P-51D, 3 types of flights online

[Coyote Duster]

those who keep throwing around the word "propoganda" probably don't know what it really is. NOW with that being said time to speak some of that so called "propoganda":

 

FACT: the p47 (with the high losses it suffered) was a tank....and it broke the western luftwaffe's back. the p51 came along to clean it all up

 

FACT: 1944 german planes were not up to par at high altitudes and were heavier due to gunpods and were smacked out of the skies by escorts

 

FACT: germans switched up and did hit and run tactics which worked for awhile until the order was given to annhilate the luftwaffe wherever it could be found

 

FACT: germans were harrassed forming up, en route, egress, and landing

 

FACT: late war german planes did hold an edge even the g10 was a hot rod of a plane, lack of veteran pilots, inferior quality due to bombing of factories and synthetic oil plants hampered their perfomance enough with the "if germany had x they would have won" we had the p51h p47 m/n and the p80 was in testing, pershings were on their way not to mention unleashing the hellstorm of b29s

 

in conclusion........ive noticed on alot of ww2 forums that the german camp fosters a secret dislike for american planes and will slander them a lot, face it, bombers or no bombers when you have roving flights of p-51s sweeping the skies at low to medum altitude almost every day you can't beat that, and the k4 and d9 are modeled to their highest peaks with their 1 shot ko guns and endless amounts of energy, hows about ed just man up, give us our api 50s, proper dm, our custom convergence, and our higher manifold, you've given both the german planes their magic mw50s.......... stang pilots we just need to band together, fly at 10 to 15k ft and "Sweep" when you have wingmen and a speed and energy atvantage.... the k4s and 190s are not invincible, ive turned into 109s, and d9s on the deck its funny watching them squirm in surprise when a vet pony driver knows what he's doing, you can out run a k4 on the deck and out roll and turn a d9 on the deck, forget about them climbing just gather speed and zoom climb right on their six. stop being impatient and playing into their hands at lower altitudes. also its getting extremely annoying seeing 1 p51 vs 12 super ultra k4s in every ww2 server.

 

There's my propoganda because corporate america wants to withold all the facts from us poor flight simmers, they don't want us to know that those brave so called untouchable germans whose kill counts were based on ambushing neighboring countries with inferior planes and tactics were actually brutally shooting down our worshipped p51s in droves lol and only our numbers saved us.

[Coyote Duster]

@Kurfurst:

What are you talking about? When did I say that P-51 was the only USAAF fighter worthy of note? Everyone knows that the most produced and used fighter of the war in Europe was the P-47, but when 8th AAF (note not whole USAAF) started to bomb targets deep inside Germany and even in occupied Poland (eg. Gdynia), the 8th AAF under General Doolittle was using mostly (not exclusively) P-51's.

 

Well I can see two (3) P-51 groups, all others are P-47/38.

 

Never let yourself distracted by the facts, Solty.

 

 

 

 

You can tell that unsubstantiated propaganda piece as many times as you want, and I will always correct it every time you repeat it. Both D-9s and K-4s were common in 1944 and in fact, the P-51D25 we have in DCS (with the aerodynamic fixes that prevent it from falling apart in dives and the K-14 gyrosight and tail-warning radar) come at the same time as them or even later.

 

Deliveries began in mid-October 1944. 534 examples had been delivered by the Messerschmitt A.G., Regensburg by the end of November 1944, and 856 by the end of the year.[105][106] Regensburg delivered a total of 1593 by the end of March 1945 so LATE 1944 AND EARLY 1945 1593 is not that common :smartass: propoganda what?

[Brigg]

those who keep throwing around the word "propoganda" probably don't know what it really is. NOW with that being said time to speak some of that so called "propoganda":

 

FACT: the p47 (with the high losses it suffered) was a tank....and it broke the western luftwaffe's back. the p51 came along to clean it all up

 

FACT: 1944 german planes were not up to par at high altitudes and were heavier due to gunpods and were smacked out of the skies by escorts

 

FACT: germans switched up and did hit and run tactics which worked for awhile until the order was given to annhilate the luftwaffe wherever it could be found

 

FACT: germans were harrassed forming up, en route, egress, and landing

 

FACT: late war german planes did hold an edge even the g10 was a hot rod of a plane, lack of veteran pilots, inferior quality due to bombing of factories and synthetic oil plants hampered their perfomance enough with the "if germany had x they would have won" we had the p51h p47 m/n and the p80 was in testing, pershings were on their way not to mention unleashing the hellstorm of b29s

 

in conclusion........ive noticed on alot of ww2 forums that the german camp fosters a secret dislike for american planes and will slander them a lot, face it, bombers or no bombers when you have roving flights of p-51s sweeping the skies at low to medum altitude almost every day you can't beat that, and the k4 and d9 are modeled to their highest peaks with their 1 shot ko guns and endless amounts of energy, hows about ed just man up, give us our api 50s, proper dm, our custom convergence, and our higher manifold, you've given both the german planes their magic mw50s.......... stang pilots we just need to band together, fly at 10 to 15k ft and "Sweep" when you have wingmen and a speed and energy atvantage.... the k4s and 190s are not invincible, ive turned into 109s, and d9s on the deck its funny watching them squirm in surprise when a vet pony driver knows what he's doing, you can out run a k4 on the deck and out roll and turn a d9 on the deck, forget about them climbing just gather speed and zoom climb right on their six. stop being impatient and playing into their hands at lower altitudes. also its getting extremely annoying seeing 1 p51 vs 12 super ultra k4s in every ww2 server.

