American Iron

[Ehret]

7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Also I don‘t think that the Mustang is that much of a great „boom and zoomer“ over aircraft with a considerably better power to weight ratio as the K4 or the D9. A Mustang can never follow those planes in the vertical.

 

Not from a low co-energy but why anyone would like to do such thing in the P-51? Or the P-47? Both planes are relatively heavy so they don't accelerate/climb as well on engine power alone. However, once they are fast the inertia will work to their advantage.

Of course, some will not stick to appropriate tactics when flying the P-51 but whose fault it'd be?

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Whats the performance of the K4 with 1.98 ata?

 

20kmh faster than the Mustang at sea level, faster to some degree at all useful altitudes. 5,000ft/min peak climb and much improved turn too (it'll out-turn Mustangs and Jugs).

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

 

 

DCS has 1.8ata K-4s and Mustang drivers already accept that if they get a K-4 on their tail in that sim there's almost nothing they can do.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Talon_

[ZachariasX]

18 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Of course, some will not stick to appropriate tactics when flying the P-51 but whose fault it'd be?

The fault of the 1GCAP that is happily fragging around a map. I based my comparison on that setup.

 

I do agree with you that in reality one would exploit the great top speed of the Mustang in a more considerate manner (or not last long) and thus have a very potent tool at hand with both the P-51 and the P-47.

[Legioneod]

19 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

20kmh faster than the Mustang at sea level, faster to some degree at all useful altitudes. 5,000ft/min peak climb and much improved turn too (it'll out-turn Mustangs and Jugs).

 

DCS has 1.8ata K-4s and Mustang drivers already accept that if they get a K-4 on their tail in that sim there's almost nothing they can do.

To be fair, if someone is already on your six you pretty much dead anyways most of the time.

 

I can stick with a K4 in DCS if I fly smart.

 

Honestly I don't think the K4 will be some monster op aircraft, I do think it will be a tough opponent however.

One thing that plagues all 109s including the K4 is high speed handling, P-51 and P-47 pilots would be smart to keep their speed up at all times and use their high speed maneuverability against the 109s.

The 109 may be fast and it may be able to turn but it can't do both at the same time, at least not very well.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Legioneod

[ZachariasX]

15 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

DCS has 1.8ata K-4s and Mustang drivers already accept that if they get a K-4 on their tail in that sim there's almost nothing they can do.

 

My impression is that is also due to that K4 retaining stick authority almost throughout the speed range, lifting it to a different class of aircraft than it actually was. But if caught slow on equal terms, I wouldn‘t expect the low boost Mustang to last long if the German pilot knows what he is doing.

 

I feel the WW2 aircraft should receive a bit more love from the side of their developpers. I own four of those modules and they all feel like stepchildren. 

[LeLv76_Erkki]

8 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

My impression is that is also due to that K4 retaining stick authority almost throughout the speed range, lifting it to a different class of aircraft than it actually was. But if caught slow on equal terms, I wouldn‘t expect the low boost Mustang to last long if the German pilot knows what he is doing.

 

I feel the WW2 aircraft should receive a bit more love from the side of their developpers. I own four of those modules and they all feel like stepchildren. 

 

Even if chasing 109 has high stick forces at high speeds, its very difficult for a P-51 to bring it to scissors or turn and gain firing solution before the speeds have dropped enough for the 109 to regain its maneuverability.

 

What I've used when attempting to escape from a 109 is similar to when flying a 190, exploiting enemy's lower rate of roll: start a easy turn to either side and once the pursuing enemy has banked to follow, roll and turn into a shallow dive 60-90 degrees to the opposite side.

[Ehret]

58 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

20kmh faster than the Mustang at sea level, faster to some degree at all useful altitudes. 5,000ft/min peak climb and much improved turn too (it'll out-turn Mustangs and Jugs).

 

DCS has 1.8ata K-4s and Mustang drivers already accept that if they get a K-4 on their tail in that sim there's almost nothing they can do.

 

So you are saying than the K4 might achieve something resembling a parity? Because those differences aren't nearly big enough to override all. Now, it's not impossible to prevail in the game's P-40 in spite of ridiculously unrealistic and short time boost limiter. Why it should be any harder in BOBP's P-xx planes? Even if they are set using most conservative limits possible just enough to pretend to be historical, P-xxs will be in much better competitive situation than the P-40 is, currently. And the P-39 is better than good if her driver knows and can manage few things.

