Jump to content
GarandM1

What will air combat on the western front in 1945 look like?

Recommended Posts

My sentiments exactly... with the old IL2 I was always online, flying in either the large 'online wars' or co-op.

At least there you had one life, that's it. If you were unlucky to crash on take off you were out, simple as... it made pilots much more careful and attentive with their virtual lives.

It also made the missions mean more... not only for managing to complete objectives, but to make it back in one piece with most of your chums. 

Then you know well that American planes are chewing gum for 109 drivers.

 

Oh yes, I am waiting for that. The current bubble is really annoying. That change will definitely make B&Z aircraft way more useful and comfortable.

 

But I have to mention that we will see a little change of pace, as no longer will German planes be able to easily dive away. Currently only La5 and Yak1b can follow 109s in a dive but they ultimately unable to catch them with enough separation.

 

With addition of P-51D, Tempest, P-38L and P-47 we will see that standard German planes like 109G14 and Fw190A will be unable to run away from most allied airplanes.

What does your average Pony driver do when he sees a 109? He enters low/moderate speed T&B. P47 is easy too. No need to dive away from such aircraft.

Edited by Mac_Messer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you know well that American planes are chewing gum for 109 drivers.

 

What does your average Pony driver do when he sees a 109? He enters low/moderate speed T&B. P47 is easy too. No need to dive away from such aircraft.

You could say that about the average 109/190 pilot also. The average german flyer in this game is just as bad. Strapping into a 109/190 doesn't make you an uber pilot. Although some folk think it should.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you know well that American planes are chewing gum for 109 drivers.

 

What does your average Pony driver do when he sees a 109? He enters low/moderate speed T&B. P47 is easy too. No need to dive away from such aircraft.

Sure if you imagine everything in a low altitude 1v1 arena the 109 is definitely the best plane for the job.

 

Yeah its unfortunate not many can fly American planes, but its expected as the are easily the hardest to fly. But they are most rewarding especially when using teamwork. Once again if you only visualize dogfights in one dimension the 109G14 and K4 are better than the P-47. I think you'll find two polar opposite when it comes to P-47 pilots. One refusing to dogfight anything below 3000m unless the coast is clear and the other religiously mowing the lawn. If anything you're going to have Bf-109 pilots wondering why they can keep up with the no good ground attack aircraft that flew like a bomber at high speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could say that about the average 109/190 pilot also. The average german flyer in this game is just as bad. Strapping into a 109/190 doesn't make you an uber pilot. Although some folk think it should.

It doesn't make you an uber pilot but it definitely makes the job easier.

 

I'd argue the average German pilot is better than the average Allied pilot. Assuming German plane enthusiast are above average pilots. In combination with their extremely easy to fly aircraft you're definitely going to see a discrepancy between win to loss ratios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ASSUMING Allied plane enthusiasts are above average pilots it negates your point.

And what I've seen online without the all too frequent axis numerical advantage the Germans are always getting their asses handed to them.

Then of course it's the devs fault for "nerfing" the axis planes and weapons!

Edited by Rolling_Thunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ASSUMING Allied plane enthusiasts are above average pilots it negates your point.

And what I've seen online without the all too frequent axis numerical advantage the Germans are always getting their asses handed to them.

Then of course it's the devs fault for "nerfing" the axis planes and weapons!

That comes to who has the better ground pounding equipment. Allies have it on the eastern front. Allies have it on the western front. So as long as the game mode is determined by who ground pounds the best the Allies will win the majority of the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That comes to who has the better ground pounding equipment. Allies have it on the eastern front. Allies have it on the western front. So as long as the game mode is determined by who ground pounds the best the Allies will win the majority of the time.

Many of the targets are soft, so 109 should be able to deal with them.

 

Not to mention that Hs129 is in the game and over western allies Germans have Ju88 which is quite fast with big payload. Me 262 might also have bombs and be an almost untouchable.

