PDA

View Full Version : 109 vs p51



GH_Klingstroem
08-21-2004, 05:43 AM
Im currently reading a book called "tumult among the clouds" (again!) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif anyway in that book the pilot of a p51 says that avoided to trn with the 109 down low because the 109 would outturn them close to the ground, while at higher altitudes there was alsmost no diffrense between the 109 and the p51. sometimes even 190s managed to gain on him in turnfights... anyway, yesterday I was flying a 109G2, one of the best german turnfighters. I BnZ a p51D on the deck but made a mistake and ended up in a turnfight just above the ground. But I couldnt gain on him . we just circeled and circeled both of us, and none of us could get on the other ones six. we did this for 2 minutes or something before a Spit joined and I had to escape... asnyway, should the p51 be ablt to turn with a G2 on the deck?! Cheers all!

GH_Klingstroem
08-21-2004, 05:43 AM
Im currently reading a book called "tumult among the clouds" (again!) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif anyway in that book the pilot of a p51 says that avoided to trn with the 109 down low because the 109 would outturn them close to the ground, while at higher altitudes there was alsmost no diffrense between the 109 and the p51. sometimes even 190s managed to gain on him in turnfights... anyway, yesterday I was flying a 109G2, one of the best german turnfighters. I BnZ a p51D on the deck but made a mistake and ended up in a turnfight just above the ground. But I couldnt gain on him . we just circeled and circeled both of us, and none of us could get on the other ones six. we did this for 2 minutes or something before a Spit joined and I had to escape... asnyway, should the p51 be ablt to turn with a G2 on the deck?! Cheers all!

carguy_
08-21-2004, 05:59 AM
Yes,109 outturns P51 on the deck.P51 is more than even fight above 5000m where ,I got the feeling,p51 can keep more energy than 109 which is superb in dumping energy.I have been outturned by the Mustang too but I`m pretty sure he had landing flaps whereas I was afraid of jamming and went for takeoff flaps.That makes sense cuz as soon as he put few rounds into me he fell behind having worse acceleration.

Don`t mess up high with P51 unless you`re sure of the advantage.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 06:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
asnyway, should the p51 be ablt to turn with a G2 on the deck?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no way in hell

.

the Mustang in FB v2.01 will beat the LA-7 in either a full circle level turn or a 180 degree level turn

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maple_Tiger
08-21-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Im currently reading a book called "tumult among the clouds" (again!) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif anyway in that book the pilot of a p51 says that avoided to trn with the 109 down low because the 109 would outturn them close to the ground, while at higher altitudes there was alsmost no diffrense between the 109 and the p51. sometimes even 190s managed to gain on him in turnfights... anyway, yesterday I was flying a 109G2, one of the best german turnfighters. I BnZ a p51D on the deck but made a mistake and ended up in a turnfight just above the ground. But I couldnt gain on him . we just circeled and circeled both of us, and none of us could get on the other ones six. we did this for 2 minutes or something before a Spit joined and I had to escape... asnyway, should the p51 be ablt to turn with a G2 on the deck?! Cheers all!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



You were out turned by a better pilot, simple as that.

Sustained Turn on the deck...about 50m

G-2...50% fuel

220Km/h IAS Combat flaps
200Km/h IAS Take Off flaps
170Km/h IAS Landing flaps

P-51D-20NA...25% fuel

230Km/h IAS CF
220Km/h IAS TF
190Km/h IAS LF

G6/AS...50% fuel

200Km/h IAS CF
200kim/h AIS TF
170KM/h IAS LF

G-10...50% fuel

230km/h IAS CF
200KM/h IAS TF
180km/h IAS LF



Conclusion, Learn to fly! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Sat August 21 2004 at 06:22 AM.]

GH_Klingstroem
08-21-2004, 07:14 AM
so the p51s turn capabilties are too good?!? do we know if this is going to be fixed?! because my 109g2 was on the edge to stall in this turn and i had combat flaps out and but he still gained on me... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Maple_Tiger
08-21-2004, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
asnyway, should the p51 be ablt to turn with a G2 on the deck?!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no way in hell

.

the Mustang in FB v2.01 will beat the LA-7 in either a full circle level turn or a 180 degree level turn

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


La7 is a very powerful plane. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Try reducing throttle http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

Maple_Tiger
08-21-2004, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
so the p51s turn capabilties are too good?!? do we know if this is going to be fixed?! because my 109g2 was on the edge to stall in this turn and i had combat flaps out and but he still gained on me... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol,

If he used landing flaps, Wich is what i do sometimes, then he will gain on you. I should say, turn inside you, because he is going slower...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

GH_Klingstroem
08-21-2004, 07:37 AM
yes might be, but I really doubt that any fighter would extend to landing flaps in a dogfight... thats not even close to reality! they create so much drag that u will stall unless you keep ur nose down to keep speed up! bad idea at ground level. Landing flaps increase lift, sure they do, but at that amount of flap, the drag by far exeeds the lift, so using them is for landing, to decrese speed and brake... like a spoiler...