 

19 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

What I've used when attempting to escape from a 109 is similar to when flying a 190, exploiting enemy's lower rate of roll: start a easy turn to either side and once the pursuing enemy has banked to follow, roll and turn into a shallow dive 60-90 degrees to the opposite side.

 

From my experience a very good tactics for P-40/P-39 (especially the latter) is to dive up to the locking speed then do a sudden and very hard turn riding just on an edge of blackout. If the enemy will try to follow, thus burning a good portion of energy, the odds of reversing are decent. If it's done at the particular altitude then odds improves significantly. If it's done against the 190 odds skyrocket.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Ehret

[[CPT]Crunch]

On 10/29/2018 at 10:49 PM, zelil said:

My guess is the P51 will be similar to the Yak only better with those murderous 50 cals , lead computing gun sight and best overall cockpit view and speed,  the P47 similar to the FW and the P38 similar to the ME 110. I can tell you from playing in Vr the P38 is going to be a problem for axis. That view over the nose will give fantastic deflection shooting scenarios, on the flip side it seems to be the plane that goes down the easiest due to its tail design, no way can it take any 20 mm back there and say air worthy.

 

Don't make the mistake of comparing the Lightning to any previous game incarnation.  The tail was overbuilt by design several times the needed strength to deal with the unknown compression factor.  Ever heard of one failing due to compression, didn't happen.  The Me-110, not even ballpark, there isn't any other twin in it's class in that time period.  Pretty sure Jason is a huge fan, so count on it getting a respectable and detailed survey.  That'll make it a bit different than the last time around.

[ShamrockOneFive]

On 10/30/2018 at 2:02 AM, Legioneod said:

Idk, the P-51 will still be the best all round dogfighter imo. It can stick with 109s in the turn and can definitely take out 190s.

Apparently in 44 they had a conference to compare the fighters across multiple allied nations, they determined that the P-51 was the best all round fighter below 25k ft.

Even in German interviews I heard them say that the P-51 was certainly a handful and could do everything the german aircraft could do in regards to combat.

 

Imo it's going to be a handful for the German side and will do fine.

 

If only we were getting the P-51B/C, now those were some sweet P-51s, very fast and I've heard they were more maneuverable.

 

Dogfighter evokes the concept of turning with the enemy in tight circles which the Mustang is not good at. It's wing design, weight, and available power are working against it in those situations. The only caveat I would offer here is that its two chief opponents in the field are also similarly challenged in tight turns. The Bf109 is roughly similar (though with slats) and the FW190 slightly worse. The miracle of course is that the Mustang can just about hang with both of these types in combat and fly roughly 2,000 miles.

 

High speed passes, short turns, overhead yo-yos, and always maintaining energy advantage and not getting sucked into a tight turn where the Bf109s slats deploy is probably for the best.

 

On 10/30/2018 at 2:57 AM, Ehret said:

 

Mustangs weren't using just Merlins but Packard V-1650s - a licensed version which wasn't exactly the same. The V-1650 had some improvements over the RR build engine.

Performance doesn't depend on the engine alone, too. The P-51's radiator design could nullify most of the cooling drag when flying at +450km/h.

 

I know that. My point was on engine maturity and the Merlin was reasonably mature design (for WWII aero engines) by 1944. The biggest problems other types had such as the Typhoon and Tempest were mechanics that knew their way around a Merlin and were using the same techniques, wrongly, on the Napier Sabre's sleeve valve design. That'd be an example but there are others too.

 

The Mustang benefits from a more boring logistics side of things by having a well know engine, uses .50cals which were everywhere in the US supply chain, etc. In many ways, the Mustang was just an excellent overall design, being nothing radical but benefiting from being masterfully designed.

[Feathered_IV]

On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 7:33 AM, Tag777 said:

Well, according to many sources, P-51 was faster and more maneuverable than almost all German planes at 20,000 feet. We will see if that is reflected in game.

 

In MP over 20,000ft, the only thing you might die of is loneliness.