 

Most of the German players currently fly at 7000m and wait for a single Yak to come by. While soviets have whole wings of Peshka and IL2's doing their jobs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That comes to who has the better ground pounding equipment. Allies have it on the eastern front. Allies have it on the western front. So as long as the game mode is determined by who ground pounds the best the Allies will win the majority of the time.

 

I‘d say it is because the reds actually do ground pounding without frowning on doing such. The Axis has more bombers that can carry more than either the Peshka or the IL-2. The 110 can carry at least as much bombs as the Peshka and it is the better fighter as well.

 

Also it takes much less time for the reds to take out ground targets, as they sneak in low and don‘t spend time to climb an do level bombing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ASSUMING Allied plane enthusiasts are above average pilots it negates your point.

And what I've seen online without the all too frequent axis numerical advantage the Germans are always getting their asses handed to them.

Then of course it's the devs fault for "nerfing" the axis planes and weapons!

I think we can safely assume their are more Axis enthusiasts than their are allied enthusiasts.

Look at all the JGs on this forum and their websites for their clans. How many 352nd FG or 56FG clans do you see on the forum?

Look at all the youtube videos related to BoX most of the are flying German planes.

Search up DCS WW2 Kill compilation, Germans. 

 

Now I'm not saying this is a problem, but its a factor that can't be ignored when speculating how bodenplatte will play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can safely assume their are more Axis enthusiasts than their are allied enthusiasts.

Look at all the JGs on this forum and their websites for their clans. How many 352nd FG or 56FG clans do you see on the forum?

Look at all the youtube videos related to BoX most of the are flying German planes.

Search up DCS WW2 Kill compilation, Germans. 

 

Now I'm not saying this is a problem, but its a factor that can't be ignored when speculating how bodenplatte will play out.

 

But is this in an absolute sense or only because the VVS is less well known/researched in the US and western europe and less popular by comparison only? If people actually could fly Spitfires and Mustangs, would the brits and americans not flock to them? With BoBp are we not going to see an influx of new players who think the Mustang won the war on its own and will quickly be stripped of that notion just as many 109 pilots are currently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could say that about the average 109/190 pilot also. The average german flyer in this game is just as bad. Strapping into a 109/190 doesn't make you an uber pilot. Although some folk think it should.

I wrote about aircraft, not about pilots.

 

Pretty much all the low to average skill virtual pilots` are going to t&B by instinct, be it USAF, RAF, or LW.  The problem is, not all of them pilot the same aircraft. A RAF Spitfire pilot can do well regardless because the Spit is fairly easy and forgiving plane, LW pilot can also do T&B to a degree because 109 is a tier worse than Spit in this regard, but USAF pilot will be far worse off doing the same because P47/P51 are simply not suited for T&B (below 6000m and/or 500kph).

 

If i fly 109G10 and I see P51/P47, I stay at coalt because I don`t have to resign from dogfighting in such circumstances. A Pony driver being equally skilled as me will lose the fight if he does what average online pilot does and that is T&B.

I‘d say it is because the reds actually do ground pounding without frowning on doing such. The Axis has more bombers that can carry more than either the Peshka or the IL-2. The 110 can carry at least as much bombs as the Peshka and it is the better fighter as well.

 

Also it takes much less time for the reds to take out ground targets, as they sneak in low and don‘t spend time to climb an do level bombing.

If you flew online wars you`d know that not only bombers/groundpounders take bombing equipment. And so LaGG/Mig/Yak drivers often get rockets to do the job while 109/109 drivers are left with bombs only - heavier and inducing more drag.

 

As a virtual fighter pilot it`s not my specialty but I can say to you - I`ve tried rockets and bombs and I`d rather have rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can safely assume their are more Axis enthusiasts than their are allied enthusiasts.

Look at all the JGs on this forum and their websites for their clans. How many 352nd FG or 56FG clans do you see on the forum?

Look at all the youtube videos related to BoX most of the are flying German planes.

Search up DCS WW2 Kill compilation, Germans.

 

Now I'm not saying this is a problem, but its a factor that can't be ignored when speculating how bodenplatte will play out.

I think we can say there are more Axis enthusiasts amongst the Western playerbase.