LuftLuver
08-21-2004, 07:52 AM
GH_Klingstroem:

We don't know the respective energy states, positioning or most importantly skill levels of you and your opponent. So you got outflown by a dude in an undermodeled airplane.

But please, do come into these forums and whine about it. Yes, let's badger Oleg into continually falsely boosting 109 performance with each patch. The heck with history or the fact that the 109 was NOT a turner. We've got them turning with Yaks now, why stop here.

The 109 is so arcade now it's pathetic. You lufts will never, ever be satisfied.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://members.cox.net/kinetic/SigImages/tonystewartchevy.jpg
"All your road courses are belong to us."

robban75
08-21-2004, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Lol,

If he used landing flaps, Wich is what i do sometimes, then he will gain on you. I should say, turn inside you, because he is going slower
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be blind Maple Tiger, the Mustang turns too well at low speeds. The Mustang was comparable to the Fw 190D-9 in the turn.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-21-2004, 08:22 AM
hmm

what versoin of the P51 was it ?
B, C or D ?

and i agree P51 turns verry good at low speed.
A P51 can raise her nose even at 160kph to get a deflection, the 109 can this maybe (i think they cant) but the 190 will stall... (even the D9)

this game is suprisingly close to reality... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/other%20Stuff/we%20rule%20your%20world3.jpg (http://www.hell-hounds.de)

F19_Olli72
08-21-2004, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
yes might be, but I really doubt that any fighter would extend to landing flaps in a dogfight... thats not even close to reality! they create so much drag that u will stall unless you keep ur nose down to keep speed up! bad idea at ground level. Landing flaps increase lift, sure they do, but at that amount of flap, the drag by far exeeds the lift, so using them is for landing, to decrese speed and brake... like a spoiler...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emil Clade says in the documentary "Wings of the Luftwaffe - Marseille" that he (Marseille) used landing flaps when engaging enemies in a Lufbery (sp?) circle. He flew in from below and had to fly slow and at the same time turn tightly.

Some ppl call me n00bie cos i want to turn in the 109....does that mean Marseille was a n00b too? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://img70.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Olli72/Forgotten%20Battles/screenshotart/SIG_G50.jpg (http://www.screenshotart.com)
My FB wallpapers (http://olli.eokonline.com/wallpaperpack.zip)

KGr.HH-Sunburst
08-21-2004, 08:57 AM
yes black we did that nice little test
P51 vs D9 and the P51 is a very good low speed fighter in FB even on 100% fuel it is flying circles around a D9 when in a turnfights
anywhere below 450kph

the P51 can turn with any 109 in low speed sustained turnfights if teh P51 is on 25% fuel
and the 109 is higher as 25% fuel wich is 99% the case

and this thing about being outflown is only partly true because nomatter how good the pilot is you can never fly an airplane better then its limits i.e turn,aoa topspeed,climb,roll etc....
and even if your an average pilot you almost always know when you push the plane to its turn limits and if i have to believe the story from
klingstroem he does know where the limits of his G2 are http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/FW190A6sigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

GH_Klingstroem
08-21-2004, 09:12 AM
I am a quite good pilot online. I mostly fly the 190 tho... I fly commercial traffic in real life... but i thougt that since the p51 has a relativly high winloading escpecially compared to the G2 (oh this was the D version o p51, with even higher wingloading than the other p51s) and plus the fact that it has a laminar flow wing would make her very hard to fly at High angle of attack so how can she stay in the turn with me?!? doesnt the 109 have a higher power to weight ratio that the p51 as well?! which should make the 109g2 be able to hang on its prop more so than the p51D?!(could be wrong tho) Most people in here seem to agree that the p51D turns very well at low alt which wasnt the case in real life... so I cant be way off here!

and for you Luftluver: I dunno whats wrong in ur head. Im not whining, im asking a question here!! If I wanted Oleg to read it I would post it in his forum right! its people like you that have ruined this forum by as soon as anyone is asking a question or is unsure about something, you call it whining! and by the way, the 109g2 is the plane in this game closest to its real life performances according to those who know their stuff and compare charts in here... Go back to school!