 

There's my propoganda because corporate america wants to withold all the facts from us poor flight simmers, they don't want us to know that those brave so called untouchable germans whose kill counts were based on ambushing neighboring countries with inferior planes and tactics were actually brutally shooting down our worshipped p51s in droves lol and only our numbers saved us.

 

Sod Hilary or Donald for president, you should run! Absolutely well said and couldn't agree more. :thumbup:

[OutOnTheOP]

 

enough with the "if germany had x they would have won" we had the p51h p47 m/n and the p80 was in testing, pershings were on their way not to mention unleashing the hellstorm of b29s

 

 

This is one of those things that some Luftwhiners/ Wehraboos never seem to understand. The US and UK *did* in fact have super hot-rod aircraft on tap. The lightweight Mustangs (F, G, J, and H) were fully developed and *could* have been manufactured and deployed if the USAAF had needed high-performance, short range superb dogfighters. There were entire classes of USAAF aircraft that were cancelled in development because there was no tactical need for the role for which they were designed (IE, ANYTHING defensive. No lightweight interceptors, no bomber destroyers... which is a shame, because some of them like the XP-67 were really quite promising airframes. Who doesn't like the idea of a 4x 37mm main armament?!)

 

The USAAF did NOT need high-performance, short range superb dogfighters, because the USAAF was on the offense, not the defense; and more importantly, because the Luftwaffe was already broken by the time the Bf109G14 and K4 and FW190D9 (and the jets) came into being.

 

If, in August or September 1944, the Luftwaffe was still credibly contesting air superiority, and there was an obvious need for higher performance aircraft, the P-51H would have been fast-tracked through development and prioritized on production runs. It was not, because there was no need. What few aircraft the Luftwaffe was capable of putting in the air by then were getting ROFLstomped by overwhelming numbers of D models. The D, operating at 72-75" manifold pressure, was already fighting at superiority or near parity of performance to *everything* that it faced, and the numerical, logistical, and pilot experience advantages were so huge that the Luftwaffe was barely a credible threat.

 

If the Luftwaffe HAD been a threat, the -H would have been expedited (yes, I am aware the -H was not actually available before early 1945 in actual history; I am saying that the -H or a similar program of lightening modifications would have been hurried if they *had* actually been needed). Or the -Ds would have been cleared to higher boost levels (and cut weight, like the fuselage tank and bomb racks- or even 2x M2 .50 cals- as field modifications, cutting probably 300-500 pounds off the airframe). After all, that's exactly what the Germans did when they were on the ropes: they cleared their aircraft for higher boost levels, accepting that the high risk of engine failure was probably a fair trade, given that the aircraft probably wouldn't survive more than a sortie or two anyway. There was a *lot* of extra power that could still be coaxed from the Merlin than the basic -D model was pulling; it's just that for the allies, engine failure was a much bigger hazard to the aircraft than was the Luftwaffe.

 

So, for all the luftwhiners that like to wax philosophical about "but if the Luftwaffe hadn't been suffering from spare parts shortages, pilot shortages, fuel shortages, and generally poor industrial standards, they *totally* would have stomped the allies, because their aircraft were better in a one-on-one comparison on paper"... well, right, good show. Except, in that hypothetical situation, the allies would not have continued doing exactly what they did in actual history; they too would have adapted and changed their tactics and/ or equipment to deal with the changed situation. So the argument is a bit moot. In actual history, the Luftwaffe super-planes got stomped, and the allies felt no need to field better aircraft, because why bother? They were already stomping everything the Luftwaffe put in the air anyway!

 

On a related note, that is what I most hate about the DCS WW2 so far: the engine failure chances seem to be equal between the Merlin operating at it's official rated limits, versus the DB605D at *its* official rated limits. Thing is, those rated limits seem semi-arbitrary: they're based on what each respective air force thinks is the engine rating that results in an acceptable chance of engine failure and acceptable service life. It should be pretty obvious that what each air force would consider "acceptable risk of engine failure" and "acceptable service life" was pretty different for the allies and the Germans by November-December 1944. Right now DCS treats the "plenty of safety margin for long-range escort missions" Merlin rating as having an equal chance of causing failure if exceeded as it treats the "this is the most horsepower we can physically wring out of this highly modified engine block before it explodes" DB605D rating. It is silliness.