For reasons of history as well as geography and culture, not to mention the alphabet barrier, the Soviet Union is probably the less obvious first choice. Add that to the fact that German aircraft are more recognisable to Westerners, they can outperform certain Soviet types and that they arguably reward skilful flying to a greater extent, and that may explain it.

 

I fly VVS but mostly to balance the teams (and because I've discovered I'm a big fan of the Peshka).

If I were to think of WWII air combat, I'd picture Spitfires vs Stukas, Seafires over Malta, huge formations of bombers over Germany and anti-submarine patrols over the Atlantic.

From my perspective then, the most iconic and recognisable aircraft from what we've got in the sim are the Heinkel, Stuka and 109.

Most of what I know about the Eastern Front is from the Il-2 series.

 

However, I'm sure that Eastern European and Russian players probably fly VVS more as its closest to their iconic view of WWII. I have heard that there are loads of Russian pilots who never fly LW at all.

But we don't really see that in forum posts or YouTube videos or websites etc. because we're not looking for it.

I wonder if they think that no-one flies LW?

 

But is this in an absolute sense or only because the VVS is less well known/researched in the US and western europe and less popular by comparison only? If people actually could fly Spitfires and Mustangs, would the brits and americans not flock to them? With BoBp are we not going to see an influx of new players who think the Mustang won the war on its own and will quickly be stripped of that notion just as many 109 pilots are currently?

I expect we will see this. I'll be in a Tempest as much as I can be once BoBo hits. Maybe a trip in a Spitfire now and then.

Even when the A-20 comes out I'll be in that a lot.

So maybe with BoBo we'll see a swing in the other direction and a lot of the Western European JGs will end up drawing contrail circles at 20,000ft in Mustangs instead.

 

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I'm sure that Eastern European and Russian players probably fly VVS more as its closest to their iconic view of WWII. I have heard that there are loads of Russian pilots who never fly LW at all.

But we don't really see that in forum posts or YouTube videos or websites etc. because we're not looking for it.

I wonder if they think that no-one flies LW?

In countries neighboring Germany, the VVS/LW ratio is roughly 50/50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any server that is getting set up for a halfways realistic scenario, should definitely limtit the numbers of the more rare aircraft

like the Arado and Messerschmitt jet planes, or even the Focke Wulf D-9, the Bf 109 G-14 and K-4.

Or we would get nothing but an "aerial playground" without any closeness to how it really was.

 

I'd hope that servers like TACTICAL AIR WAR or COCONUT EXPERT will balance it halfways historically correct.

Servers like wings of liberty will have to adapt their aircraft availability system until then, or be facing a sky full of 262 for the first 60minutes of a map, first come first served style like, and then people switching to the less favorable, but not yet the "bottom feeders". While the allies will be able to fly P51 24/7. It would be bad gameplay. I believe they will adapt it early enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Servers like wings of liberty will have to adapt their aircraft availability system until then, or be facing a sky full of 262 for the first 60minutes of a map, first come first served style like, and then people switching to the less favorable, but not yet the "bottom feeders". While the allies will be able to fly P51 24/7. It would be bad gameplay. I believe they will adapt it early enough.

 

Jet gameplay on WoL will be really interesting to watch :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

262's? 

I guess what allied pilots realised when they were faced with these aircraft, was that they couldn't really take them on on equal terms once they were at altitude and up to speed... But we all know the 262 had a weakness, and hopefully it will be modelled correctly so we can find them on unequal terms... just like real allied pilots did at the time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flying the ME 262 to intercept allied ground attack planes and fighters should be interesting. In the period after the titual operation, every time your group of German planes takes off there should be multiple groups of allied fighters-bombers attacking retreating German columns of trucks and tanks, bombing and rocketing the tanks and strafing the trucks. Each will be protected by fighters. You will be unable to engage every group of allied planes, and your only advantage will be the ability to run from combat and prevent being engaged. Should you lead ME 109s or FW 190s into combat, you would go in large formations of multiple flights. But then all allied fighters in the area will beeline to you and try to get engaged, as will any flights of ground attack planes you attack. Soon, your flight of 15 FW 190s will be swarmed by P-51s and P-47s and Tempests and Typhoons(which I am convinced they must add in, at least an AI version first), and when you get back, if you get back, at least several of your wingmen will be dead. And if you are in an ME 262, there may be a group of Tempests near your airbase, waiting out of sight until you start the landing approach, upon which they will rush you and shoot you down.