[Legioneod]

19 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Dogfighter evokes the concept of turning with the enemy in tight circles which the Mustang is not good at. It's wing design, weight, and available power are working against it in those situations. The only caveat I would offer here is that its two chief opponents in the field are also similarly challenged in tight turns. The Bf109 is roughly similar (though with slats) and the FW190 slightly worse. The miracle of course is that the Mustang can just about hang with both of these types in combat and fly roughly 2,000 miles.

 

High speed passes, short turns, overhead yo-yos, and always maintaining energy advantage and not getting sucked into a tight turn where the Bf109s slats deploy is probably for the best.

 

Dogfight doesn't always mean to just turn and burn, that's an antiquated definition. Dog-fighter/fighter basically mean the same thing, especially in modern terminology. That being said, just replace the word dogfighter with fighter and you'll get what I meant.

 

The P-51 will still be the best overall fighter in the allied plane-set imo, but not necessarily the best at all altitudes. The P-47 will be better up high for example, but the P-51 still possesses the ability to handle itself at all altitudes quite well.

5 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

In MP over 20,000ft, the only thing you might die of is loneliness.

Not true in the slightest, I've had more than a few fights around and above 20kft.

Germans love to fly high for some reason and let their team lose, but I guess I was doing the same thing.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Legioneod

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/30/2018 at 7:59 AM, ZachariasX said:

Also I don‘t think that the Mustang is that much of a great „boom and zoomer“ over aircraft with a considerably better power to weight ratio as the K4 or the D9. A Mustang can never follow those planes in the vertical.

 

Power alone is useless for comparison. What does the Thrust over Drag curve look like?

Weight is beneficial when going fast and not trying to change direction too much.

 

Whether the Mustang is competitive entirely depends on it's boost level represented. Then again, the same is true the other way around for ze Germans.

 

 

[357th_Dog]

A lot of people like to tout the 109K-4's speed prowess..and it was impressive...if you had  *very* specific combination of factors..

When using C3 fuel, MW50 *and* running at 1.98 ATA, the K-4 would hit 440 MPH at 24,000 feet.  However in reality most Luftwaffe units either ran C3 or MW50, but rarely both. 

It's going to be pretty chickenshit if the devs give the (very rare) combination of C3 and MW50 for the Luftwaffe but not 130+ octane fuel for the P-39/47/51 and Spit IX/Tempest..

 

[Legioneod]

2 minutes ago, JohanLoton said:

A lot of people like to tout the 109K-4's speed prowess..and it was impressive...if you had  *very* specific combination of factors..

When using C3 fuel, MW50 *and* running at 1.98 ATA, the K-4 would hit 440 MPH at 24,000 feet.  However in reality most Luftwaffe units either ran C3 or MW50, but rarely both. 

It's going to be pretty chickenshit if the devs give the (very rare) combination of C3 and MW50 for the Luftwaffe but not 130+ octane fuel for the P-39/47/51 and Spit IX/Tempest..

 

150, not 130. The 9th was already using 130, it never used 150 though.

150 would make sense for the British, and for American aircraft representing the 8th AAF.

[ZachariasX]

24 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Power alone is useless for comparison. What does the Thrust over Drag curve look like?

Weight is beneficial when going fast and not trying to change direction too much.

 

Whether the Mustang is competitive entirely depends on it's boost level represented. Then again, the same is true the other way around for ze Germans.

 

Indeed. If you havethe speed and if you are careful in flying your trajectory, the Mustang will perform well. Where things start to get difficult, is when you do steep climbs hanging on the propeller. If a 190D or 109K gets up in a steep climbing spiral, the Mustang will surely have a hard time following.

[Ehret]

4 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Indeed. If you havethe speed and if you are careful in flying your trajectory, the Mustang will perform well. Where things start to get difficult, is when you do steep climbs hanging on the propeller. If a 190D or 109K gets up in a steep climbing spiral, the Mustang will surely have a hard time following.

 

For long, yes. But it will be risky for the D/K too, because: the P-51 driver might have the gyro sight and odds of higher flying allied friendlies are going to be much higher in BOBP.

Besides, no matter how the ATA controversy will get resolved, the P-xxs planes will have the option to go for very high altitude. Doing ground targets will be doable that way, too; get the Jug/Lighting loaded, climb then run for objective in shallow dive from an unexpected direction. It does work for the P-40 or A-20, now.