GH_Klingstroem
08-21-2004, 09:17 AM
oh and for f19Olli, thats intresting to know about him using landing flaps! But I can assure you that it wasnt at ground level, because u lose alt very rapidly when using them in real life anyway. As I said, they work more as a brake than a lift devise so u will need to point ur nose down all the time. Its like turning with a 190 without losing speed, ie point nose down at the same time... So, very bad idea at 20m of alt! cheers

Kwiatos
08-21-2004, 10:21 AM
These topic was explored many times before without any results. Oleg dont want to change some thing because he afraid milion of whiners - Americanwhiners, Russianwhiners, Thailandwhiners, Luftwhiners, etc. Who will buy his game if his plane wasn't be like dream lol

F19_Ob
08-21-2004, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
oh and for f19Olli, thats intresting to know about him using landing flaps! But I can assure you that it wasnt at ground level, because u lose alt very rapidly when using them in real life anyway. As I said, they work more as a brake than a lift devise so u will need to point ur nose down all the time. Its like turning with a 190 without losing speed, ie point nose down at the same time... So, very bad idea at 20m of alt! cheers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hi there GH_Klingstroem http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

One thing about the flaps close to ground is as u pointed out, loss of speed. To lose speed rapidly can save your skin sometimes, especially against a p51.
A trick I use, if I for some reason have ended up with a bandit on my tail on the deck, is to try to force an overshoot by throttling down while starting a scissor with combat flaps enabled.
Sometimes , if nescessarry or if an opportunity presents itself, I make a hard diagonal brake and enable landingflaps (to have maximum lift in zero speed). After that I push stick hard forward, often the bandit ends up in frontsector, especially p51.

At this low speed I now have the advantage since I accellerate faster and have gentler stall. If I flip I may recover. If the p51 flips he likely wont have enough alt to recover.

--------------------------------------------

Mark Hanna, Who flew spits ,P51's and bf109 amongst others before his death, said that The p51 would be at a disadvantage in slowspeed maneuvers on low altitude.

A quote from him in the article on this site( scroll down to M.Hanna):
http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html

"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem."

This oppinion corresponds well with what I've read so far.



Anyway.... the article is a good read.

cheers

LeadSpitter_
08-21-2004, 10:50 AM
this post cant be serious, all 109s can out turn the p40 spit p51 at speeds under 670kmph but above that only the mustang has the better hand.

I will be happy to show you any time on HL under :leadspitter:

not us or british aircraft is a match for 109s at all unless jumped or severly outnumbered becuase of the 109s accelaration and trottle back speeds which are wrong. IF you guys have not notice the p51 in 2.04 with 25 fuel has the climb and dive speed of a fully fueled mustang in reality, also there is very tiny difference in 25-100 fuel now 185 gallons but you notice an enormus advantange in 109s with 25-50 fuel, makes no sense that the blackout levels etc.

Basically you have to fly the p51 like the 190 bnz not like a 109 where you can bnz and turn fight and come out at an advantage. The p51 is extremely slow accelaration and has a very bad climb to the 109 and DOES IN GAME but once you get your speed up you can maintain it with lower pitch settings

I think robban is compairing fully fueled with two 85 droptanks compaired to the 190d "Operational Status" results of real aircraft. I also agree with him that the 190s int his game have marshemellow elevators and need to be corrected. They are the same design as the mustang and me262 elevator design long thin elevators ment for good high and low speed handling, not experiencing stiffer stick pressures at higher speeds like the C elevator design known by naca

just becuase you get killed by a plane people shouldnt go saying it turns better then a 109g2.

US/BRIT complete underdog to all luft aircraft. ac in dm gun strenght accelaration manueverability below 7000m and yes somethings wrong with the ta152 and dora vs the spit high alt we all know it and know it should be fixed

Then the luft are complete underdogs to the russian ac in dm gun strenght accelaration manueverability cough super dms like the lagg3 yak and la which eat up more ammo then a p47 online. 20mm and 108 cannon. The weakest damage models in game are the 109 p38 and p51 the later models like the g14 k4 take more damage then the p38 all times its very odd.

Also test the same ammo vs the same plane type then against the others

The main problem is the 109s super deceleration which is completely wrong, that is why oleg made the spit turn faster and not overheat but now the spitfire is out turning the p40 hurricane and zero. I think this was done so it has a chance vs 109s as before they were nothing but dog meat they still are but have an advantage up high now which is way to uber.

They need to fix the 109 decelearation, it should be able to decelarate faster then most planes but not like its carrying a drag parachute especially in max dives.

But then the german a/c will stand no chance against the super russian dms guns dive and climb a/c even over 5000m they seem to hold the advantage in the original at least russian ac broke up at 650kmph where a german ac can out dive them. Not anymore i dunno why it was changed.

Everyone of you who say the mustang does turn to well low alt flies the 109s in the post try flying and learning all planes and its ridiculous your postings. Youa re the same people saying this game was better without us aircraft. Why do people bash the mustang in this game so much yet.

why arent you compalining about the wings shedding at 540kmph in a slow turn why arent you complaining about the mustangs blackout levels compaired to russian and german ac????

the p63 is alot better then the p51 why not ***** about that becuase not many people fly them and its the only plane that can catch the ta152 and dora. The only time a mustang can catch one is if its speed is up and diving down on one.

talk to
jv44 very good 190 pilots just fly german
c6 squad very good in all 109s and just fly them and german
llv34 great in all aircraft
hertzer squad very good german pilots
AFJ good in all aircraft
f16 good in all aircraft
jimmygiro excellent in all aircraft
=fb= squad excellent in all aircraft

talk to the people who fly all aircraft and know all planes advantages and disadvantages in game as well as any other and do not fly for one side only.

its very rare to find squads who know all aircraft types.