 

And while I hope the Stuka and HS 129 careers will be brutal once the Soviets start counterattacking(which they do in all 3 campaigns, Kuban is in fact almost all Soviet counterattack), with planes flying tank hunting missions and supporting the increasingly stretched defenses 24/7, flying an axis ground attack plane in 1945 will be almost tanamount to suicide, unless you have an escort of 40-50 ME 109s, in which case you may have 20-30 minutes of ground attack before your escort is reduced to the point that enemy planes start coming after you.

Edited by hames123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will be surprised by P38, 51 and Tempest. They aren't amazing at turn fighting, but good enough to make 109s feel uneasy and 190 will have no edge there.

 

The Tempest maybe, but the P-51 & P-38 shouldn't surprise anyone in a turn fight. The P-51 is probably going to be about even with the A8 in terms of turning I'd imagine, being worse down low and better up high based on the calculations I've done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the P-38L will surprise people with it's agility due to its hydraulic ailerons, fowler flaps, counter rotating engines giving very benign stall characteristics, basically eliminating torque and p-factor

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the P-38L will surprise people with it's agility due to its hydraulic ailerons, fowler flaps, counter rotating engines giving very benign stall characteristics.

 

It's roll rate will be impressive I think yes, but in terms of turning it will be a dog according to all the information I have, and using flaps will just burn energy a lot faster for a non beneficial increase in turn rate as the single engined fighters will still turn tighter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Erm....The Marines were not part of the Normandy landings....

 

I typed very fast, Marines was not part in Normandy, Sicily and Italy but not Normandy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the P-38L will surprise people with it's agility due to its hydraulic ailerons, fowler flaps, counter rotating engines giving very benign stall characteristics, basically eliminating torque and p-factor

 

 

It's roll rate will be impressive I think yes, but in terms of turning it will be a dog according to all the information I have, and using flaps will just burn energy a lot faster for a non beneficial increase in turn rate as the single engined fighters will still turn tighter. 

 

Sure, the maximum roll rate will be impressive at high speeds but what about the roll acceleration? The problem with any twin is all the mass of the engines out there far from the axis of rotation meaning the roll acceleration will be much slower and in a dogfight for example faking a turn in one direction and then snapping out in the other is much more about roll acceleration than the end rolling velocity. OTOH I don't have any hard numbers on how long it took the P-38 with hydraulically boosted ailerons to reach peak rolling velocity but I suspect it took some time and question is how easy it was to keep pace in roll angle with single engine fighter jinxing. Would be nice with some roll accelerations data but since it's hard enough to get roll velocity charts maybe one should not get one's hopes up...... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I typed very fast, Marines was not part in Normandy, Sicily and Italy but not Normandy 

 

Which Marines? The Royal Marines or the USMC?  I am (fairly) sure that apart from the USN ships' on board contingents the USMC played no significant role in any European theatre, they were designated to the Pacific. The US Army used Rangers (trained by the Royal Marines originally) in a beach landing role instead in the Med and Normandy.  The Royal Marines were of course involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why ? 

My experiences from that other game tell me that I can easily turn inside of 190 D-9 and can turn with 109 K-4 if I have enough speed. 

 

 

That other game? Regardless of which one you are speaking please don't ever take a game as the absolute truth, as remember the way the aircraft fly is all up to the how the individual developers interpreted it should fly based on what'ever documentation they have available.