[Talon_]

27 minutes ago, JohanLoton said:

A lot of people like to tout the 109K-4's speed prowess..and it was impressive...if you had  *very* specific combination of factors..

When using C3 fuel, MW50 *and* running at 1.98 ATA, the K-4 would hit 440 MPH at 24,000 feet.  However in reality most Luftwaffe units either ran C3 or MW50, but rarely both. 

It's going to be pretty chickenshit if the devs give the (very rare) combination of C3 and MW50 for the Luftwaffe but not 130+ octane fuel for the P-39/47/51 and Spit IX/Tempest..

 

 

Get ready for a feeling of injustice.

7 minutes ago, Ehret said:

no matter how the ATA controversy will get resolved, the P-xxs planes will have the option to go for very high altitude.

 

With 1.98ata the K-4 is faster than all the US planes at anything below about 27,000ft

[Ehret]

12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Get ready for a feeling of injustice.

 

? Did the developers anywhere said that the K4 is going to have the 1.98 setting?

Or that there will not be 150 no matter what?

 

At very worst the Axis will get their own medicine - good luck going to high altitude against turbos. Allies will have the Tempest to handle low/med alt, anyway.

 

12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

With 1.98ata the K-4 is faster than all the US planes at anything below about 27,000ft

 

And turbos are capable well over that - 40K ft or more.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Ehret

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

For long, yes. But it will be risky for the D/K too, because: the P-51 driver might have the gyro sight and odds of higher flying allied friendlies are going to be much higher in BOBP.

Oh yes. At 6000 to 7000 meters, Mustangs will definitely be real issues for any German plane venturing there. The gyro sight might help for longer shots at targets that don't see you coming, but as soon as they maneuver, the piper leaves the sights and then I prefer the traditional, less bulky sight.

[ZachariasX]

Ah, just found this gossip in the book about the history of JG26 by Josef Priller. It is in German so I tranlate the quote (p. 278) of one Oberfeldwebel Ungar about a happening in the final stage of the war:

 

"Oberfeldwebel Leo Klatt, 14./26, was separated from his "little brothers" during an aerial combat over Westphalia and found himself alone with four Spitfires on his tail. With his lack of experience he pulled his Fw-190D9 up vertical and hung it on the prop. The four came along in pursuit. As the Indianer couldn't hold themselves anymore and stalled away, Leo thought of himself being a very courageous man, yanked the throttle back, let the aircraft stall and dove back down in pursuit. If I remember correctly, he even shot one down.

 

The Spitfire IX was clearly superior. But this tactics, born out of sheer desperation, largely took away our sense of utter inferiority."

 

It is (although although written in a slightly partisan way) a rather interessting book, also repeatedly stating how often German ground control sent the fighter planes to their doom, such as on the "black day" of III/JG54 on Dec. 29th 1944. The squadrons took off in intervall of one hour. Dortemann was last to take off at noon and observed the situation on the ground until that time of day. he saw that Rheine-Osnabrück-Münster was completely covered by dozens of enemy Squadrons up to 5000 meters. he expected the return of two sqadrrons before he was to take off. There were however only few planes, returning individually with with pilots pale not being able uttering a single word. The pilots in his flight an even the ground crew were pale as he had never seen them before a takeoff. Instead of just charging into the fray at 2000 meters as told by the ground controller but got up to 6000 meters and then in direction Osnabrück, where he sighted 22 Spitfires 1000 meters below them. after a clean attack from above and hit the Spitfire formation hard in a single attack and dove away. All 11 planes returned to their base. They felt that it was pointless to attack a Spitfire from co-altitude and outwardly dangerous if the Spitfire had the advantage.

 

Dortenmann got almost court martialed repeatedly by the Division for disobeying ground control. As Priller commended him (and others) for their bravery, no punitive actions were taken, ever.

Edited October 31, 2018 by ZachariasX

[Bremspropeller]

The same quote is written in "First in combat with the Dora 9" by Axel Urbanke, whch you should get your fingers on, if not already in your possession!

 

4 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The Spitfire IX was clearly superior. But this tactics, born out of sheer desperation, largely took away our sense of utter inferiority."

 

That should be taken with a grain of salt. I think it's highly questionable that an experienced Dora pilot had any worries in fighting a Spit IX (even at 25lbs) at equal terms.