Most just fly thier favorite side and that is it and massively whine about acs killing them.



http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Sat August 21 2004 at 10:17 AM.]

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Sat August 21 2004 at 10:28 AM.]

Kwiatos
08-21-2004, 11:24 AM
i know that p-51 is too good in slow speed combat because i fly P-51, i know that G-2 is too good in turn compare to F-4 and Spitfire MKV because i fly G-2, i know that La5 is overmodeled in turn because i fly it and could otturn Bf G-2, i know that Spitfire IX is too fast at high alt and have too good zoom climb because i test it. But there are people who only knows that their favourit plane is to weak or their enemy plane is to good.

carguy_
08-21-2004, 11:30 AM
Calm down Leadspitter,I`m unhappy for RAF/USAAF to be in this game but I have absolutely no problems with their performace.My **** has been kicked miltiple times by P51 and P47 drivers who knew their stuff.USAAF pilots should know that bringing those planes to low alt(lower than 3000m) means being outperformed by Me109.FW190 is different,I can`t believe when I see a FW winning a 1v1 fight with USAAF planes be it low or high alt.

Ppl like to fight USAAF cuz they have their flaws and there`s always a way to beat`em unlike the Spit which imo is unbeatable when flown by equally skilled pilot.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Red_Russian13
08-21-2004, 11:32 AM
I love you guys, but seriously, I think sometimes we get a little carried away with all the BS in here.

Red Russian

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/Red_Russian13/RedRussian.jpg

LeadSpitter_
08-21-2004, 11:49 AM
so kwiatos if you think the mustang turns to good low level what about the p47? I dont get this never ending quest from the luftwaffers to make the p51 an udderly useless aircraft it already has 4 major flaws modeled.

early blackout levels and longer then any other aircraft they do not disapear by forward stick movement like all the other a/c

Wing snapping off at speeds as low as 540kmph in hardest possible turn

Weakest Damage Model In game

Slowest accelaration like its fully fueled carrying drop tanks and this is with 25 fuel

it cannot reach its level flight speeds and this is with 25 fuel. Show me a track of the p-51d reaching the speeds it should real life in level flight speeds converted to mph from the TAS times 1000m 3000m 6000m 10000m and yes im familiar with IAS vs TAS.

Yes I do agree its elevator is too effective but so are all aother aircraft which are turning faster then il2 sturmoviks ac ever did with trim on a slider. The slow down trim but make all ac without trim turn better then they ever did with trim on a slider in the original il2 sturmovik.

bah f this useless to discuss with you people,

let oleg do his interpretation of what he feels it should be and he shouldnt let anything the community says influence his opinions ever again its his sim and hes going to do as he feels not subject to change from whines and complaints.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

OldMan____
08-21-2004, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Calm down Leadspitter,I`m unhappy for RAF/USAAF to be in this game but I have absolutely no problems with their performace.My **** has been kicked miltiple times by P51 and P47 drivers who knew their stuff.USAAF pilots should know that bringing those planes to low alt(lower than 3000m) means being outperformed by Me109.FW190 is different,I can`t believe when I see a FW winning a 1v1 fight with USAAF planes be it low or high alt.

Ppl like to fight USAAF cuz they have their flaws and there`s always a way to beat`em unlike the Spit which imo is unbeatable when flown by equally skilled pilot.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dont agree.. I (190 pilot) find easier to defeat an spitfire than a p51D At least I can outmaneuver a Spitfire above 450-500 km/h.. P51 is constantly better turner than me. Of course Spit has more over flaws.. but this one in the P51 is totally out of place. It make sit capable of an style of fight that it was not capable in RL.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

LeadSpitter_
08-21-2004, 12:27 PM
your crazy if you think the mustang is a better turner then the spitfire in game theres absolutly no f*n way the spit is alot faster to at alt in manual then the stang 5000-7000m and it can turn inside the stang with no problems and without the early b/o the spit out turns the p39 p63 p47 p51 p40 hurricane with ease and the 109s out turn the spit with ease under 560kmph

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

KaRaYa-X
08-21-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
P51 - Weakest Damage Model In game
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you really sure about that? I was making some tests lately because I was so surprised of how many 20/30mm hits a P51 was able to take online...

So I started of with a Bf109G6/AS,K4 against a friendly P51D (no ammo)...
As it was a friendly plane it didnt try to break away from my attacks.

Heavy MG test (MG131):
First of all I got on its six and fired a direct burst on its belly (especially where the cooler is)... after more than a 1,5 - 2sec burst it only had some scratch textures under the belly and it produced a very light and thin trail of smoke - whereas even a handful of rifle caliber rounds would have stopped the engine in real life!