Edited September 4, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Coyote Duster]

This is one of those things that some Luftwhiners/ Wehraboos never seem to understand. The US and UK *did* in fact have super hot-rod aircraft on tap. The lightweight Mustangs (F, G, J, and H) were fully developed and *could* have been manufactured and deployed if the USAAF had needed high-performance, short range superb dogfighters. There were entire classes of USAAF aircraft that were cancelled in development because there was no tactical need for the role for which they were designed (IE, ANYTHING defensive. No lightweight interceptors, no bomber destroyers... which is a shame, because some of them like the XP-67 were really quite promising airframes. Who doesn't like the idea of a 4x 37mm main armament?!)

 

The USAAF did NOT need high-performance, short range superb dogfighters, because the USAAF was on the offense, not the defense; and more importantly, because the Luftwaffe was already broken by the time the Bf109G14 and K4 and FW190D9 (and the jets) came into being.

 

If, in August or September 1944, the Luftwaffe was still credibly contesting air superiority, and there was an obvious need for higher performance aircraft, the P-51H would have been fast-tracked through development and prioritized on production runs. It was not, because there was no need. What few aircraft the Luftwaffe was capable of putting in the air by then were getting ROFLstomped by overwhelming numbers of D models. The D, operating at 72-75" manifold pressure, was already fighting at superiority or near parity of performance to *everything* that it faced, and the numerical, logistical, and pilot experience advantages were so huge that the Luftwaffe was barely a credible threat.

 

If the Luftwaffe HAD been a threat, the -H would have been expedited (yes, I am aware the -H was not actually available before early 1945 in actual history; I am saying that the -H or a similar program of lightening modifications would have been hurried if they *had* actually been needed). Or the -Ds would have been cleared to higher boost levels (and cut weight, like the fuselage tank and bomb racks- or even 2x M2 .50 cals- as field modifications, cutting probably 300-500 pounds off the airframe). After all, that's exactly what the Germans did when they were on the ropes: they cleared their aircraft for higher boost levels, accepting that the high risk of engine failure was probably a fair trade, given that the aircraft probably wouldn't survive more than a sortie or two anyway. There was a *lot* of extra power that could still be coaxed from the Merlin than the basic -D model was pulling; it's just that for the allies, engine failure was a much bigger hazard to the aircraft than was the Luftwaffe.

 

So, for all the luftwhiners that like to wax philosophical about "but if the Luftwaffe hadn't been suffering from spare parts shortages, pilot shortages, fuel shortages, and generally poor industrial standards, they *totally* would have stomped the allies, because their aircraft were better in a one-on-one comparison on paper"... well, right, good show. Except, in that hypothetical situation, the allies would not have continued doing exactly what they did in actual history; they too would have adapted and changed their tactics and/ or equipment to deal with the changed situation. So the argument is a bit moot. In actual history, the Luftwaffe super-planes got stomped, and the allies felt no need to field better aircraft, because why bother? They were already stomping everything the Luftwaffe put in the air anyway!

 

On a related note, that is what I most hate about the DCS WW2 so far: the engine failure chances seem to be equal between the Merlin operating at it's official rated limits, versus the DB605D at *its* official rated limits. Thing is, those rated limits seem semi-arbitrary: they're based on what each respective air force thinks is the engine rating that results in an acceptable chance of engine failure and acceptable service life. It should be pretty obvious that what each air force would consider "acceptable risk of engine failure" and "acceptable service life" was pretty different for the allies and the Germans by November-December 1944. Right now DCS treats the "plenty of safety margin for long-range escort missions" Merlin rating as having an equal chance of causing failure if exceeded as it treats the "this is the most horsepower we can physically wring out of this highly modified engine block before it explodes" DB605D rating. It is silliness.

 

Couldn't have said it better at all, well put my friend and spot on

[Coyote Duster]

Sod Hilary or Donald for president, you should run! Absolutely well said and couldn't agree more. :thumbup:

 

thank you sir

[Kurfürst]

FYI RR's way of giving the expected Service life of an engine was assumung that only 1/3 of the engines would actually meet it. That is, it was highly optimistic compared to the actual results.

 

None of this matter though as engines do not fail if they are operated within their specs limits, even at maximum power they can reliably run for hours and hours.

 

Your engines fail simply because you are operating them well outside their limits.

 

That being said, reading German assesment on allied engine reliability and rating gives you very clear view who pushed a very old engine block well past its thermal limits..

Edited September 4, 2016 by Kurfürst

[Talisman_VR]

FYI RR's way of giving the expected Service life of an engine was assumung that only 1/3 of the engines would actually meet it. That is, it was highly optimistic compared to the actual results.

 

None of this matter though as engines do not fail if they are operated within their specs limits, even at maximum power they can reliably run for hours and hours.

 

Your engines fail simply because you are operating them well outside their limits.

 

That being said, reading German assesment on allied engine reliability and rating gives you very clear view who pushed a very old engine block well past its thermal limits..

 

Kurfurst, firstly, what is your source regarding service life for RR engines as you have quoted above?

Secondly, service life is different to in-use performance and should not be confused.

[CripesAMighty]

One of the other big areas that people forget about is the ability to exploit the ergonomic limits of the real aircraft when in the simulator.

 

Currently in the Kurfurst you can fly the aircraft while changing the throttle position and operating the flap wheel and the trim wheel while checking your six at 5G. Similarly you can apply force from two hands on the stick while simultaneously trimming to pull out of a dive.

