WWII Combat Chronology is too large to post in these forums.

9th AF ETO.zip

Officially 72" was the max but that is not to say 75" was not used unofficially.

No, more likely gauge error or the propeller driving the manifold pressure.

Lets see,

Ahh, the 9th AF was based in Italy (MTO) but lead the tactical effort hitting the invasion beaches and transportation infrastructure in France.

Yet in the graphic, pg 16, it says "tactical air arm in England".

As you can see - would not make better performance higher than 24k in terms of max speed

Right; my concern is primarily how the P-51 does down low, as combat altitudes are seldom above 15,000 feet in multiplayer. I myself favor "angels ten." The longer people spend climbing to get to a fight, the less time spent learning dogfighting. Ten to fifteen thousand gives some room for E fighting, while not taking prohibitively long to set up the fight each time.

Which is a shame, yes, that few simmers experience high-altitude combat, because it is very different up at 30,000, with the wide turning circles and high TAS, but so close to the stall. It's very tactical and slower-paced ... time to think & predict the maneuvers, and E fighting is essential. I enjoyed it greatly on the few occasions I was able to engage in it. But, it takes so long to get there after each takeoff, and one can get in so many more hours of practice if meeting the opponent at low medium altitude instead. It is rare to find a fight up there at all, above 20,000, unless it is arranged.

At any rate, my core concern is this: in multiplayer, most action is to be found below 10,000 feet or so, and at these lower altitudes, the P-51D suffers badly against the Me 109K, more than it should, because of lack of a 72" WEP rating.

Hence the puppy eyes. : )

As the P-51 is outclassed at low altitude, where most multiplayer combat occurs, and 72" would make it less outclassed, and would not cause the 109 to be outclassed instead, and 72" is something that many real P-51s ran at, surely it is not such a bad thing to ask for?

You missed the main fact that 75" does nothing at 6-8 km altitude the most dogfights were at. As well as MW-50 that adds low altitude performance.

If you want 75" for the low alt dogfights sandbox in MP - say it directly... :)

Yes I want for it to be more competetive in multiplayer at low altitudes and 75'hg would give it the needed boost to be enjoyable in MP. Only thing I want from P-51 is to be fast B&Z plane, with the legendary ability to get away from a situation by diving away, as I very well understand that it is inherently inferior to interceptors like 109 and Spitfire in almost every other aspect (turn, climb, level acceleration etc.). Speed was the weapon of the Mustang and that is what I love it for and I understand its disadvantages beeing a long-range escort plane. It would only make each battle more balanced and more appealing for MP. And it is historically accurate seeing as many squadrons flew with 44-1 fuel.:pilotfly:

Also, most dogfights since Gen. Doolittle directive were coming down lower, as pilots didn't have min. altitude anymore and were told to chase their victims to the ground. So by late 1944-45 dogfights were at all operational altitudes, and the whole reason why new Merlin 66 (1650-7) was adopted to the P-51 program was to improve low altitude performance of the P-51B/D :)

I want competetive MP, that is why I am not asking for highest 81'hg (25lbs) for the P-51 as it was used by RAF because it might be too much for a 109K4 and would feel wierd/unfair to fly an RAF standard in USAAF plane. :weight_lift_2:

What I'm trying to say, here, is this:

 

The K-4 is indeed a P-51 killer in DCS, but this isn't an accurate picture of how the two aircraft compared, because our K-4 is much closer to the best K-4 that ever flew in combat, than our P-51D is to the best P-51D that ever flew in combat. Similarly, our K-4 is better than the average historical K-4, and our P-51D is worse than the average historical P-51D.

 

It simply isn't a fair representation. The only reason I'm not screaming "developer bias" is because I understand why the choice was made to model the K-4, rather than a model more suitably matched (both in the "fair & balanced," and in the "historically-common") for the P-51D. Thus, I believe that ED is not biased; I agree with their choice to prioritize fidelity of the aircraft model over suitability of aircraft model, because I, too, desire the most accurate simulation of the real warbirds as possible.