Cannon tests (MG151/20 and Mk108):
Same arrangement... I pounced it from the upper left corner and fired a 1 sec burst of 30mm at its fuselage... It took at least 5 hits without going down. The 6th or 7th hit then made it explode. Hits to the wing were also pretty weak -- After one hit there were very small scratch marks. After 3 further hits it still had the scratches but still managed to fly. The 4th or 5th hit then finally ripped the wing off.

These are average results (sometimes it took more - sometimes less)

When using the 20mm it logically took more hits to down the P51 but still it could take a lot more than lets say a Bf109 or a Spitfire (both planes of comparable size and weight)

I can't comment on the P51s flight performance because I only rarely fly it off/online but as far as DM is concerned it seems that the P51 is a pretty strong machine...


and about the blackout-thing: IIRC there was a test made by somebody on the forums with the DEVICELINK programm to see if all planes have the same Black/Redout modelling... The result was that all planes are treated the same --- However you'll blackout much faster in a Stang because it just has the best high-speed handling in FB/ACES.

--= flying online as JG&lt;52Karaya-X =--

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 02:59 PM
Robban,

The Mustang probably does handle too well at very low speeds, but it should outturn the D-9 at any speed.

Even with a full fuselage tank and 269 gallons of internal fuel, the P-51D's wing loading is 43.74 lbs/ft at 10,200 lbs compared to the D-9's 47.93 lbs/sq ft at 9442 lbs. At a fighter loadout of 9643 lbs, still carrying more fuel than the Dora (184 gal v. 167), the P-51D's wingloading drops to 41.35 lbs/sq ft. At the FB online standard of 25% fuel the Mustang's wingloading drops to 38.59. The P-51B/C's wingloading is only 36.88 lbs/sq ft at 25% fuel.

At all but the most massive internal fuel loads, the P-51D's wingloading equals or betters a late 109's wingloading. The Mustang's ability to drop combat flaps from the stall up to 400 mph cannot be discounted either.

BTW Robban, I got to spend a couple of hours with 'Gelbe 10' last month- I'm smitten! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:

Don't be blind Maple Tiger, the Mustang turns too well at low speeds. The Mustang was comparable to the Fw 190D-9 in the turn.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple_Tiger
08-21-2004, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Lol,

If he used landing flaps, Wich is what i do sometimes, then he will gain on you. I should say, turn inside you, because he is going slower
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be blind Maple Tiger, the Mustang turns too well at low speeds. The Mustang was comparable to the Fw 190D-9 in the turn.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Coming from an FW whiner,

i'm not surprised.. Lmao.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

Maple_Tiger
08-21-2004, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
hmm

what versoin of the P51 was it ?
B, C or D ?

and i agree P51 turns verry good at low speed.
A P51 can raise her nose even at 160kph to get a deflection, the 109 can this maybe (i think they cant) but the 190 will stall... (even the D9)

this game is suprisingly close to reality... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


coming from another Luftwhiner...

I guess i should not be surprised. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

Maple_Tiger
08-21-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
I am a quite good pilot online. I mostly fly the 190 tho... I fly commercial traffic in real life... but i thougt that since the p51 has a relativly high winloading escpecially compared to the G2 (oh this was the D version o p51, with even higher wingloading than the other p51s) and plus the fact that it has a laminar flow wing would make her very hard to fly at High angle of attack so how can she stay in the turn with me?!? doesnt the 109 have a higher power to weight ratio that the p51 as well?! which should make the 109g2 be able to hang on its prop more so than the p51D?!(could be wrong tho) Most people in here seem to agree that the p51D turns very well at low alt which wasnt the case in real life... so I cant be way off here!

and for you Luftluver: I dunno whats wrong in ur head. Im not whining, im asking a question here!! If I wanted Oleg to read it I would post it in his forum right! its people like you that have ruined this forum by as soon as anyone is asking a question or is unsure about something, you call it whining! and by the way, the 109g2 is the plane in this game closest to its real life performances according to those who know their stuff and compare charts in here... Go back to school!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actualy,


The P-51 with only 25% fuel has lower wing loading then the FW190 and BF109.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

Maple_Tiger
08-21-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
oh and for f19Olli, thats intresting to know about him using landing flaps! But I can assure you that it wasnt at ground level, because u lose alt very rapidly when using them in real life anyway. As I said, they work more as a brake than a lift devise so u will need to point ur nose down all the time. Its like turning with a 190 without losing speed, ie point nose down at the same time... So, very bad idea at 20m of alt! cheers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Mayby you should ask Oleg to remove the landing flaps from the P-51. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

robban75
08-21-2004, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Robban,

The Mustang probably does handle too well at very low speeds, but it should outturn the D-9 at any speed.