 

As for why I'm pretty sure of the real P-51 not being particularly impressive in the turn, this is based on the by now rather extensive information available, such as CLmax pr. mach number, comparative trials etc.  Take for example the RAE trials where the lighter P-51B was considered about the same in the turn as compared with a captured ground attack version of the Anton only running at 1.3ata, and that at a rather high testing altitude too. (Hence why the Tempest also faired so poorly in the tests, the tests taking place way higher than where it could truly perform)

 

TsAGi also did some trials with an even lighter P-51A, which managed 23 sec vs the 21 sec of a 190A8. Add 500 hp (Allison to Packard Merlin) and 1,000 lbs in weight and the P-51D should manage about 21.5 sec.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does a "turning" mean in this context? You see - there are remarks of pilots "out-turning" a Zero in a P40 - in low yoyos - for them this was what this meant.

(why not - effectively they out-turned an enemy)

 

What about a human factor? - no test pilot is the same, more so combat ones. Some couldn't withstand G-loads so they couldn't pull as well, so the turning radius reading wasn't really optimal.

 

P51' stick loads are lighter than in the 109, right? So in a test, the latter could out-turn the former, but add human combat fatigue and the situation might have reversed.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that pilot accounts are notoriously sketchy when it comes to comparing aircraft performance, and period tests are ofcourse also prone to errors for many reasons including those you cite. Ultimately things are verified or debunked via the known aerodynamics, and based on these the P-51 and particularly the P-38 shouldn't surprise anyone in a turn fight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the JU-87 or HS-129 fly at all in combat on the western front in 1945?  I really can't imagine that they did.

 

The only Hs 129s in the West were in training units. All of their combat came in the East and in North Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Warclouds server

 

Wow the forum was gooood....

 

"Wow ........, you and your sisters need some plastic surgery. Couple nip and tucks look to be in order. Which one is you? The one on the left I am told. Gotta be. That's the one that always biatches and complains all the time. Fits you like a glove. If you wanna get some of those wrinkles take care of, let me know, i know a pretty good plastic surgeon. He gives whinning old women a pretty good discount."

 

:lol:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That other game? Regardless of which one you are speaking please don't ever take a game as the absolute truth, as remember the way the aircraft fly is all up to the how the individual developers interpreted it should fly based on what'ever documentation they have available.

 

As for why I'm pretty sure of the real P-51 not being particularly impressive in the turn, this is based on the by now rather extensive information available, such as CLmax pr. mach number, comparative trials etc.  Take for example the RAE trials where the lighter P-51B was considered about the same in the turn as compared with a captured ground attack version of the Anton only running at 1.3ata, and that at a rather high testing altitude too. (Hence why the Tempest also faired so poorly in the tests, the tests taking place way higher than where it could truly perform)

 

TsAGi also did some trials with an even lighter P-51A, which managed 23 sec vs the 21 sec of a 190A8. Add 500 hp (Allison to Packard Merlin) and 1,000 lbs in weight and the P-51D should manage about 21.5 sec.

I have every reason to believe that DCS P-51D is as accurate as it can get. Years of attempts to prove otherwise only support that. But I'm not going into longer debate on that, its not the place to discuss different games. But just to mention something, I've been flying P-51D there for four years now. All you speak of may be true in engineers mind. But it's not engineers who fly those aircraft and there is more to turnfighting then mere flat sustained turn. With a combination of spiral dive and flap usage its entirely possible to turn inside of Bf 109. Turning inside of 190 D-9 is even less of a trouble, but its not 190s turn that one should be afraid of.

 

The expectation that P-51 will be unmaneuverable crate may get some people very surprised.

It's true that pilot accounts are notoriously sketchy when it comes to comparing aircraft performance, and period tests are ofcourse also prone to errors for many reasons including those you cite. Ultimately things are verified or debunked via the known aerodynamics, and based on these the P-51 and particularly the P-38 shouldn't surprise anyone in a turn fight.  

Why ? Ultimately things are debunked on aerodynamics level but only when you remove the human factor. Theoretical calculations are important and I'm always interested in those kind of discussions but aerial combat is not following the same rules.