 

However, the fact remains that the match as depicted is neither fair nor historically representative. The only thing our P-51D vs. 109K matchup is representative of is the scenario of "what happens when you take one of the better examples of a 109K and pit it against one of the worst examples of a P-51D." Of course it's going to dominate! The inverse would be also be true, if you switch it around, with one of the best examples of P-51D versus one of the worst examples of Me 109K. This should be a no-brainer; I don't know why I have to point this out.

Thank you so very much!!! This is exactly what I am getting at without sounding like I'm going after anyone. :D

But it is not representative of the "worst P-51". Where do you guys get this idea?

It is representative of the most likely late war P51D to be encountered. Once more, we are flying clean configuration P-51D's at 67inHG. That is the same exact performance as a 8th USAAF P-51D using 72inHG with wing racks.

There were not many 8th USAAF P-51's flown without wing racks in 1944.

There is no bias against the P-51.

I get the feeling that most of complaints come from people who only have a single module....the P-51 and have no experience flying the other aircraft.

The 8th USAAF Mustangs are not even the majority in theater.

The 9th USAAF is the main effort supporting the Allied Armies advancing across Europe. There is a lot more of them shooting up the Wehrmacht and escorting Medium Bomber raids over Europe than P-51D's escorting the Strategic Heavies. The 8th USAAF got the loins share of the spotlight but it was hardly alone.

I am all for getting a 72inHG 8th USAAF Mustang when we get Heavy Bombers to escort!

From what Yo-Yo says about the "barking dog" missions being tested, it should be soon hopefully!

But it is not representative of the "worst P-51". Where do you guys get this idea?

It's got the worst WEP rating of all of the ones authorized for operational P-51Ds, to the best of my knowledge. Facing a 109K that is not using the worst WEP rating of any operational 109K, I might add.

To be sure, there were worse examples of individual P-51Ds. Old, patched-up, battle-worn ones; poorly-manufactured "lemons;" examples with the rocket racks left on ... that sort of thing. But, as far as the horsepower rating goes, you can't find a worse official rating for combat P-51Ds. The only historical configuration I can think of that would be worse than what we have, is if the rocket racks were forced on (while keeping this lowest-used WEP rating). Hence my comment, "one of the worst examples."

Since none of the birds are modelled in the sim as having quality variation (which is fine with me), I'm only comparing configurations. WEP ratings, mostly, because that's the major change between examples, when discounting variations in the condition of individuals.

+1, I agree, saying the P-51D we have is the worst variant is a little bit of an over-generalization I think....

I have to concede in that. You are completely correct on this.

You can remove the MW50 from the 109 in the ME, would that not even the playing field for you?

It might, locally; I'm not familiar with that setup. However, it does leave the situation of the K-4 having the editor option of one of its better boosts, but not the P-51. It doesn't seem fair to the P-51--especially since the P-51 is not in need of such a disadvantage--in addition to it not being an accurate picture of the historical average.

I'm not one of those guys who wants his favorite ride to dominate the other guy's. Some of you think I'm just a P-51 fan crying, but, in fact, I'm fonder of the Me 109 than the P-51--the real one, as well as in sim/games--and I have many times more virtual hours in 109s than in 51s. I simply want the aircraft to be well-matched, as well as being historically-representative. There are enough variations in configuration for that to happen.

So it's possible to have both. I don't understand the resistance to this. If Yo-Yo doesn't have the time to create the 72" boost, then that's one thing, and I can understand that. He's a very busy guy, I gather. But it seems to me that there are a few people here who'd fight against the introduction of 72" even if it were already ready for inclusion into the sim. And I can see no justification for this attitude, given the points I've made previously.

Thank you.

The 8th USAAF Mustangs are not even the majority in theater.

 

The 9th USAAF is the main effort supporting the Allied Armies advancing across Europe. There is a lot more of them shooting up the Wehrmacht and escorting Medium Bomber raids over Europe than P-51D's escorting the Strategic Heavies. The 8th USAAF got the loins share of the spotlight but it was hardly alone.

As the 8th and 9th are mentioned Table 89 would be more appropriate, tho it does not change the ratio of P-47 : P-51.

