Warbirds / Mustang FM Questions: Development

I've had the Mustang for a while and love it, I picked up the Jug and I read post over there stating that the Warbirds in DCS were developed by another developer who went belly up and then ED completed the development. (Not sure if from scratch or part-way)

I wanted to ask anyone with knowledge of this if they could explain to me what happened back then. Also, is the flight model that much different than the Jug? They were saying there was a difference. (perhaps how it was developed?)

This was all before my time in DCS, I would love to learn a bit about the history of the Warbird modules in DCS.

Thanks!

In short terms:

a) Mustang was the first warbird to be developed strictly by ED and released in 2012, more as a tech demonstrator (the first prop-driven plane they made) rather than attempt of doing anything more in this area;

b) the 3rd party developer who previously created and abandoned Il-2 Cliffs of Dover sim, signed up a deal with ED to produce WWII-related sim based on DCS engine, with Normandy map, Bf-109, Fw-190D, Spit, T-bolt and Me-262 being planned at that stage. They launched a Kickstarter campaign to cover the costs (that was 2013-2014'ish I think). What was the scope of ED's partial responsibility for the project still remains a subject of heated debates and controversies (in the light of what happened later, see below);

c) 3rd party dev went belly up with kickstarter money gone. ED picked up the pieces, redefined kickstarter backer's rewards from scratch and decided to carry on on its own (whether they should pick up or not, could redefine or not is the subject of controversies). I seem to recall some assets were partially done at that point (109, 190 and a map). The map development continued by a newly created 3rd party studio (called Ugra Media) comprising some of the guys from the previous, ill-fated attempt. Planes and units development was strictly ED-thing;

d) today we've got the Normandy map (released 2017) and all the planes from original plan except Me-262, plus a bonus Fw-190A-8.

Just released Channel map and upcoming warbird projects are all ED initiative, not related to ex-Kickstarter thing. Flight models are all ED-developed as well.

There are 3rd party studios, who either released (I-16 by OctopusG), or will release (F4U by Magnitude3) other warbirds, but these are independent efforts, flight modelling included.

FM of P-51 is much different because it is different plane.

Art-J,

This is exactly what I waned to know, appreciate it very much. I appreciate the history lesson.

Thanks!

I do think Fw-190D9 was also ED's own thing before DCS WWII project, and released before it going belly up. I seem to recall so at least.

As far I know though, all of the DCS WWII modules have been worked on by ED's lead FM developer Yo-Yo. So I hold them to same level of quality when it comes to flight modeling.

Can we get a latewar version of the 51 or at least 150 octane? We are flying an early 1944 51 vs a early 1945 109k4 that was produced I much smaller number then the g-6, g14....please more historical match up!

Can we get a latewar version of the 51 or at least 150 octane? We are flying an early 1944 51 vs a early 1945 109k4 that was produced I much smaller number then the g-6, g14....please more historical match up!

K-4 is late 44 plane.

K-4 is late 44 plane.

Yes it was a late 44 plane, but that doesn't address the none historical value when it's fighting an early 44' P-51. As a p-51 enthusiast I don't mind the k-4 if it's historical contemporary was available. Don't think 109 jocky's would be happy if a spit 5 vs a 109 E-4 (not F varient) match up was released. I wouldn't be a fan of that either.

Yes it was a late 44 plane, but that doesn't address the none historical value when it's fighting an early 44' P-51. As a p-51 enthusiast I don't mind the k-4 if it's historical contemporary was available. Don't think 109 jocky's would be happy if a spit 5 vs a 109 E-4 (not F varient) match up was released. I wouldn't be a fan of that either.

A far as i know -30 -25 is pretty late model.

A far as i know -30 -25 is pretty late model.

67' of manifold???????...come on bro ..

67' of manifold???????...come on bro ..

All planes equpied with v-1650-7 engines roll out with 67" from factory.

Any increased rating were done in field.

150 fuel upgrade was applied to old version of planes too.

This was discussed a lot on this forum that 72" rating was applied to limited squadrons and after a while was reverted back to 67"

Escort fighters which were operated at alt above 25k had no point of using 150 fuel, 67" wasn't available for the engine at this alt anyway.

All planes equpied with v-1650-7 engines roll out with 67" from factory.

Any increased rating were done in field.

150 fuel upgrade was applied to old version of planes too.

This was discussed a lot on this forum that 72" rating was applied to limited squadrons and after a while was reverted back to 67"

Escort fighters which were operated at alt above 25k had no point of using 150 fuel, 67" wasn't available for the engine at this alt anyway.