Even with a full fuselage tank and 269 gallons of internal fuel, the P-51D's wing loading is 43.74 lbs/ft at 10,200 lbs compared to the D-9's 47.93 lbs/sq ft at 9442 lbs. At a fighter loadout of 9643 lbs, still carrying more fuel than the Dora (184 gal v. 167), the P-51D's wingloading drops to 41.35 lbs/sq ft. At the FB online standard of 25% fuel the Mustang's wingloading drops to 38.59. The P-51B/C's wingloading is only 36.88 lbs/sq ft at 25% fuel.

At all but the most massive internal fuel loads, the P-51D's wingloading equals or betters a late 109's wingloading. The Mustang's ability to drop combat flaps from the stall up to 400 mph cannot be discounted either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not all about wingloading. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The D-9 was almost equal to the P-51 in the turn, according to the pilots that flew it at least. Even Chuck Yeager thought of the D-9 as being the most impressive piston engined fighter he ever tested from the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW Robban, I got to spend a couple of hours with 'Gelbe 10' last month- I'm smitten! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooh, you are a lucky one! Did you take any pictures, and if you did, could you post them here? Someday I'll see her with my own eyes, someday! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sat August 21 2004 at 02:46 PM.]

robban75
08-21-2004, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Coming from an FW whiner,

i'm not surprised.. Lmao.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't you do some actuall testing and comparisons instead of throwing around the word "luftwhiner" when someone doesn't agree with you! Sheesh! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

KGr.HH-Sunburst
08-21-2004, 03:47 PM
so wing loading is the only important thing in a turn fight?
all the rest doesnt matter ?
how about power to weight ratio?
does that matters anything ? no?
why dont you consider that aswell mr amiwhiner ?

and give me some data or docs about a fully loaded P51D vs a D9 with 100% fuel that the P51 is still a better turner
oh well i guess they left out the instability problems with a fully loaded stang in combat ,maybe engine limitations?. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but anyway if this is all true than that makes the stang a pretty damn good turnfighter in FB when kept historical plansets

oh LS where can we meet ? 109 outturning a spit in 2.04? are you on drugs or just trolling? and your even saying with EASE ? damn could you teach me how to do it?

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/FW190A6sigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

MEGILE
08-21-2004, 04:00 PM
LS is an uber-G2 pilot, he makes that thing turn like trim-on-a-slider actually worked http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51lightj.jpg

"Notice how much larger the HL installed file is; this is because it contains powerful commands used on your machine via remote control" - Galen Thurber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
I am a quite good pilot online. I mostly fly the 190 tho... I fly commercial traffic in real life... but i thougt that since the p51 has a relativly high winloading escpecially compared to the G2 (oh this was the D version o p51, with even higher wingloading than the other p51s) and plus the fact that it has a laminar flow wing would make her very hard to fly at High angle of attack so how can she stay in the turn with me?!? doesnt the 109 have a higher power to weight ratio that the p51 as well?! which should make the 109g2 be able to hang on its prop more so than the p51D?!(could be wrong tho) Most people in here seem to agree that the p51D turns very well at low alt which wasnt the case in real life... so I cant be way off here!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the mustang fans dont like to talk about how overmoddeled the Mustang is in FB

instead they either attack the people posting about it , or attack the planes you use against it , or try to talk about its RL combat record

or unbelieveably , they try & say it should even be more overmoddeled than it already is

& even more unbelieveably , they complain that its not as good in FB as it was in RL

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
this post cant be serious, all 109s can out turn the p40 spit p51 at speeds under 670kmph .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in a controlled serious test that wont happen

the mustang holds better turn times untill you are hanging on your prop under 240 KmH

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
US/BRIT complete underdog to all luft aircraft. ac in dm gun strenght accelaration manueverability below 7000m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

come on Lead the german gun DM is porked , the best A2A gun in FB is the british 20mm

the best motor killers & Pilot Killer gun in FB is the M2 fifty cal

no Bf109s can hang with the Spitfire in E performance.

tests show different results than just DFing in DF rooms , like you out turning a Zero in a Spitfire ,........ the Spitfire isnt the tighter turner
.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xnomad
08-21-2004, 04:16 PM
The P-51 can definitley fly a lot better at low speed than it should, I think I'm quite good with the Bf 109 and certainly can fly most of them to their limits. Lately I have noticed that I have trouble out scissoring the P-51 and that he often gets his nose behind me, then I turn tighter and he's behind me again. This is using combat flaps too!

Once I was on HL and the P-51 brought the fight down slow, I was rubbing my hands thinking he's slowed this fight down (what a noobie) I'm going to get him, well he managed to outscissor me then got a lucky shot in and there went my elevator. That really got me angry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I've been flying the P-51 too and my god the only wrong I could do was fly too fast and turn so the wing would fall off, but it was a beauty in the slow fight and in the high speed fight.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Why do people bash the mustang in this game so much yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cause its low speed turning performance is a joke & waaay overboosted


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
why arent you compalining about the wings shedding at 540kmph in a slow turn why arent you complaining about the mustangs blackout levels compaired to russian and german ac????
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

people are saying they are reaching the over-G limit without blacking out , they are pulling higher G than any other plane can before they blackout

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xnomad
08-21-2004, 04:31 PM
I don't understand why the P-51 lovers are so worried about the slow speed turns being corrected to what they should be.