 

This applies to all aircraft but the Kurfirst benefits the most by far.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Cripes'A'Mighty

[il_corleone]

OMG stop this nosense, P51/ BF 109 / FW 190 are not perfect aircraft, it doesen´t matter that they are your favourites than you even put them in your profile pics.

 

You guys should enjoy flying all of the planes. :D :D :D

Edited September 4, 2016 by il_corleone

[OutOnTheOP]

FYI RR's way of giving the expected Service life of an engine was assumung that only 1/3 of the engines would actually meet it. That is, it was highly optimistic compared to the actual results.

 

None of this matter though as engines do not fail if they are operated within their specs limits, even at maximum power they can reliably run for hours and hours.

 

Your engines fail simply because you are operating them well outside their limits.

 

That being said, reading German assesment on allied engine reliability and rating gives you very clear view who pushed a very old engine block well past its thermal limits..

 

Oh, hey, look, Kurfy is tossing out spurious and un-cited assertions again. Big surprise. I mean, it's as if he hasn't already catastrophically undercut his own impartiality by running a fan site for the Kurfurst, NAMING himself after the aircraft, and using stupid perjorative nicknames to refer to any competing aircraft ("runstang"? Seriously? What are you, a five-years-old?)

 

The DB605 is just a product improved DB600. Developed starting in 1930, originally rated to 850-1000 metric horsepower. By 1944 it was stretched WAY beyond original design goals to 2000 metric horsepower on MW50 and overboosting.

 

The Merlin was designed in 1933, with an original rating of 950-1045 metric horsepower. By 1944 it was available in the Merlin 130, 131, 133, 134, and V-1650-9 with +25 / 80" hg boost (some variants up to 100" hg boost!) providing up to 2248 metric horsepower as installed in the P-51H with water-methanol injection.

 

Obviously both engines were of comparable age, technology, and capacity for power generation. Their failure characteristics would be generally expected to be similar at similar power output ratings. And this is of course playing in the luftwhiner's ideal world where we don't even consider the fact that German industry was suffering from shortages of skilled labor and materials by the time the K4 was made, which resulted in poor reliability in the *real* world. If I wanted to be a historical prick about it, I would insist that the DB605 eat itself every few hours of flight time, but I'm not even trying to advocate that, just that the failure characteristics of each be generally the same likelihood at the same over-MP/ over-heat levels.

 

If you cannot fathom why the failure characteristics for a Merlin pushed only to 1600-1700 horsepower (173% original designed power) should be more forgiving when compared to a DB600 derivative pushed to 1850 horsepower (217% original design), I'm afraid I cannot help you, because you're buried too deeply in your own hubris to ever see the light.

 

Oh, and I love how you assume I regularly blow up engines and imply I am incompetent ("your" engines indeed). Amazing how you know exactly how I operate my engines, and are therefore in a position to state as fact that they blow up because they're operated outside parameters. Because, y'know, I certainly couldn't have based my assessment of DCS engine failure characteristics on DELIBERATE destructive testing of virtual engines or anything, no. That would be silly. :megalol:

 

By the by, the DCS Merlin quite happily blows up (at least, in DCS builds as of a few months ago) without having *any* engine gauge out of the green. I suspect you don't know that, because you don't seem like you'd sully yourself actually flying those "crude, inferior" Mustangs. I mean, you can't even bring yourself to refer to them by proper name!

Edited September 5, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[IronJockel]

 

Obviously both engines were of comparable age, technology, and capacity for power generation. Their failure characteristics would be generally expected to be similar at similar power output ratings. And this is of course playing in the luftwhiner's ideal world where we don't even consider the fact that German industry was suffering from shortages of skilled labor and materials by the time the K4 was made, which resulted in poor reliability in the *real* world. If I wanted to be a historical prick about it, I would insist that the DB605 eat itself every few hours of flight time, but I'm not even trying to advocate that, just that the failure characteristics of each be generally the same likelihood at the same over-MP/ over-heat levels.

 

If you cannot fathom why the failure characteristics for a Merlin pushed only to 1600-1700 horsepower (173% original designed power) should be more forgiving when compared to a DB600 derivative pushed to 1850 horsepower (217% original design), I'm afraid I cannot help you, because you're buried too deeply in your own hubris to ever see the light.

 

Oh, and I love how you assume I regularly blow up engines and imply I am incompetent ("your" engines indeed). Amazing how you know exactly how I operate my engines, and are therefore in a position to state as fact that they blow up because they're operated outside parameters. Because, y'know, I certainly couldn't have based my assessment of DCS engine failure characteristics on DELIBERATE destructive testing of virtual engines or anything, no. That would be silly. :megalol:

 

By the by, the DCS Merlin quite happily blows up (at least, in DCS builds as of a few months ago) without having *any* engine gauge out of the green. I suspect you don't know that, because you don't seem like you'd sully yourself actually flying those "crude, inferior" Mustangs. I mean, you can't even bring yourself to refer to them by proper name!

 

So tell us how German engines should behave.