Fact :thumbup:

67' of manifold???????...come on bro ..

That was the 'base' manifold setting for the Allies' 'standard' aviation grade fuel in 1943-45; of course, this ignores the availability and constant use of 150 octane fuel for 8th Air Force and RAF fighter wings based in southern Britain and on Europe from spring of 1944 onward.

Now, the 150 octane fuel was not supplied to the Soviet Union during this period; maybe that justifies the denial of virtual 150 octane to those of us flying those aircraft on our computers today.

Kind of petty if that is the case.

cheers

horseback

All planes equpied with v-1650-7 engines roll out with 67" from factory.

Any increased rating were done in field.

150 fuel upgrade was applied to old version of planes too.

This was discussed a lot on this forum that 72" rating was applied to limited squadrons and after a while was reverted back to 67"

Escort fighters which were operated at alt above 25k had no point of using 150 fuel, 67" wasn't available for the engine at this alt anyway.

At the time that this fuel became available in useful amounts, escort fighters were encouraged to pursue enemy fighters down to ground level and expected to attack enemy facilities and units on the ground when returning to base after completing their escort responsibilities. The bombers essentially became bait to force the Luftwaffe to come up for the fighter force, which was then permitted to destroy them as an effective fighting force before D-Day.

GEN Doolittle changed the rules when he took command of the 8th AF in January of 1944, and from that point, a much higher percentage of 8th AF victories were achieved below 20,000 ft, and not just ground kills. The limitation of the fuel to a 'a few' squadrons was because there wasn't enough to go around to units not directly in air combat over western Europe, so it was not supplied to the USSR, or units in the MTO, CBI or the Pacific.

This was not unlike putting your first and best radar systems along the most threatened coasts before putting them in Northern Ireland, or stationing the limited numbers of Spitfire IX along the Channel coast stations in 1942.

cheers

horseback

67' of manifold???????...come on bro ..

You need to do some research. The 9th Air Force operated P-51s in the ETO and were never supplied with 150 octane, thus were restricted to 67" hg throughout both the Normandy campaign, the Push to the Rhine, the Bulge and operations into Germany. Ergo, USAAF P-51s in Europe most certainly met K-4s in exactly the condition we find the DCS pony.

I suspect you have some overblown expectations of what the Mustang should be capable of considering the amount of sunshine that's been blown up it's posterior over the past 76 years; it's a good aeroplane to be sure but you don't get 1,200 mile range for free, and laminar flow wing profiles are not known for their low speed lift properties. Do a top trumps on the K-4 and P-51D and you'll find both power loading and wing loading go firmly to the Messerschmitt, even at 72" for the pony.

I will add that use of 150 fuel bring additional problems to maintaining engines.

and 67 vs 72 isn't big of the difference, were fighter tactics played much more important role here.

I would like to get P-51H some day.Wet 80" MAP :)

You need to do some research. The 9th Air Force operated P-51s in the ETO and were never supplied with 150 octane, thus were restricted to 61" hg throughout both the Normandy campaign, the Push to the Rhine, the Bulge and operations into Germany. Ergo, USAAF P-51s in Europe most certainly met K-4s in exactly the condition we find the DCS pony.

 

I suspect you have some overblown expectations of what the Mustang should be capable of considering the amount of sunshine that's been blown up it's posterior over the past 76 years; it's a good aeroplane to be sure but you don't get 1,200 mile range for free, and laminar flow wing profiles are not known for their low speed lift properties. Do a top trumps on the K-4 and P-51D and you'll find both power loading and wing loading go firmly to the Messerschmitt, even at 67" for the pony.

9th AF Mustang groups were decidedly in the minority in that air force (two, maybe three groups out of 15?--and there were initially more P-38 groups than Mustangs in that air force) until the winter of 44/45 and the 150 octane was going to the groups that did the majority of air to air--in the 8th AF and for the RAF fighter Wings flying out of the Channel bases, as I've pointed out above. From the standpoint of the 9th AF fighter groups, encounters with any German fighters were rare after the D-Day period. Plus, the record is pretty clear that almost every USAAF fighter group in combat encouraged their ground crews to 'soup up' their engines' performance, and the techniques used to get that extra bit of power or range were widely promulgated, officially and unofficially.