Besides, I can believe that P-40 pilot manage to outturn A6M2 pilot. There is a number of factors that may have worked for Tomahawk/Kittyhawk advantage and number that could work for A6M2/A6M5 disadvantage. Every situation is different. But then there are reports of Zeros keeping up in dive with P-40 in some situations, something that some consider impossible.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dive thing is rather easily explained.  Most simmers focus on maximum dive speed.  In that regard of course the P40 is better than the A6M, but what gamers very frequently overlook is initial dive acceleration.  Sim pilots often think that just pushing the nose over in a "better diving aircraft" is an instant get out of jail free card.

 

Not so.

 

The aircraft that can initially out accelerate another will have an advantage early on in the dive.  So, the "faster diving" plane will be in gun range of the "slower diving plane" for longer than the pilot of the faster plane thinks.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have every reason to believe that DCS P-51D is as accurate as it can get. Years of attempts to prove otherwise only support that. But I'm not going into longer debate on that, its not the place to discuss different games. But just to mention something, I've been flying P-51D there for four years now. All you speak of may be true in engineers mind. But it's not engineers who fly those aircraft and there is more to turnfighting then mere flat sustained turn. With a combination of spiral dive and flap usage its entirely possible to turn inside of Bf 109. Turning inside of 190 D-9 is even less of a trouble, but its not 190s turn that one should be afraid of.

 

The expectation that P-51 will be unmaneuverable crate may get some people very surprised.

Why ? Ultimately things are debunked on aerodynamics level but only when you remove the human factor. Theoretical calculations are important and I'm always interested in those kind of discussions but aerial combat is not following the same rules.

Besides, I can believe that P-40 pilot manage to outturn A6M2 pilot. There is a number of factors that may have worked for Tomahawk/Kittyhawk advantage and number that could work for A6M2/A6M5 disadvantage. Every situation is different. But then there are reports of Zeros keeping up in dive with P-40 in some situations, something that some consider impossible.

 

Well ask yourself how much do you actually know about the DCS flight model?  Is all the data used to make its FM made available for you to analyze for mistakes? Short answer is no, and therefore I wouldn't trust it, esp. not if the P-51 manages to outturn a 109 in that sim, because then something is definitely rotten somewhere. That's my educated opinion based on the data available at least.

 

Finally keep in mind that flight models are the work of "engineers" ;)

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this has to do with weight depending on fuel? Couldn't it be that the standard tests/measurements are done with the planes with full fuel, and thus planes which can carry big amounts of fuel would usually be lighter in combat conditions (selecting little fuel in a close range dogfight server, or after a long flight from a far away base), increasing their performance?  For example the 109s in the sim can take 400 liters of fuel (don't know much the K-4), the Spit mk Vb 386. The P-51D if i'm correct had almost 1000 liters of internal fuel capacity, and around 1500 for the P-38.

 

 

If I tend to take say 300 liters for the average online sortie, then in the P-51 I would have around 600-700 liters of saving weight, which can be around 500 Kg I suppose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would think that tests involving combat maneuvers would be done with the fuel state expected during combat.  In the case of the P-51 there were instructions to drain the center tank before engaging in combat.  I would think that performance tests would be done in that state, not full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we take a look at NACA report TN 1044 where the P-51, F6F, P-38 & P-39 were tested for CLmax at specific mach numbers then we can see the following:

 

F6F:

0.35 mach = 1.35

0.40 mach = 1.25

 

P-39:

0.35 mach = 1.12

0.40 mach = 1.05

 

P-38:

0.35 mach = 1.08

0.40 mach = 1.02

 

P-51:

0.35 mach = 1.07

0.40 mach = 1.05

 

Note that the Fw190 used pretty much exactly the same airfoil from root to tip as the F6F, NACA 23015 to 23009, thus the same results should pretty much be expected.

 

We can use the above lift coefficients to deduce the effective wing loadings:

 

Fw190D9: 4,270 kg / (18.3 sq.m. * 1.35) = 172.8

P-51D: 4,400 kg / (21.83 sq.m. * 1.07) = 188.3 

P-38L: 7,940 kg / (30.43 sq.m. * 1.08) = 241.6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...