The P-51 is almost invincible, if you keep the speed up. I was flying around in Warclouds for ages shooting everything in sight. The only things that ever got me was the flak, and one time I was too greedy and finally got shot down. Just keep the Pony fast and you can shoot all the LW boys down as you can come in fast and still turn beautifully. That way you'll never get stuck in the slow Furball where you will get shot down.

Seems like some of you guys want the P-51 to be a Jack of all trades. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif You might have a point that it should be faster, I'm not an expert, and by all means that's fine by me but it shouldn't be turning so well down low and slow.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:


early blackout levels and longer then any other aircraft they do not disapear by forward stick movement like all the other a/c

Wing snapping off at speeds as low as 540kmph in hardest possible turn <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the solution is for the Mustang to have it elevator authority lower

it reaches max G instantly , if your going to fly the Mustang you need to lower your Joystick settings to avoid over-G so eaisly

last time i tested the Mustangs top speed was v2.01

it was less than 4% off its object viewer speed , 685 KmH

all planes (well nearly) overheat reaching their top speeds

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 04:37 PM
Hey Robban,

Yeager said "maybe" the best. He has also said that the P-51 was the finest prop fighter of the war on many occassions! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wingloading isn't everything, but it is a lot. Mustang pilots were confident of their ability to outturn any Fw. However, I'm sure that any turn disadvantage suffered by the Dora was somewhat mitigated by its much better roll below ~350 mph IAS.

I did get a few pictures of the D-13 and will post them. I was a little disappointed by the fact that I couldn't get any shots from the rear quarter. 'Yellow 10' is displayed in a way that doesn't allow 360 deg viewing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Regardless, it is a beautiful restoration of a shockingly beautiful airplane! I wasn't quite prepared for just how attractive it would be in its wartime regalia.

Also, '10' is displayed in the older main display hall- it's not in the new 'Personal Courage' wing which houses the rest of the Champlain collection.

Of the a/c in the new wing, the Me 109E-4, the Ki-43 and Yak-9U were probably my three favorites from the WWII collection. The originals and reproductions (indistinguishable from the restored originals) on the WWI floor were equally as amazing.

The 'Personal Courage' wing is an amazing addition to the Museum of Flight and I can't recommend it enough.





<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:

It's not all about wingloading. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The D-9 was almost equal to the P-51 in the turn, according to the pilots that flew it at least. Even Chuck Yeager thought of the D-9 as being the most impressive piston engined fighter he ever tested from the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW Robban, I got to spend a couple of hours with 'Gelbe 10' last month- I'm smitten! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooh, you are a lucky one! Did you take any pictures, and if you did, could you post them here? Someday I'll see her with my own eyes, someday! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sat August 21 2004 at 02:46 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan____
08-21-2004, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:


early blackout levels and longer then any other aircraft they do not disapear by forward stick movement like all the other a/c

Wing snapping off at speeds as low as 540kmph in hardest possible turn <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the solution is for the Mustang to have it elevator authority lower

it reaches max G instantly , if your going to fly the Mustang you need to lower your Joystick settings to avoid over-G so eaisly

last time i tested the Mustangs top speed was v2.01

it was less than 4% off its object viewer speed , 685 KmH

all planes (well nearly) overheat reaching their top speeds

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

true.. I never reached official max speed in ANY prop plane. Even on Dora I stay at least 10 to 15 km/h slower

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 05:11 PM
Funny, Badsight- aren't you the one that so vociferously claims that the Ki-84 is modeled spot-on?

The only possible way that the P-51 is overmodeled is in its low speed turn ability. Even if that were to be corrected, it would be no where near the pig you would have it be.

The wing problem is a bug. I have only experienced it twice and both times came during gentle pullouts from dives below 700 kph. I think people playing with blackout disabled accounts for the vast majority of occurances. In those cases, it is caused by the highly effective elevators at high speed.


Oh, in case the likes of Badsight and Sunburst are wondering: I also think the K-4's elevators stiffen up way to early and that the 109A's climb is pathetic (I won't even mention the 190's ridiculous forward view or the 109's laughable muzzle flash).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:

the mustang fans dont like to talk about how overmoddeled the Mustang is in FB

instead they either attack the people posting about it , or attack the planes you use against it , or try to talk about its RL combat record

or unbelieveably , they try & say it should even be more overmoddeled than it already is

& even more unbelieveably , they complain that its not as good in FB as it was in RL

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat August 21 2004 at 04:23 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Funny, Badsight- aren't you the one that so vociferously claims that the Ki-84 is modeled spot-on?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you aint never seen me say that

but to think the Mustang was some dominat low alt fighter is rediculos

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 05:24 PM
Yes, I have.