I note that there is nobody addressing the performance of the K-4 model in game, compared to the actual standard performance of the type in actual combat; German pilot accounts make it clear that aircraft build quality and reliability were generally poor, even worse than previous models that had a near 30% 'down for repairs' rate in 1943, compared to Allied aircraft in RAF and USAAF units that were consistently in the 90% range (despite the P-38's poor record) while flying much longer missions than the opposition. The 109's flight model is based on ideal factory standards, possibly leavened with the results obtained from captured examples brought back and repaired/modified with American or British parts to make them safe to fly--and using better quality fuel and lubricants than was available to the Axis when the aircraft were used.

This is comparable to the reported 'superiority' of the Ki-84 'Frank once a few examples were captured, shipped to the US and repaired and baby-ed to the proverbial gnat's ass so that the US Navy could justify getting the F8F Bearcat a little sooner. The reality was that the Frank was poorly manufactured and unreliable after the initial, hand-made first examples were deployed in China and it never had worthwhile performance above 20,000 ft. And Japanese aviation fuels were worse quality than their German counterparts'.

Pilots that fought the FW and the 109 to a standstill in 1943 with P-47s without water injection or paddle blade props were usually much more dangerous in a Mustang, particularly one that had burned off most of the fuel in its fuselage tank --which most comparisons insist on including in the combat weight of the P-51B/C/D/K whenever matching it against its Axis opponents. The base models of the P-51 (with high octane fuels) were more than effective enough in the Spring/Summer of 1944 to justify not developing and fielding the 'F' model immediately and taking their time to come out with the 'H' model.

Power to weight and wing loading aren't the only factors to consider in a fight; like the Spitfire, the Focke-Wulf and F6F, the Mustang was very responsive, comfortable and easy to master. Flight sims don't reward the ergonomics or comfort of the cockpit the way reality does, much less the range of vision, nor is there any 'seat of the pants' input to help you keep the ball centered.

And that's another thing--the Mustang didn't require the amount of trimming that a spring centered flight sim stick demands--stick and rudder forces were so light that most pilots of the era found it easier and more convenient just to ignore fiddling with the extremely sensitive trim tabs and keep the aircraft in 'trim' with stick and rudder, unless they were flying long distances. You'll have noticed what small (tiny, really) inputs are required to affect the aircraft in the sim, especially in the rudder and elevator; this placed no great load on the pilot once he set things up for normal flight conditions in the real thing, and the Mustang remained easily controllable in combat conditions except for a steep dive without a lot of trim adjustment (and the trim knobs were large, stiff, and 'clicked' into place, giving the real pilot a lot more feel on where his trim was than the average virtual pilot can hope for). Button trim inputs seem a bit 'lavish' to me, and I have tried curves and reduced saturation on my trim pots but they are still less predictable than I would like.

Ultimately, what it boils down to is that we aren't getting a Mustang with even average wartime performance, and even if we did, much of the Mustang's basic real-life advantages are almost impossible to simulate (at this time).

cheers

horseback

I will add that use of 150 fuel bring additional problems to maintaining engines.

and 67 vs 72 isn't big of the difference, were fighter tactics played much more important role here.

I would like to get P-51H some day.Wet 80" MAP :)

8th AF fighters using 150 octane routinely maintained an availability rate of over 90%; their German counterparts were not doing nearly as well and probably wouldn't have even if they had the needed parts easily available (or weren't getting their field bombed and strafed every couple of days).

The important thing about the H model was that it was almost 10% lighter empty and finally made the aerodynamic improvements to use the greater power of the Merlin over the basic design's intended Allison V-1750. It wasn't just faster, it had much improved acceleration and the maneuverability that a better power to weight ratio gives you.

Pilot reports from that era say that it regained the docility and predictability of the P-51A while improving on the P-51D/K's performance and overall lethality.

cheers

horseback

All of which was said is true.

But let face the facts,

WW2 DCS is not about those things.

DCS is providing us with simulation of certain planes, based on factory drawing,tests, etc etc.

No one will be simulating how well or how poor those planes were manufactured.

150 fuel wasn't basic fuel so, all legit tests were done with 100/130 fuel, It could be that proper data for better fuel is very hard to combine.

Unfortunately it is not possible to flip one number in code with hope that everything will be ok.

You can do it and you will ruin everything else.

Same with K-4 in theory K-4 could run on C3 fuel with 1.98 ATA, C3 fuel was around because all Antons were using it from very begging.

And 67" p-51 is still very capable fighter, even against K-4, if you know what to do.

