FW190D9 can't dogfight.

[philstyle]

He was asking about the G6, which had a top speed of around 650 km/h at altitude, clean..

 

 

Even with MW50?

[Krupi]

Apparently that's no the MW50 engine... although the 1.42 ATA is telling. . .

 

http://kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_AS.html

 

"The design of the Daimler Benz DB 605 AS engine corresponded to

the Daimler Benz DB 605 A engine model, but received a

larger charger"

[Krupi]

Only if you're being daft on purpose..

 

How else is pitting an aircraft with a 720 km/h top speed, 4700 ft/min climb rate and superior turning capability against one that can do ~650 km/h and ~3600 ft/min anywhere close?

 

Atleast the Spitfire Mk.IX can outmaneuver everything, and out climb or climb with most, the K4 being the exception.

 

I think you missed my point here old chap!

 

I was stating how the spit XIV vs a G6 is comparable in its ridiculous advantage to a K4 vs a Mk IX :smilewink:

[Krupi]

He was asking about the G6, which had a top speed of around 659 km/h at altitude, clean. The top speed with a 300 L drop tank was listed as 645 km/h.

 

The G14 with the ASM engined reached 550 km/h @ SL & 668 km/h @ FTH with gondolas (3598 kg), which when clean @ ~3250 kg translates to about 570-575 km/h @ SL and ~675-680 km/h @ FTH.

 

 

 

As i pointed out earlier the G14 Graph is clean

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html

 

ah you were talking about the ASM graph, i see

Edited August 12, 2020 by Krupi

[Hummingbird]

I think you missed my point here old chap!

 

I was stating how the spit XIV vs a G6 is comparable in its ridiculous advantage to a K4 vs a Mk IX :smilewink:

 

But the Mk.IX is not the only plane in the Allied arsenal ;)

[Hummingbird]

As i pointed out earlier that wasn't with a drop tank

 

One is indeed without gondolas but with a 300 L drop tank, as listed, whilst the other is with gondolas only, no drop tank.

 

That said the 300 L drop tank is the more draggy of the two, so test flown performance seems to have substantially superceded expectation here.

 

557 km/h SL w/ gondolas calculated vs 568 km/h w/ drop tank test flown.

[Krupi]

One is indeed without gondolas but with a 300 L drop tank, as listed, whilst the other is with gondolas only, no drop tank.

 

That said the 300 L drop tank is the more draggy of the two, so test flown performance seems to have substantially superceded expectation here.

 

557 km/h SL w/ gondolas calculated vs 568 km/h w/ drop tank test flown.

 

no, it states no drop tank it STATES clean

 

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G14_May44trials/109G14_GLCE-may44_trials.html

 

The tested aircraft appears to be in it's standard, 'clean' fighter configuration and does not carry gondola weapons (note 1x MG 151 + 2x MG 131).

 

And is MN30 not MW50 I see no mention of drop tank

Edited August 12, 2020 by Krupi

[Hummingbird]

no, it states no drop tank it STATES clean

 

No, HE (Kurfurst) states it 'seems' to be for a clean aircraft. But the paper clearly lists a 300 L drop tank.

[Krupi]

No, HE (Kurfurst) states it 'seems' to be for a clean aircraft. But the paper clearly lists a 300 L drop tank.

 

where, ah i see

[Hummingbird]

where

 

Which? Kurfurst statement or the 300 L tank?

[Hummingbird]

Actually looking more closely at the test flight paper and noting that 1. It was at a lower power setting using MW30 instead of MW50, and 2. 550-557 km/h was calculated with gondolas which were said to only decrease speed by 8-10 km/h; I''d now tend to agree with Kurfurst that the 568 km/h must have been without a 300 L tank and just the mounting (eventhough a 300 L tank is listed on the paper), but as noted at a lower power setting than usual.

 

In short actual test flown performance appears to have been 3 km/h better than expected/calculated for MW50 when using MW30, and thus probably ~10-15 km/h better with MW50 (100 extra PS). MW50 performance should be ~575-580 km/h @ SL clean.

 

This seems inline with the usual trend of the performance calcs being conservative by about 3%, which was the same story for climb rate (109G calc = thick line vs test flown = thin line):

 

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Snapage]

Don't you see the contradiction, seriously...

 

If you can't hold your own against the P-51 or Spit in a K4 without MW50 you need to review your flying style.

 

I don't want to hear the word balance ever and that is fortunately EDs take on this too.

 

All I want is the correct plane set.

 

I'll 1v1 you. You fly the K4 without MW50 and I'll fly the spitfire 9. I'll out climb you, out turn you and be almost as fast as you. I'm also used to flying againts K4s with MW50 so good luck.