[otto]

 

German industry was suffering from shortages of skilled labor and materials by the time the K4 was made, which resulted in poor reliability in the *real* world. If I wanted to be a historical prick about it, I would insist that the DB605 eat itself every few hours of flight time, but I'm not even trying to advocate that, just that the failure characteristics of each be generally the same likelihood at the same over-MP/ over-heat levels.

 

 

First of all in post 15 Solty declares he does not blow he's engine because he knows how to manage it.

 

Than engine brakes on the 109 too .I let quite a few p51s go and disengage even when i have superior position just so i don't risk the engine even a little bit.If you use tracer mod for 109's gun you can't even use MW50 so that spares the engine some effort.Also the 109 is a lot lighter ther's not so much weight that the engine needs to pull around.

 

Secondly if the real life german leaders were insane in continuing the war past a certain point you will find no sane programmer that will introduce poor riliability for one side only or sabotage because that game wouldn't sell .And even it they did no one who has a life would play such a game because it's wasted time for both sides.If i fly against the "damaged" side my victory isn't worth a dam and if i fly the "damaged side" i would have to bail out every time my engine brakes for no reason just to take of again and again.Not much fun.

 

PS:Maybe you and the p51whiners can talk to ED and give me a fwA or a G6 because i like them more anyway.

[Integrals]

Much like my P-51 in airquake servers, this thread is spiraling down to a fiery death:doh:.

[OutOnTheOP]

First of all in post 15 Solty declares he does not blow he's engine because he knows how to manage it.

 

Than engine brakes on the 109 too .I let quite a few p51s go and disengage even when i have superior position just so i don't risk the engine even a little bit.If you use tracer mod for 109's gun you can't even use MW50 so that spares the engine some effort.Also the 109 is a lot lighter ther's not so much weight that the engine needs to pull around.

 

Secondly if the real life german leaders were insane in continuing the war past a certain point you will find no sane programmer that will introduce poor riliability for one side only or sabotage because that game wouldn't sell .And even it they did no one who has a life would play such a game because it's wasted time for both sides.If i fly against the "damaged" side my victory isn't worth a dam and if i fly the "damaged side" i would have to bail out every time my engine brakes for no reason just to take of again and again.Not much fun.

 

Hey, that's a pretty strawman you've got there.

 

First, I don't break P-51 engines in combat. I don't break them, because I know how far I can push them in DCS.

 

The POINT, for those who are actually paying attention, is that "how far I can push" the Merlin in DCS before it breaks is significantly less than how far I can push the DB605, to include overheating and the amount beyond original design HP the engine can be pushed. The Merlin will occasionally break in DCS with all temperatures in the green, at 61" or less MP.

 

As for the programmers making a "broken side", they already have. They have severely artificially handicapped the P-51 through mediocre boost levels, modeling one of the heaviest Mustang models ever built (I know Kurfurst LOVES to point out it's a very late block, but what makes it such a late block isn't aerodynamic enhancements, it is IFF and navigation systems and radios that are NOT EVEN FUNCTIONAL in DCS, yet for which the weight is accounted and therefore hurts performance! Earlier blocks actually perform better!), poor DM handling of solid shot MG projectiles, and overly frequent engine failures, which appear to have been based on the guidance Rolls Royce gave for recommended engine operating parameter, and NOT off a comparative assessment of the frequency of failures between the different engines.

 

But people still buy the Mustang. You really think LESS people would buy DCS WW2 modules if there was actually an enjoyable competition online, rather than the extremely lopsided stupidity there is now, with every weeaboo gravitating to the K4 because they think it makes an easy win?

 

We can either model REALITY, where K4s broke engines all the time, or we can model "what-if" fantasy where the reich had unlimited access to factories, workers, and high-grade alloys. If we're modeling *fantasy*, might as well go whole-hog and make a good *game* of it and admit that the US response would have been to field P-51F (no fuselage tank, 4x .50s, short-range interceptor Mustang, 2000 pounds lighter than P-51D, developed and tested ready to be put in production in by D-Day. First flight February 1944) or P-51H

 

Or we could make the game both more realistic *and* more competitive by making the DB605 have a high (historical) chance of simply blowing an engine rod if the engine is pushed into high MP (IE, MW50). By the time the K4 was in production, Germany didn't have access to good alloys. There are MANY references to Panther armor shattering because of poor alloys, and there are MANY references (from luftwaffe pilots!) to engines blowing rods because of the same reason.

 

DCS doesn't need to model the completely random failures at cruise MP for the K4. But it would be nice if MW50 came with a significant risk of engine failure. Without MW50, the K4 is still a match for the P-51D as currently (under) modeled. It then makes for a good game, because the K4 pilot has to make a hard decision on whether it's a better risk to fight the Mustang on equal terms, or risk the engine eating itself to have superior performance.

 

More realistic, better gaming. But of course luftwhiner hardliners would never have any of it.

 

And of course, Kurfurst already KNOWS better, because he's already been schooled on the subject a decade ago: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99259

[karlmeyer25]

Much like my P-51 in airquake servers, this thread is spiraling down to a fiery death:doh:.