If you let your plane to slow down, and enemy will jump on you from alt even 150 wont help much.

Dont get me wrong, i would love to see 72" P-51 and 25lbs spitfire, but i think this wont happen soon.

There is a server where K-4 is striped from MW50, then P-51 has "easy" job.

Most of what Horseback says is true but it does not get round the fact that what I said is also true; P-51s running 67" faced off against Bf 109K-4s.

ETO does not automatically mean 72" for the pony.

When we finally get a map that has 8th AF bases and sufficient distances to make escorted B-17 raids at least plausible, then you'll here me start screaming for 150 octane versions of our USAAF cohort.

Until then we are only really able to simulate tactical ops - oh, the realm of the 9th AF, who only ever used 130 grade. Funny that.

Also, which Mustang unit claims the most Air to Air Kills in the ETO...? Which Air Force did they belong to...?

Which leads me to this:

150 octane was going to the groups that did the majority of air to air--in the 8th AF and for the RAF fighter Wings flying out of the Channel bases,

Er, no. The RAF statement is nonsense.

2nd TAF units didn't get 150 Grade until Feb/March of 1945, even when they were operating from UK prior to D-Day.

After 2nd TAF units move to France in mid June of 44, the vast majority of air to air combat claims made by the RAF was from 2nd TAF groups on the continent. ADGB units mostly focussed upon the V-1 campaign, with a series of largely unopposed or unproductive (in terms of kills claimed) escort missions shepherding Bomber Command heavies on daylight raids to the Rhur.

Furthermore, after the dissipation of the V-1 threat ~October it was decided to revert all UK based squadrons to 130 grade fuel to make the exchange of units between ADGB and 2nd TAF less complicated.

So, officially at least, no RAF fighter squadron was running 150 octane anywhere in Europe for 5 months.

When we finally get a map that has 8th AF bases and sufficient distances to make escorted B-17 raids at least plausible, then you'll here me start screaming for 150 octane versions of our USAAF cohort.

 

Until then we are only really able to simulate tactical ops - oh, the realm of the 9th AF, who only ever used 130 grade. Funny that.

 

Also, which Mustang unit claims the most Air to Air Kills in the ETO...? Which Air Force did they belong to...?

You underestimate my knowledge base; it is well known that the 354th FG was assigned to the Ninth Air Force, and was given the first draft of new Merlin Mustangs by what was officially labelled a 'mistake'. I suspect a senior Supply Corps officer who had been a senior accountant two or three short years before had the ship load of Mustangs dropped into his lap, and not knowing better, looked at the chart listing 'Groups, Fighter' that had just arrived and gave the new airplane type to the guys going to the 'new' 9th Air Force, because he knew that all the fighter groups in the 8th AF flew P-47s.

When the Commanders of the 8th AF and 8th Fighter Command learned of this assignment, gaskets were blown, irrevocable oaths were spoken, threats were made and Hap Arnold got a telegram marked 'urgent' within hours. Arnold in turn telegramed General Quesada, commanding the 9th AF, asking pointed questions and suggesting that remedial action be taken. RIGHT NOW, please.

The upshot was that the 9th Air Force 'loaned' the 354th Fighter Group to 8th Fighter Command in exchange for an incoming P-47 Group (and rumor has it that several cases of Johnny Walker exchanged hands as well), and the 354th stayed under 8th Air force Command until sufficient numbers of Mustangs reached the 8th AF that they could be released.

Also, the former accountant was not court martialed and shot, as he undoubtedly deserved, from the standpoint of certain 8th AF fighter pilots.

the return to 9th AF command occurred on 15 June 1944, from which point they were doing the tactical close air support over France that they had originally been brought in for. They continued to fly Mustangs until the end of November when 'someone' took away their Mustangs and inflicted P-47s on them, which they grudgingly flew until late February of 1945, getting their Mustangs back after much complaining and string-pulling.

The point of all this is to say that while the 354th was with the 8th Air Force (and doing the bulk of their scoring), they were receiving 150 octane when it became available to the 8th AF. I'm sure that they were cut off immediately after returning to the 9th's order of battle.

As for the RAF thingie, it was more or less an assumption based on the knowledge that the RAF did test & approve the stuff and that RAF Mustang and Spitfire wings did use it at some point.

As I said before, it was a new development of the refiners' art, and was initially available in limited quantities. It was therefore doled out to the higher priority units in the 8th AF, and then to our loyal friends and allies (probably after much kicking and screaming).

cheers

horseback