Jump to content

[TLC]YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by [TLC]YIPPEE

  1. Its virtually the same number as the charles meudon. they got it because it had a cl of around 1.4. You keep saying this, but those same reports show 1.4 for the mustang as well as 829 or whatever the other reports number is. Holtzauge said literally the same thing to you and you AGREED with him that a cl of 1.4 for the mustang was reasonable. Furthermore, you are missing the detail that the altitudes are not exactly the same for the tests: Also in the same report: Apparently everyone who has done the calculations on these planes is seeing the same thing because ALL of the flight sims from the year 2000 to now have shown the same turning relationship between these two planes, approximately 1 second for the K4 vs 67inch Mustang.
  2. That was not the point. The point was about the 51s CL. Which is around 1.4 at low mach numbers. And the British tested it to 1.4. And the test you referred to lists several CL numbers. All of them around 1.4. But ill just let Holtzauge tell you: It does not bleed too slowly. The K4 in Il2 also bleeds speed very slowly. And the DCS P-51 behaves extremely similarly in all regards to the il2 P-51 FM considering turn. You have no basis for your opinion other than "muh 109 is lighter and uh slats"
  3. What I heard was alot of imprecise language without any serious testing. And it is not indispute that the 109 out turns the 51. There are other pilots out there and I know at least 1 I have spoken to directly who will tell you the difference is not that great.
  4. Sure. I know what he is going to say, he talked at great length about this on the DCS forums
  5. It doesnt, he put one out ages ago. They are fairly close and his model was for different fuel loads than i am referring to. And as I recall you use the erroneous 1.2 CL or something. But I could have mis-recalled that. I didnt say othewise. I never said it didnt create a net benefit. What it does not do is yield some absurd CL of 1.7 like some people try to claim. No, both wings have CLmax of about 1.4. Which is the same position Holtzauge and YoYo have. Every developer since the early 2000's keeps getting the same numbers and the same relative performance. Over and Over and Over. These planes are not flown at max power anymore. This is also an anecdote.
  6. Slats dont do what you think they do. Firstly, they are not magic devices which once fitted to a plane make it turn better than everything else. The La-5 for example, turns worse than a yak. Secondly, the slats on the 109 are not full span, and their effect is correspondingly reduced. Thirdly, wing efficiency is not the only metric which determines turn. There is wing loading, drag, thrust, etc. The 109 is a heavily wing loaded aircraft. It is also rather draggy.
  7. Yes. Because the entire point is that he would have done a lot better if he had not made those mistakes. Duh.
  8. It has divided advocacy because there has been a major effort to downplay its role due to certain groups not agreeing with it ethically. That is with regards to the industrial aspects of it. German war production only increased because it had not been fully mobilized at the start of the campaign. Analysis of the bombing campaigns that does not take into account its role in reducing industry that might have been, and its other effects are intellectually dishonest or uninformed. The oil industry damage alone was crippling. Bottom line is this: anyone who tells you have obliterating entire cities (or their industrial areas) has no effect on the war waging capacity of a state is outright lying or is extremely ignorant. (I am not referring to you here, but who you might have read) However my comments had nothing to do with the strategic effects regarding heavy industry. The 70-80% of the German single engine fighter force was deployed in the west. Of that, the largest chunk by far was in Germany to defend against the bombers. That does not include units in France doing the same thing. What has not ever been contentious is that said operation is what ruined the Luftwaffe. The massive resource commitment to defending against the bombers massively depleted luftwaffe fighters from operations on all other fronts. Even units stationed in France and Italy had to spend alot of their time intercepting bombers. Destruction of German airfields on the ground, fighters in the air, and oil and aircraft production facilities did more damage to the German air arm than any other effort BY FAR.
  9. Nothing (that can be measured ) has changed in these planes flight models between hot fixes. At least regarding turn anyhow. What I can say for certain however is that your average 109K4 pilot in multiplayer flies like he is having muscle spasms. Ive won several sea level turn fights in the P-51 because: -The 109 pilot dumps all his speed and get slow, while I slowly bleed speed and sustain a higher G while coming around at an unsustainable rate. -The 109 snap roles because he is trying too hard. -The 109 climbs during the turn -Use of flaps. I think is what contributes the most to misinterpretations of performance. If people would fly smoother it would be alot harder on the Pony guys. Another thing worth mentioning is that alot of people most likely do not know the difference between 1 circle and 2 circle geometry, and the Mustang has a very good chance in radius fight due to its flaps. Or in a rolling scissors.