I think this is more down to the issue that many pilots were busy just staying in formation and an agressive flight of Spitfires (or, hell, more than one!) could tear through a formation of Doras in quite a fearful manner.

Those 2nd TAF guys were all very proficient aviators with well deveoped tactics and a good stack of several flights covering each other at different altitudes when operating in the same general area.

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, Bremspropeller said:

That should be taken with a grain of salt. I think it's highly questionable that an experienced Dora pilot had any worries in fighting a Spit IX (even at 25lbs) at equal terms.

Oh, yes. But the majority of the German crews hardly even qualified for a pilots license under normal circumstances. You can see how differently certain leaders such as Dortenmann and others behaved in the situation, whereas the rest were just out to die. This really must have a moral impact. And under this light, the quote should be read. As I said, the book consists of many reports that are fresh from the ones that just by chance missed out on dying that day.

 

By making most of their mounts and using proper strategy, some aces were rather successful. But if you don't have the ego of those, you'll not disobey ground control, as sometimes Goering himself took the liberty of failing as ground controller.

 

The least in the book can be taken as the de facto situation, but it is telltale about how the situation was handled. For instance while it is true that by 1945 the Spitfires XIV up there hardly found opponents as the Germans were sent in down low, some (as mentioned) did not follow that and here and there found opportunity to prey on all those Allied planes. But none of them would do a single full turn but much rather just attack and run. If you started a "Kurbelei", you gave the other team all the time they needed to assemble enough aircraft to make it impossible to go home. Pilots had explicid orders not to "mix it". Taking the liberty to wait for a good moment to attack and rum made Dortenmann the highest scoring Tempest hunter.

 

Speed is everything here, and it is worth noting that both the 190D and the 109K are quick planes. And they are powerfull enough to position themselves in time. From a good situation they can force an intercept on all Allied planes. The 109's downside of being severely restricted in controls compared to the 190 is not that tragic in this sense. It just becomes apparent if you do it wrong and start to mix it with fast Allied planes that the plane has outgrown its feathers.

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

A properly modeled P-38 will be the best all around fighter of the 3.

 

The problems that plagued the ETO P-38 don't matter online. (Cold, engine reliability, etc)

 

Complexity of operation won't intimidate anyone online.

 

It accelerates better than any other American fighter. Its dive acceleration was the reason it was so dangerous. It entered critical mach very quickly.

 

It has better slow speed performance than the other two, especially with the maneuver flap. Its power on stall speeds are extremely low and it has no torque to worry about (Not that torque is modeled at real world levels but at least IL2 has some.)

 

Its major flaw is roll rate but few know how to effectively exploit that. I am hoping boosted aileron version is modeled as well.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

The P-38 is a large, easy to spot target. Try the Bf-110 on Berloga. You can take it from the 1 vs 1 start places and fly over. You'll happily use the I-16 after that.

[Ehret]

18 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Speed is everything here, and it is worth noting that both the 190D and the 109K are quick planes. And they are powerfull enough to position themselves in time. From a good situation they can force an intercept on all Allied planes.

 

IMHO, no... even if we will get the "100% wehraboo" edition the turbos will be relatively safe at 40K ft. Yes of course this is not, should not be, a total Earth orbiting sim, but who knows...

[Talon_]

The P-38 is a lame duck, even moreso without the 150 octane fuel of the 8th Air Force. Sorry @=475FG=DAWGER

[Ehret]

17 minutes ago, =475FG=DAWGER said:

Complexity of operation won't intimidate anyone online.

 

It does... Quite often I can give a (very) helpful hints to fellow P-39 flyers because of all complexities of getting the Airacobra to perform. That's one of reasons why Axis fighters are so popular; they have quirks too but one can stick to throttle control only without any downsides in them.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Ehret

[Bremspropeller]

35 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Speed is everything here, and it is worth noting that both the 190D and the 109K are quick planes. And they are powerfull enough to position themselves in time. From a good situation they can force an intercept on all Allied planes. The 109's downside of being severely restricted in controls compared to the 190 is not that tragic in this sense. It just becomes apparent if you do it wrong and start to mix it with fast Allied planes that the plane has outgrown its feathers.