[amazingme]

I'll 1v1 you. You fly the K4 without MW50 and I'll fly the spitfire 9. I'll out climb you, out turn you and be almost as fast as you. I'm also used to flying againts K4s with MW50 so good luck.

My money is on Snapage.. :)

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

[Snapage]

It simply is not an excuse, why, because if we had a Spitfire Mk. XIV and you only had a ME109G6 you would be taking umbrage with the exact thing we are.

 

You seem to bring up the griffin spitfire when people ask for MW50 for the German planes. I think I understand why. You have to have a significant advantage over your opponent. You couldn't be bothered learning how to fly well. You just want easy one sided victories. Its pathetic.

[zcrazyx]

You seem to bring up the griffin spitfire when people ask for MW50 for the German planes. I think I understand why. You have to have a significant advantage over your opponent. You couldn't be bothered learning how to fly well. You just want easy one sided victories. Its pathetic.

 

people want the griffon spitfires due to how much the k4 maules aircraft 1v1, the spitfire would help to somewhat level the field and also bring a capable aircraft to the game, although seeing as ED refuses to add 150 octane for mustang i cant see why they would take the time to make another spitfire instead of further diversifying aircraft.

 

 

that being said the contradictory side is in the interview they said they wish to do a battle of britain scenario so would more then likely see another spitfire and 109, as well as maybe the hurricane.

[Snapage]

:doh:

 

How blissfully ignorant are you? The stated case TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN is to provide an approximation to a HISTORICAL SCENARIO given the constraints of DCS.

 

Christ I'm starting to understand that playing chess with a pidgeon analogy!

 

I'll translate this for everyone. Fenrir is saying that he is a bad pilot and can't do PvP without a significant advantage. Therefore he has come up with the excuse of historical accuracy.

 

If you want historical accuracy go do ground pounding in Normandy. The allies had complete control of the skies.

[Snapage]

people want the griffon spitfires due to how much the k4 maules aircraft 1v1, the spitfire would help to somewhat level the field and also bring a capable aircraft to the game, although seeing as ED refuses to add 150 octane for mustang i cant see why they would take the time to make another spitfire instead of further diversifying aircraft.

 

 

that being said the contradictory side is in the interview they said they wish to do a battle of britain scenario so would more then likely see another spitfire and 109, as well as maybe the hurricane.

 

The spit 9 is capable. All the planes we currently have are capable. I don't get it spitfire people want to out turn, out climb and be faster then their opponent? Lol not much of a fight then.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Snapage

[amazingme]

The spit 9 is capable. All the planes we currently have are capable. I don't get it spitfire people want to put turn, out limb and be faster then their opponent? Lol not much of a fight then.

They don't understand how the laws of physics work either.. but that's a different story.

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

[Snapage]

Which Jagdgeshwader? My research indicates that it's very difficult to pin down any allocations as with units being moved around so much the situation even on the Luftwaffe side was confused to say the best. G-14s may have started being issued to units in July but I can't find any hard data on when these were operational and I find it highly unlikely that the entire Western Jagdwaffe was either a) re-equipped overnight or b) took immediate priority over other fronts. III./JG26 shows it still being equipped with G-6s in September of 1944!

 

The same applies to G-6 with MW50; in late May/early June the only units in France with any Bf 109G-6 were III./JG26, and whilst I'd put money on at most of them having MW50 there's no actual hard evidence.

 

And again the argument isn't over MW50 or not; it's about trying to get the closest approximation in performance to a late G-6/G-14.

 

This rock hard evidence you are after quite possibly doesn't exist. I don't know if you know this but Germany was losing a war at the time. Really badly. Book keeping was most likely low on the priority list. Also dont know if you know this, but Germany lost that war. A lot of resources/information was destroyed as a result. But this suits your agenda.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Snapage

[Extranajero]

Can we go back to the idea of sorting this disagreement out with a duel please ?

Meet over No Mans Land in your planes for a thrilling aerial battle, one knight of the air jousting bravely against the other ? :D

[Krupi]

You seem to bring up the griffin spitfire when people ask for MW50 for the German planes. I think I understand why. You have to have a significant advantage over your opponent. You couldn't be bothered learning how to fly well. You just want easy one sided victories. Its pathetic.

 

I'll translate this for everyone. Fenrir is saying that he is a bad pilot and can't do PvP without a significant advantage. Therefore he has come up with the excuse of historical accuracy.

 

If you want historical accuracy go do ground pounding in Normandy. The allies had complete control of the skies.

 

The irony here is hilarious, the 109K4 with MW50 is a UFO compared to the allied A/C. The only downside being it's maneuverability. If a pilot was patient the Spit would have no chance, most of my kills were from frustrating a K4 into a turn fight and even then it was a narrow opportunity to bring it down before the pilot realised he made a mistake and uses the immense speed to regain the upper hand.

 

And is pathetic to try and goad people with childish attacks on flying skills.

 

I have not been flying for the past few years thanks to a bust PC I can't imagine I would be much challenge for anyone right now, maybe when I have found my feet again lol

[DD_Fenrir]

I'll translate this for everyone. Fenrir is saying that he is a bad pilot and can't do PvP without a significant advantage. Therefore he has come up with the excuse of historical accuracy.

 

If you want historical accuracy go do ground pounding in Normandy. The allies had complete control of the skies.

 

I'm curious, does being an ignorant, oboxious member come easy to you or do you have to work at it? Because you're very good at it.

Edited August 13, 2020 by DD_Fenrir

[Snapage]

The irony here is hilarious, the 109K4 with MW50 is a UFO compared to the allied A/C. The only downside being it's maneuverability. If a pilot was patient the Spit would have no chance, most of my kills were from frustrating a K4 into a turn fight and even then it was a narrow opportunity to bring it down before the pilot realised he made a mistake and uses the immense speed to regain the upper hand.

 

And is pathetic to try and goad people with childish attacks on flying skills.

 

I have not been flying for the past few years thanks to a bust PC I can't imagine I would be much challenge for anyone right now, maybe when I have found my feet again lol

 

Childish attacks? Ill 1v1 you any day in a spit 9 vs 109 without MW50. That match up is a joke. I think its childish to want victories served up on a platter for you. If your flying againts people with similar aircraft it shouldn't be easy.

 

Where is the irony? I mostly fly allied and I have no problem in the spitfire 9. 1v1 in the mustang vs the 109 is an up hill struggle but it isn't that bad especially after the P51D improvements it got recently.

 

Do you even fly the 109? Fighting a good spitfire pilot is not easy at all. It's a pretty even fight. The biggest problem is most people don't have a clue what they are doing and jump to blaming the plane instead of learning the hard way through practice.

 

Fighting the German planes without MW50 on the other hand is a joke to me. Its stupid easy and boring.

[Snapage]

I'm curious, does being an ignorant, oboxious member come easy to you or do you have to work at it? Because you're very good at it.

 

Your my mentor mate. I learn from the best.

[DD_Fenrir]

Childish attacks? Ill 1v1 you any day in a spit 9 vs 109 without MW50. That match up is a joke. I think its childish to want victories served up on a platter for you. If your flying againts people with similar aircraft it shouldn't be easy.

 

Where is the irony? I mostly fly allied and I have no problem in the spitfire 9. 1v1 in the mustang vs the 109 is an up hill struggle but it isn't that bad especially after the P51D improvements it got recently.

 

Do you even fly the 109? Fighting a good spitfire pilot is not easy at all. It's a pretty even fight. The biggest problem is most people don't have a clue what they are doing and jump to blaming the plane instead of learning the hard way through practice.

 

Fighting the German planes without MW50 on the other hand is a joke to me. Its stupid easy and boring.

 

This here is your issue. You're still playing top-trumps, and essentially arguing gaming balance.

 

The argument has matured beyond that.

 

Whether you like it or not, the very simple inescapable fact is that, as much as you'd like it to be, a Bf-109K-4 is not a Bf 109G-6 or even a G-14.

 

As soon as a G-6 is available and Normandy Map missions updated for it on SoW then - even with MW50 - I will have no issue.

 

Further if a map becomes available to better suit the K-4 and D-9 (and the mission date falls in line with MW50 usage on the Dora - which by the way, seems like it wasn't widely introduced on that airframe till the winter of '44) and SoW decides to create missions and templates for that, I will happily fly against them.

 

You clearly know nothing of my skills - which are ultimately irrelevant to this argument anyway - and are, despite my repeated exhortations here, apparently STILL ignorant of my motivations, which even a cursory examination of my posting history here will provide reams of evidence thereof; I desire historical authenticity. I'd rather have a P-51B than a P-51D in Normandy. I'd rather see a P-47D-25 than the D-28, or better a razorback for Normandy. I'd like to see a Hawker Typhoon for Normandy. I'd like to see a Siegfield Line'44/'45 map for The K-4 and D-9. I'd like to see options for P-51s and P-47s using 150 Octane ratings when flown as 8th AF units from UK bases only but not when flying as 9th AF units flying from their UK bases or the continent. Right planes with the right maps. That is all.

Edited August 13, 2020 by DD_Fenrir