 

So true.

[karlmeyer25]

Hey, that's a pretty strawman you've got there.

 

First, I don't break P-51 engines in combat. I don't break them, because I know how far I can push them in DCS.

 

The POINT, for those who are actually paying attention, is that "how far I can push" the Merlin in DCS before it breaks is significantly less than how far I can push the DB605, to include overheating and the amount beyond original design HP the engine can be pushed. The Merlin will occasionally break in DCS with all temperatures in the green, at 61" or less MP.

 

As for the programmers making a "broken side", they already have. They have severely artificially handicapped the P-51 through mediocre boost levels, modeling one of the heaviest Mustang models ever built (I know Kurfurst LOVES to point out it's a very late block, but what makes it such a late block isn't aerodynamic enhancements, it is IFF and navigation systems and radios that are NOT EVEN FUNCTIONAL in DCS, yet for which the weight is accounted and therefore hurts performance! Earlier blocks actually perform better!), poor DM handling of solid shot MG projectiles, and overly frequent engine failures, which appear to have been based on the guidance Rolls Royce gave for recommended engine operating parameter, and NOT off a comparative assessment of the frequency of failures between the different engines.

 

But people still buy the Mustang. You really think LESS people would buy DCS WW2 modules if there was actually an enjoyable competition online, rather than the extremely lopsided stupidity there is now, with every weeaboo gravitating to the K4 because they think it makes an easy win?

 

We can either model REALITY, where K4s broke engines all the time, or we can model "what-if" fantasy where the reich had unlimited access to factories, workers, and high-grade alloys. If we're modeling *fantasy*, might as well go whole-hog and make a good *game* of it and admit that the US response would have been to field P-51F (no fuselage tank, 4x .50s, short-range interceptor Mustang, 2000 pounds lighter than P-51D, developed and tested ready to be put in production in by D-Day. First flight February 1944) or P-51H

 

Or we could make the game both more realistic *and* more competitive by making the DB605 have a high (historical) chance of simply blowing an engine rod if the engine is pushed into high MP (IE, MW50). By the time the K4 was in production, Germany didn't have access to good alloys. There are MANY references to Panther armor shattering because of poor alloys, and there are MANY references (from luftwaffe pilots!) to engines blowing rods because of the same reason.

 

DCS doesn't need to model the completely random failures at cruise MP for the K4. But it would be nice if MW50 came with a significant risk of engine failure. Without MW50, the K4 is still a match for the P-51D as currently (under) modeled. It then makes for a good game, because the K4 pilot has to make a hard decision on whether it's a better risk to fight the Mustang on equal terms, or risk the engine eating itself to have superior performance.

 

More realistic, better gaming. But of course luftwhiner hardliners would never have any of it.

 

And of course, Kurfurst already KNOWS better, because he's already been schooled on the subject a decade ago: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99259

 

Great post. The current match up in DCS is just way too lopsided. DCS would benefit from more evenly matched aircraft or just fair modeling. Its true beyond a doubt that the DCS P-51's engine burns out vastly faster than the K-4's in the airquake. This has got to be a mistake.

[DefaultFace]

Must..... resist... the urge to post... sarcastic popcorn memes....

[Integrals]

I've heard the pleas for higher MP limits, better DM, different versions of the 109... all of it. That's all great to ask for, but it doesn't help "us" beat "them" right now. As a group, what can we do with the equipment we currently have to even the playing field between us and the "superior" German planes? As I said these are just my impressions. Discussion and advice are both encouraged and appreciated, thanks!

 

 

Going back to post #1...

 

 

 

And how to not suck in the P-51 online :smilewink:.

 

So far the pointers have been:

 

 

1. Start higher than the 109/190
   
2. Stay faster than them
   
3. Don't turn with a 109
   
4. Fight 109's 2v1 with TS
   

 

Can we please just add to this list? Everything else being discussed here has really been beaten to death elsewhere...

 

 

I guess since there are 109/190 pilots posting in here I should ask what is the hardest aspect of the P-51 to deal with?

Edited September 5, 2016 by Integrals

[OutOnTheOP]

Going back to post #1...

 

 

Can we please just add to this list? Everything else being discussed here has really been beaten to death elsewhere...

 

 

I guess since there are 109/190 pilots posting in here I should ask what is the hardest aspect of the P-51 to deal with?

 

"Don't turn with 109s" is actually pretty bad advice. You can only dive so long before you run out of sky, and you can't out-climb or straight run in the current DCS modeling. You have to turn (unless, of course, you can take the Bf109 completely by surprise).

 

You just have to be smart about *how* you turn fight a Mustang. The Bf109 bleeds energy in a turn like a stuck pig, and many Bf109 pilots haul back on the stick WAY too much. The trick is to get them to commit to an action that bleeds their energy.

 

1) In a neutral (head-on) merge, open fire at a long range. The .50 is quite likely to get hits, and you have TONS of ammo. The K4 has to hoard their ammo, and their ballistics suck. If you're lucky, you kill him before the merge. Even if you get no hits, you'll probably cause him to maneuver and bleed energy.