 

The biggest issue in game vs history is that there won't be a full set of CAPs hanging above or close by your airfield.

 

The 109 has a relatively slow cruise, which could make it vulnerable against bounces. When flown faster, it should have issues with enduance - especially when a couple of liters IRL were always held for diverting to other airfields if there was too tight of a fighter blanket above the own field.

 

38 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The least in the book can be taken as the de facto situation, but it is telltale about how the situation was handled.

 

You mean Priller's book or Urbanke's book? In Urbanke's book there are several anecdotes about hairy situations, belly-landings and other stuff.

[ZachariasX]

Prillers book that I linked above.

 

I do agree that high up, the Allied planes that we are getting with BoBP do indeed have the edge on the German planes.

 

Endurance is an issue, especially with the 109. It appears that this plane was hardly flown anymore at an economical cruise, but much rather at 550+ kmh, giving it very, very short legs.

 

I gather from Prillers book that combat at 6000 meters or so was basically only done in case of intercepting bombers while trying to evade fighter cover. But as Allied ülanes were stacked throughout the altitudes, what they did is cruise at that height and look out for victims below, dive upon them and then home. Any situation not permitting such called for discretion.

 

The less sucessful way of doing it was letting ground ground control vector you (although usually in higher numbers) into the fray at low level. This was when 6 or 8 Tempests were running into 30+ Germans (best case for the Germans). Less good when half of 2TAF found a way to join the circus. Still, until the very last days German fighters were strafing mechanized colums very much like 2TAF or the 9th AF.

[Ehret]

59 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The 109 has a relatively slow cruise, which could make it vulnerable against bounces. When flown faster, it should have issues with enduance - especially when a couple of liters IRL were always held for diverting to other airfields if there was too tight of a fighter blanket above the own field.

 

In the game the slow cruise is for the P-40; the "relatively slow cruise" for the P-39, only. For 109s/190s 30m of combat power is often long enough to fly whole sorties in the MP. That's well over 500km/h of cruising speeds for (almost) every 109. Many Soviet planes are kinda ridiculous too in that regard.

Edited October 31, 2018 by Ehret

[ZachariasX]

I would say that fuel management is not all perfect yet for peeps that like to nitpick about such.

 

In the Typoon AFAIR the difference in fuel consumption between cruise and full speed was a whopping increase from 1 to 3 gallons per minute. On the other hand speed gain between the two settings was marginal (as in the Tempest). This was putting pilots of the outward position in great peril in unexpected turns of the formation, as it took a great long time to catch up with the formation. In that period they were alone and easy prey for German fighters lurking above. Typhoons running out of gas because of that after landing while taxiing to the hangars were frequent.

[Bremspropeller]

5 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Prillers book that I linked above. 

 

Ok, there's a homework-assignment for you: Write a letter to Santa that says "I want that book by Axel Urbanke" :)

You'll like it - guaranteed! Make sure you get the german version - it doesn't have the profiles, but there's more side-anecdotes that AFAIK aren't featured in the english version.

 

Priller's book is very interesting, but you can see that some old wives' tales are in there on some pages.

Its compeling because of it's timely writing after the war (Priller died in 1961 and IIRC didn't see the book finished). My copy is the 4th print from 1980.

 

13 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

The less sucessful way of doing it was letting ground ground control vector you (although usually in higher numbers) into the fray at low level. This was when 6 or 8 Tempests were running into 30+ Germans (best case for the Germans). Less good when half of 2TAF found a way to join the circus. Still, until the very last days German fighters were strafing mechanized colums very much like 2TAF or the 9th AF.

 

The "Black day of the Greenhearts" was one of such instances. They were vectored to some arbituary "Viermots" and were exposing themselves right below several flights of Spitfires.

They just got slaughtered because nobody dared to disobey the orders of Primadonna (GCI-station callsign).

 

13 minutes ago, Ehret said:

In the game the slow cruise is for the P-40; the "relatively slow cruise" for the P-39, only. For 109s/190s 30m of combat power is often long enough to fly whole sorties in the MP. That's well over 500km/h of cruising speeds for (almost) every 109. Many Soviet planes are kinda ridiculous too in that regard.

 

That's because people fly the airplane wrongly and because there's no incentive in flying correctly.