  10. While were on it, ill just go right at it. We all acknowledge that the Mustang didn't "win the war." Which would be like saying any particular soldier, even a significant one, won the war. But the Mustang gets alot of hate today because the real meaning of this statement when it is used in books gets completely misinterpreted. While the Mustang did not "win the war" in some kind of general sense, "won the war" in the sense that the Mustang was the decisive newcomer to Operation Pointblank in late 1943. For all the fighting that was done on all front and all time periods of the war, it was the 8AF the did the real manual labor of finally destroying the Luftwaffe as any serious threat. The Mustang showed up when it was needed and rapidly replaced other types in fighter groups doing the business. P-47s did significant work but they could not go to the target. P-38s were not as fast and were needed everywhere else and there were never enough of them in any theatre. The Mustang filled the gap, and then some. Alot of the derision sent the Mustangs way comes from people thinking that pointing out the Mustangs extremely important role and general superiority somehow robs other planes of their significance at other stages of the war and theatres. It doesnt. Another source is people who suddenly discover that the Mustang is not a Spitfire in the turn department, and suddenly decide it was always over-rated. The bottom line is that the Mustangs legend somewhat exceeds its reality, (although its reality was fantastic enough by far), and when people realize this it suddenly becomes a long train of second opinion bias where the Mustang is a junk heap that only succeeded at anything because it was there in large numbers....which is total rubbish.
  11. The P-51 was slightly less agile than the 109 when slow and slightly more agile than a 190 when slow. It was MUCH faster than either when it first came out (much faster than a spitfire too), and remained faster even than late model 109s. At all altitudes. Was it spitfire class turner? No. But neither was really anything else during ww2 in Europe. And turn performance was not what mattered. Top Speed and high altitude performance were what mattered. If turn performance was the most important thing the Japanese would have done alot better. This is just nonsense. The P-51 had decent agility and climb. And it had Top of the Charts Speed and Range.
  12. The P-63 is basically proof that the Allison engine was every bit as good as a DB605 or a Merlin. It just needed a supercharger. The 63 wound up using a D-coupled SC just like the 109.
  13. The point is that near parity looks like an advantage when things like fuel load offset it.
  14. You do realize that because the devs call it the less realistic option doesnt actually mean it is right? Also using alternate spotting for me it least is about getting more realistic spotting in closer, and i dont care if that causes some too far contacts to be in view to easy. Realisim wise, too much spotting is better than too little.
  15. Yeah this is all completely what you would expect, its the same stuff we have seen in every game going back to the early 2000s. What would be worrying is if they got something different. As usual, The P-51 67inch is slightly worse than the 109, and slightly better than the D9 190. The 150 octane P-51 is about on a par with the K4, which is totally in line with estimates ive seen people make that were for less favorable fuel loads than we are testing here. Something else to note. Like many people I have been in a lot of fights the last couple of days in a P-51 vs the K4. I only take 35% fuel from base. The P-51 is extremely low drag so i can take light fuel and sip it at cruise. Additionally, having been a 109 pilot non-stop for the last few years, I know a 109 needs to take alot of fuel, with me personally taking around 70-100% depending on map. I bet alot of people are taking full fuel due to having 10 min of wep to burn. And every 109 pilot I have gotten into a sustained nose to tail turning fight with has been trying way too hard to turn the plane and has been doing themselves no favors. For example, yesterday I got into one with TWO K4s and one of them crashed before the fight ended because he was waffling all over the place because he was pulling to hard. Alot of 109 guys dont max perform their plane very well.
  16. No it didnt. Your test methodology sucks and you are getting inconsistent results. The Flight model is the same.
  17. The P-51 cannot turn with the Spit in game. Not even close. The P51 is significantly faster.
  18. Modeling it would be fine, but if you look at the image above where it is compared to the 51, it would be negligible even relative to the mustang. I seriously doubt you would be able to notice the difference if they did model it, which means it might already be modeled. My point is that it neigh on makes no difference.
  19. Notice I said, "with the aggressive incline of the F-16". The 109, a F-16 is not.
  20. reclined seating only helps with about 0,5G, and thats the much more aggressive seating of the F-16. I dont recall where i put the document for that or Id just post it.
  21. These are from 38,000ft. all small aircraft. Two of them close tot he deck and over trees. They are very easy to spot, despite youtube compression and a shitty window. that being said, the new changes I think are good. I tested both and unless placebo even the expert mode is better than it was last patch. Will need to test more extensively though. Anyways I appreciate the new options.
×
×
  • Create New...