 

2) In a neutral (head-on or oblique) merge, I find that starting with a relatively hard flat (or slightly climbing) turn often suckers the Bf109 pilot into going high yo-yo, or more often (and even better) he responds with a maximum-rate flat turn. Those both kill the Bf109's initial energy going into the fight. Do NOT continue your hard flat turn through the merge- you only START that turn to sucker the Bf109 into a hard turn. As you merge, relax G and drop the nose... he'll probably try to follow you downhill, but you already have more speed than he does if he hauled the nose around hard, AND you'll build speed faster in the split-s than he will in trying to come downhill to get you. You end up in an energy advantage, which can then be used to turn hard into him or (usually better) to zoom climb onto a good perch. If the K4 driver doesn't take the bait (and waits up in the perch for you to make a mistake instead of diving right after you), just extend and disengage; you'll have a quite hefty head start on him.

 

3) Fire early and often. The Mustang carries a TON of ammo in comparison to the K4, and the sight means you can get good hits on difficult shots. Not only that, but all that ammo weighs a lot, so your performance just gets better as you expend it. I frequently take off with only 70-80% ammo, because that's plenty enough to make 2-4 kills. I wish we had the option to download a pair of our guns and go with 4 (like the real Mustang could), because that would cut a couple hundred pounds off the aircraft.

 

4) Practice deflection shooting and using the K14. Then practice it more. Then practice it more. The goal isn't to outmaneuver your opponent, it is to SHOOT your opponent. You don't always need fancy maneuvers, but you DO need to hit the target. If you can kill him at the merge, who cares how maneuverable his aircraft would have been in an extended fight?

 

5) Keep your energy state high. The Mustang owns the over-300 IAS arena. Try to never go below 250 if possible. This helps with engine cooling, too.

 

6) Fly the Mustang smoothly. If you try to brute-force the nose around, you'll just lose energy faster. Be patient and *ease* the opponent into a position of disadvantage by forcing him to burn energy faster than you are; you'll never win by a straight-up turning competition. This also means you need to keep the slip ball centered as well as possible to minimize your energy loss.

[DefaultFace]

In general rolling maneuvers work well. A lot of mustang pilots when they end up with a 109 on their 6 tend to kick the rudder and do plenty of semi crazy maneuvers which really makes gunnery tough but in the long run bleeds energy and eventually gets you killed.

 

Otherwise at the extreme ends of the speed envelope rolling becomes tough in the 109 especially if you don't know how to work the rudder/throttle to get her to do what you want. If you can convince a new 109 pilot to follow you into a flat scissors you can usually get them within a few cycles. That being said experienced guys will just go up and then come back down on you if you get too slow doing that. Otherwise steep dives and pulling out at low altitude/high speed can catch new guys out too and might even snap the wings off of one if your lucky.

 

Things that make my life easy are if you try to turn with me, especially as the speed gets low. Ive been in many a 1 circle on the deck with both pilots at 300-350kph. At this point the mustang can't run as you've used all your energy and the 109, whilst easy to throw away with uncoordinated rudder, turns much better. I'll be behind you within 2 turns and you'll have nowhere to go.

 

This being said there are Mustang pilots out there who can turn with 109's. Solty and Trouble are 2 that come to mind. The difference is really that drastic that you can usually tell if its one of them just by how well theyre keeping up the turn.

 

Just to be clear, all of this is just my observations about flying WW2 in DCS. Im not the greatest 109 pilot in the world by any means but Ive done enough of it now that I think im starting to get a feel for it. As many others in this thread have said the best option is and always will be to know your plane, don't get into a fight your plane isn't suited to and fly with a wingman.

 

Edit: Someone mentioned something about a downward spiraling turn at some point. This sounds like a good idea. If you can sucker the 109 into getting the speed up above 500 kmh the turn rate comes down a fair bit and hell either lose maneuverability or try to bug out of the turn and bleed off speed and waste some energy/present himself as a target. Conversely an upward spiral is one of my favorite things to do against the mustang. Its a good way to eek out an energy advantage with the superior climb rate.

 

S!

 

DefaultFace

Edited September 5, 2016 by DefaultFace

[Integrals]

 

1) In a neutral (head-on) merge, open fire at a long range. The .50 is quite likely to get hits, and you have TONS of ammo. The K4 has to hoard their ammo, and their ballistics suck. If you're lucky, you kill him before the merge. Even if you get no hits, you'll probably cause him to maneuver and bleed energy.

 

2) In a neutral (head-on or oblique) merge, I find that starting with a relatively hard flat (or slightly climbing) turn often suckers the Bf109 pilot into going high yo-yo, or more often (and even better) he responds with a maximum-rate flat turn. Those both kill the Bf109's initial energy going into the fight. Do NOT continue your hard flat turn through the merge- you only START that turn to sucker the Bf109 into a hard turn. As you merge, relax G and drop the nose... he'll probably try to follow you downhill, but you already have more speed than he does if he hauled the nose around hard, AND you'll build speed faster in the split-s than he will in trying to come downhill to get you. You end up in an energy advantage, which can then be used to turn hard into him or (usually better) to zoom climb onto a good perch. If the K4 driver doesn't take the bait (and waits up in the perch for you to make a mistake instead of diving right after you), just extend and disengage; you'll have a quite hefty head start on him.