IRL, if you're hotdogging around at high power-settigs on the way to the action, you're out of gas quickly, and there's no firewalling the throttle and running for home on the way back.

 

[ZachariasX]

4 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Ok, there's a homework-assignment for you: Write a letter to Santa that says "I want that book by Axel Urbanke" 

Noted! ?

[IckyATLAS]

Best of all is the P51D Mustang.  What else?

 

 

[Ehret]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

That's because people fly the airplane wrongly and because there's no incentive in flying correctly.

IRL, if you're hotdogging around at high power-settigs on the way to the action, you're out of gas quickly, and there's no firewalling the throttle and running for home on the way back.

 

And yet... this is not enough of advantage for some. Many Axis flyers give a c**p about backward awareness even if they have it easy in the 190. I'm not sure if I don't like that, thought.

[ShamrockOneFive]

14 hours ago, Legioneod said:

  

Dogfight doesn't always mean to just turn and burn, that's an antiquated definition. Dog-fighter/fighter basically mean the same thing, especially in modern terminology. That being said, just replace the word dogfighter with fighter and you'll get what I meant. 

 

The P-51 will still be the best overall fighter in the allied plane-set imo, but not necessarily the best at all altitudes. The P-47 will be better up high for example, but the P-51 still possesses the ability to handle itself at all altitudes quite well. 

Not true in the slightest, I've had more than a few fights around and above 20kft.

Germans love to fly high for some reason and let their team lose, but I guess I was doing the same thing.

 

I wasn't sure what definition you were using

 

The biggest problem I have with the Mustang has to do with its legendary reputation. It earned it, to be sure, but it has evolved into a kind of super fighter (for some people) which means that when it reaches a flight sim people tend to get angry about how well it performs.

 

Don't get me wrong, the Mustang was and remains a favourite of mine and an aircraft I find immensely interesting and that I've spent a lot of time reading about. Pretty excited to fly it again. I just hope people can learn the full story of the Mustang, not get too hyped, and not be disappointed.

[Ehret]

21 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The biggest problem I have with the Mustang has to do with its legendary reputation. It earned it, to be sure, but it has evolved into a kind of super fighter (for some people) which means that when it reaches a flight sim people tend to get angry about how well it performs.

 

Simulators we had so far are kind of responsible for that, imho.

Air combat isn't only about fighters performance, yet the sims we had focus heavily exactly on that - ephemeral engagements - "the air-quake". It could be that the incoming air-marshal functionality will provide much more depth and value than any new air-frame, or map, ever will.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Its the players themselves too - they want air combat more than mud moving. They want short flight distances. They dont want to die to flak traps or fly in bad weather. Many dont care if they return to base or not, at all. Theres exceptions(right now mostly TAW) where qualities not directly helping in air combat are also valued but its true that game or flight sim will always be different environment to real war, thus the many areas of performance for the planes are valued slightly differently.

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The biggest problem I have with the Mustang has to do with its legendary reputation.

The alternative to a Mustang over Berlin was no plane over Berlin. Compared to nothing everything is legendary.

 

Also the Mustang had his supercharger set to his „working altitude“ defending bombers. Having most likely the most efficient airframe and thus being one if the fastest fighters, you have the ideal shepherd for your bombers. In terms of force projection on the battlefield it is indeed a gamechanger. Same as the Tempest gave the 2TAF more options in contrast to the Spit XIV that was mainly an improvement of the options already at hands.

 

It is just silly translating that into the ability to outperform anything in the sky at any time.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Another problem is the general purpose of the aircraft in the real world.

 

The Germans and the Brits as well, tended to build short range, point interceptor types that excelled at controlling limited, areas of airspace.  The US's later aircraft were designed to contend with a multi front war that literally spanned the globe, in essence we built strategic fighters, while the Luftwaffe built tactical ones.  Only the Japanese on the Axis side has an understanding of force projection well beyond the borders of their homeland.

 

Which type works better in the small, artificial confines of a video game environment?  If you said the tactical fighters, you are the winner of today's quiz.  Hence, the German birds have been the overwhelming choice of video gamers from the outset of combat flight simulation.

 

if you want to win a war in the real world the US types reign supreme, if you just want to "win the map" in a video game, the German types have the advantage.

Edited November 1, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL