Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About QB.Shallot

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

394 profile views
  1. @Panthera I'll admit I have little experience in that sim. Is the P-51 modeled in a significantly different light, or is the K-4 simply modeled with more agility at its disposal? In addition, is there any way to access any translated German testing on the late model 109's (or 190's, I think both would be an interesting read), either on an individual or comparative basis?
  2. @Panthera Now as a note. HA-1112 Empty weight: 2,475kg G-14 Empty weight: 2,680kg K-4 Empty weight: 2,754 kg The Buchons empty weight is somewhere in between the F-4 and G-2. Both those A/C will out turn the Mustang in IL2. So it seems Mr. Hannah's observations line up with the sim. What doesn't stack up is this the claim that the Buchon weighs similarly to the K-4. Like I said, the claim that the Buchon out turns the 51 is held true in the sim, as 109 variants that weight similarly will in fact do so, quite handily I will add. The later variants maneuverability is pure speculation, and the only data that can be pulled is from the tests we have. I cannot speak to the Tempest Vs 51 performance outside of the tests that are available, however its fair to say that the games representation of it is completely broken.
  3. @Raven109 Yes, not a representation of hard data, but an easy explanation. @Panthera Fair point on the 109's testing, I was not aware of that, however the Tempest was universally agreed to not out turn a Mustang. Testing data clearly states it as such. It could turn with the 190 and 109 but its pretty clear the 51 was considered its superior in a turning fight. I will also note that the linked test (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/matcom109g.html) makes it clear that the aircraft was pushed to a stall, meaning that the test pilot(s) pushed past the leading edge slats deployment. This is the data that is available. If you can find further data on the subject, I would love to expand my knowledge. As for anecdotal claims from current warbird pilots, I do think the original testing data ought to be considered first, seeing as modern birdies are flown quite cautiously in regards to power settings used. I'm not saying the 109 is not an agile plane. The sim models the earlier variants with that approach. The E-7, F-4, and to a similar extent, the G-14 are all wonderful dancers. The first 2 can out-turn a 51 with ease, and the final one quite handily at low speeds. The K-4 is the heaviest, and the most overpowered of the bunch. It strikes me as unsurprising that it would be the worst turner of the bunch. IIRC there was a test performed between a P-51D and 109G which found pretty much the consensus on the subject. At high speeds the 51 holds the advantage, and at low speeds the 109. For the life of me I can't find it, but I'll link it if I do.
  4. @Panthera could you supply a link to German testing the found the 109 a better turn fighter than a 51? The consensus I’ve found outside of testing data is that the 51 can outturn it at high speeds, while the 109G takes the cake at low speeds, which is the case in IL2. What is not the case, is the heavier K-4 out-turning the 51 at low speeds.
  5. The turning circle graph and the vast majority of test data on the subject is pretty clear that a 51 will win a sustained turn fight against a 109G, let alone a heavier, and consequently less maneuverable K-4
  6. @Panthera you should find the G-14 to be able to handle a mustang in a slower turn pretty easily, it’s ability to yank high AOA helps quite a bit. The K-4 will lose every time in the 2 circle fight, but thanks to the slats and benign stall, it can be quite effective in a 1 circle fight against a Mustang.
  7. @II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson That’s because out of everyone involved in the discussion about .50’s, you’re the only person who provides completely unfounded and purely subjective claims. Not an ounce of reason to your points.
  8. @II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson And I can perfectly mirror your claim with hard numbers thanks to not withholding my in game name for no real reason. https://combatbox.net/en/pilot/553/QB.Shallot/?tour=22 here you can clearly see that I get more kills per hour flying axis, and to boot, when I hit a target as axis, I’m far more likely to secure the kill. There’s a reason I get so many more assists flying as Allies. Sure, I can outfight most blue aircraft in the 51, that’s fair, but it’s in spite of the .50’s, not because of them.
  9. @II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson, You can't really mean that. If you want to make claims of being amazing, try to back them up .50's are not a crime against humanity by any means. They are lacking essential qualities that made them so well liked by their American pilots (oh API, sweetest dear of mine) and to claim that flying allied birds feels like cheating seems disingenuous. The only way to shoot down a blue bird in a Mustang is to land a solid burst on the engine or pilot. Now thats okay, but its missing the fact that the fuel tank should be an equally vulnerable part of the aircraft. At this point in time, hitting the tank just results on a lot of pretty vapor and not much else. Right now a solid 2-4 20mm shells from a German A/C will put most birds out of the fight. That's not a bad thing, but its clear that the 20mm has much more wiggle room as to where you hit your target. So no, flying the 51 isn't cheating. It can certainly be a bit underwhelming at times however. It should be noted that the games habit of not rendering impact puffs after about 1/4 second of sustained fire does not help most .50 users all that much, since you'll typically need more rounds on target to secure a kill.
  10. While I cannot speak for the quality of the SP campaign, I will tell you that against a competent Human, you will find the 47 to be a respectable opponent. Also as a note, this update did literally nothing with the DM for the 47, wouldn't know why you'd notice this now.
  11. It would depend on the games settings, but the problem you’re trying to fix isn’t going to be done through alt vis. The problem with VR with the lack of zoom isn’t spotting, it’s ID, and if you’re target is a big fat blob, you still won’t be able to ID it.
  12. Good news with the new update is that .50 should be able to punch out an engine with a bit more ease. ”55. The piston engines' combat survivability has been adjusted - the protection from the engine casings has been reduced, bullets and shells cause more damage to the crank gear, while shell fragments cause less damage to the engine.”
  13. @driftaholic something tells me the solution is not ruining the game experience for all parties involved, VR or not.
  14. There is such a huge logical fallacy here. Harder does not equal more realistic. I’m like most simmers, I have a $70 throttle. The only axis on this is the actual throttle axis, I have many other switches to aid my controlling of the aircraft. I do not have my flaps, my RPM, my turbo, my mixture, my radiator, my trim, etc, bound to an axis. If I’m in a car, I don’t need to look at my feet to see how far I am pushing the accelerator. I know how far it is being pushed, because of muscle memory. The same principe applies to flight. I don’t need to look at where I twisted my trim tab to in a Mustang, because the dial only has a certain range of travel. Alternatively, If I’m cruising in auto lean, and have to move my mixture (which is bound to a switch) to auto rich, I doubt that me having to stare at a mixture switch until the game’s random input scaling puts it in auto rich would be more “realistic” It is more realistic to have that information displayed to the player. Perhaps not ‘hardcore’ enough, but it manifests itself in a more correct behavior. Edit: I don’t think exact percentages ought to be provided, but if there’s some way to display a general sense of where certain controls are without having to stare at them (Vague fractions?).
  15. @LukeFF No one with more than 2 brain cells to rub together is going to expect .50's to some how do more fragmentation damage just because the round has a bit of heat to it. I certainly expect a 40 round burst exactly on my convergence to set a 109's fuel tank fire instead of just make him leak from both rads, and gush from a basket ball shaped hole in his fuselage tank and limp away. I do look forward to that being modeled more reasonably.
  • Create New...