 

I try really hard to only engage when I'm coming from behind with a speed advantage. I very rarely go head on because I find it almost impossible to track aircraft and fly at the same time.

 

 

3) Fire early and often. The Mustang carries a TON of ammo in comparison to the K4, and the sight means you can get good hits on difficult shots. Not only that, but all that ammo weighs a lot, so your performance just gets better as you expend it. I frequently take off with only 70-80% ammo, because that's plenty enough to make 2-4 kills. I wish we had the option to download a pair of our guns and go with 4 (like the real Mustang could), because that would cut a couple hundred pounds off the aircraft.

 

4) Practice deflection shooting and using the K14. Then practice it more. Then practice it more. The goal isn't to outmaneuver your opponent, it is to SHOOT your opponent. You don't always need fancy maneuvers, but you DO need to hit the target. If you can kill him at the merge, who cares how maneuverable his aircraft would have been in an extended fight?

I've actually got much much better at using the gun sight. I regularly score hits but never kills it seems.

 

 

5) Keep your energy state high. The Mustang owns the over-300 IAS arena. Try to never go below 250 if possible. This helps with engine cooling, too.

 

6) Fly the Mustang smoothly. If you try to brute-force the nose around, you'll just lose energy faster. Be patient and *ease* the opponent into a position of disadvantage by forcing him to burn energy faster than you are; you'll never win by a straight-up turning competition. This also means you need to keep the slip ball centered as well as possible to minimize your energy loss.

 

The only time I can achieve 300 IAS is in a sustained dive. Am I doing something wrong? Normal flight is 2700rpm/36" as soon as I know I'm going to be engaging I go to 3000 rpm and control mp as best I can based on air speed... which is usually 250-275 mph. Also I try to keep the aircraft trimmed and keep an eye on the turn/slip to make sure I'm not bleeding off energy that I need... That is part of the reason I find it so hard to track. It seems like once you start to maneuver it's very hard (for me) to keep from getting too much side slip... I've died from 300+ IAS stalls from getting to sideways and trying to pull too hard.

 

I really wish there was a server that allowed data export because I'm sure I would see my errors immediately in tacview.

[OutOnTheOP]

I try really hard to only engage when I'm coming from behind with a speed advantage. I very rarely go head on because I find it almost impossible to track aircraft and fly at the same time.

 

Obviously it is better to get the jump on them, but you don't always get to dictate terms of the fight.

 

The only time I can achieve 300 IAS is in a sustained dive. Am I doing something wrong? Normal flight is 2700rpm/36" .

 

The Mustang (even the rather finicky DCS Mustang) will hold 46" at 2700rpm until it runs out of fuel, and never fail (unless, of course, you're standing it on it's tail in a stall-climb and overheating it!). Most often you'll be somewhere in the 250-300 IAS range. At 300, it dominates. At 250, it's good. 200 and below, you're in trouble. You should be able to manage 320 IAS at sea level, ~298 IAS (387 TAS) at 16,000, and ~258 IAS (420 TAS) at 29,000 while pulling maximum continuous (46"/2700). In a fight, you're obviously going to lose speed, but you'll also be above max continuous rating most of the time. 250 isn't too hard to maintain.

Edited September 5, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Integrals]

Interesting. Perhaps I'm misusing the rpm control then?

 

If all other conditions are equal, will your airspeed be higher with with a higher or lower RPM for a given manifold pressure?

[OutOnTheOP]

Interesting. Perhaps I'm misusing the rpm control then?

 

If all other conditions are equal, will your airspeed be higher with with a higher or lower RPM for a given manifold pressure?

 

Technically, neither. The prop pitch automatically sets to the appropriate pitch at any given airspeed. If you have RPM set VERY LOW and you're in a very high speed dive or something, it might run out of prop pitch adjustment and be unable to get it coarse enough, in which case the prop would act as an airbrake (and aileron!), but 2700 rpm should be capable of dealing with anything up to at least 350. Being properly trimmed (and eliminating all slip!) is more likely the culprit if you are having trouble making 300 indicated.

 

I know a lot of guys around here have had the best speed results with rpm around 2700-2800 instead of 3000; that said, you'll get the best acceleration at 3000, which is why you should probably go to 3000 rpm for combat. Makes sense; at lower RPM, the prop is set coarse, and would cut through the airstream more efficiently... but after a point, it will also be less efficient at "pulling" into the air. I generally go 3000 rpm for maneuvering dogfights, 2700 cruise, and 2800 for high-speed dive-aways (after giving it a few seconds at 3000 to accelerate the AC)

 

Too low RPM for a given MP will also over-stress the engine. With the exception of dive-away escapes, I don't go over 50" with 2700 rpm, 55" at 2800, 60" at 2900.

 

Or are you saying you can not get over 36" with rpm set to 2700? That doesn't sound right. What altitude?