The VIII FC of the 8th AF got the majority of the Luftwaffe 'kills' despite there being less P-51s overall in the ETO.

It's got the worst WEP rating of all of the ones authorized for operational P-51Ds, to the best of my knowledge. Facing a 109K that is not using the worst WEP rating of any operational 109K, I might add.

 

To be sure, there were worse examples of individual P-51Ds. Old, patched-up, battle-worn ones; poorly-manufactured "lemons;" examples with the rocket racks left on ... that sort of thing. But, as far as the horsepower rating goes, you can't find a worse official rating for combat P-51Ds. The only historical configuration I can think of that would be worse than what we have, is if the rocket racks were forced on (while keeping this lowest-used WEP rating). Hence my comment, "one of the worst examples."

 

Since none of the birds are modelled in the sim as having quality variation (which is fine with me), I'm only comparing configurations. WEP ratings, mostly, because that's the major change between examples, when discounting variations in the condition of individuals.

Just to be clear, there is nothing bias about anything in the DCS models or line up. It is a late 1944 planeset.

67inHG is actually has the best rating the P-51D used in common service. Infact, it is the same limitation found in the F-51D in when it returned to war in Korea.

100/150 grade NEVER became the standard fuel and you do not see any P51D series cleared for anything higher than 67in HG in USAF service post war even in combat.

We have a late 1944 P-51D that is the contemporary of the Bf-109K4 and FW-190D9. It has the tail warning radar and the K-14 gunsight.

You are thinking of the P-51H series which had different engine and used.....

Methonal Water Injection!!! :v: :pilotfly:

That is how it was able to achieve such a high manifold pressure without blowing up...90inHG(~3.7ata)!

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51h-powercurve.jpg

The 1.8ata (52inHG) for the BF-109K4 is the lowest limitation for the type that entered service AFAIK. ALL Bf-109K4's came as standard with MW-50 system installed and had to use 1.8ata with the exception of a handful cleared for 1.98 in Spring 1945.

You have to option of using the MW-50 tank as an auxiliary fuel tank just as the actual aircraft had that same option.

Lastly, these aircraft are much more 3 Dimensional than previous home computer models. You have to pay attention to the limits and fly them correctly. If you have never flown an airplane what in the world makes anyone think they are going to be an instant ace in DCS? Be realistic....none of us are going to be Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover, or Eric Hartmann in a few online flights a week in a FM that mirrors reality.

It just isn't going to happen. It is going to take a long time and lots of practice.

Echo38..Let's meet online and go a few rounds P51 vs P51. Maybe some things will come out that will help you to get more enjoyment and have more success. If I can help you in that, I would love too. Not that I am some online ace either. I just do not have same feeling of "inferiority" when I fly the Mustang.

Even yes but outclassed...no way!! :P The Cadillac of the Sky rocks! :thumbup:

100/150 grade NEVER became the standard fuel and you do not see any P51D series cleared for anything higher than 67in HG in USAF service post war even in combat.

 

We have a late 1944 P-51D that is the contemporary of the Bf-109K4 and FW-190D9. It has the tail warning radar and the K-14 gunsight.

In late Winter of 1943-44 the Allied Expeditionary Air Force (A.E.A.F.) decided, pending further trials, not to employ 150 Grade Fuel for Overlord due to spark plug issues, however, it was intended that 150 Grade would be used when proved satisfactory. Meanwhile, cross channel operations by two squadrons of P-47’s and one P-38 using 150 Grade fuel revealed an increase of speed and climb characteristics at the expense of spark plug difficulties. The Production Division was directed on 28 March 1944, under the authority of the Commmanding General, Army Air Forces, to modify all P-38, P-47 and P-51 airplanes in the United Kingdom for the use of Grade 150 fuel, with the necessary modification kits to be shipped to the European Theater of Operations within 30 days. It was decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom.

Successful service tests led in May 1944 to the Eighth Air Force Fighter Command requesting that it "be supplied immediately with grade 150 aviation fuel for use in P-47, P-51 and P-38 planes". Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of the landings in France. The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s.