And the P-51 was a *very* capable low altitude fighter- I have never claimed it to be dominant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Funny, Badsight- aren't you the one that so vociferously claims that the Ki-84 is modeled spot-on?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you aint never seen me say that

but to think the Mustang was some dominat low alt fighter is rediculos

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 05:29 PM
you KI whiners have said its speeds was incorrect , it isnt

go look at what i have posted about the Hayates DM you ignoramus

Laminar flow a TnB plane does not make , the Mustang was & is a POS turn fighter . . . . everywhere except FB that is



.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 05:40 PM
Why don't you try and keep the personal invective out of your posts, huh Badsight?

The Ki-84's speed is as wrong as can be. So is its high-speed handling.

The laminar profile wing was so crappy that pretty much every prop fighter design that followed the Mustang featured it. Do you know for a fact that laminar wings turned poorly? The USAAF, the RAF and the Luftwaffe didn't think so. They all thought it turned well, and not just at 400 mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you KI whiners have said its speeds was incorrect , it isnt

go look at what i have posted about the Hayates DM you ignoramus

Laminar flow a TnB plane does not make , the Mustang was & is a POS turn fighter . . . . everywhere except FB that is



.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple_Tiger
08-21-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you KI whiners have said its speeds was incorrect , it isnt

go look at what i have posted about the Hayates DM you ignoramus

Laminar flow a TnB plane does not make , the Mustang was & is a POS turn fighter . . . . everywhere except FB that is



.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yes, Bad sight...

We will take your opinion and the Lufwhiners opinions as fact. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif


Any good BF109 pilot can easly out turn a P-51 at low speeds...

I tested the G-2, G-10, G6AS, and they all out turn the P-51. Just becasue someone in P-51 decides to use take off or landing flaps, doesn't mean the P-51 is too good down low.


I think you guys should learn to fly first, before posting, you might safe yourself some emberessment.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

Xnomad
08-21-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Any good BF109 pilot can easly out turn a P-51 at low speeds...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you can eventually out turn the P-51 at low speeds but it takes a long time to get there during which he has the opportunity to spray at you in the scissors, even with you ruddering below his horizon and gun sight.

The P-51 now keeps up quite well until you are into the stall, and that isn't right, you have to bleed so much E that you are a sitting duck for all his friends.

I don't usually make a comment about other planes' FM being too good, but I've just been shocked lately by how well the P-51 keeps up when I go through the usual rigmarole of shaking him off me, before it worked all the time, now I often get a little worried how well they keep up.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 06:09 PM
"Yes you can eventually out turn the P-51 at low speeds but it takes a long time to get there..."

Frankly, that sounds just about right. The P-51's ineptitude at lower speed turning is enormously overblown on these boards. Empirical data supports this conclusion as well as the literally hundreds of first-person accounts available from pilots of both the USAAF/RAF and Luftwaffe.

When you consider the fact that the vast majority of P-51's encountered online are at less than 25% fuel and use flaps liberally, it shouldn't be suprising at all. The stall is where the Mustangs laminar profile stall charecteristics leave it wanting. Bear in mind, though, that a good Mustang pilot will know just where that snap stall occurs and will ride just on the edge of it- just like in RL.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Any good BF109 pilot can easly out turn a P-51 at low speeds...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you can eventually out turn the P-51 at low speeds but it takes a long time to get there during which he has the opportunity to spray at you in the scissors, even with you ruddering below his horizon and gun sight.

The P-51 now keeps up quite well until you are into the stall, and that isn't right, you have to bleed so much E that you are a sitting duck for all his friends.

I don't usually make a comment about other planes' FM being too good, but I've just been shocked lately by how well the P-51 keeps up when I go through the usual rigmarole of shaking him off me, before it worked all the time, now I often get a little worried how well they keep up.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sat August 21 2004 at 05:51 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

I tested the G-2, G-10, G6AS,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

big deal , you couldnt get the P-38 up over 11,000 m when it can do 12,500

the P-51 as it was in v2.01 would out-turn LA-7s in one turn & any Bf109 untill both were hanging on their props

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 07:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
The P-51's ineptitude at lower speed turning is enormously overblown on these boards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats overblowen in FB is the Mustangs turning performance under 400 KmH in FB

thats whats overblowen Lrrp

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

wojtek_m
08-21-2004, 07:28 PM
I fly the Mustang pretty often and:

1) it is a better turner than all 190s
2) it is a worser turner than most 109s
3) it can take damage well, the only weak point is the engine
3) there is no "wings off" problem - you guys must be just too hard on the stick (or you need better stick settings...). I fly it regularly, mostly boom&zooming, often diving with 800+ kph and had "wings off" only once when pulling too hard when closing to the groung at 750+ kph...

Dont see all the probs you mention... the relative performance is ok imo.

-Logos-

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 08:37 PM
Proof, Badsight? Your posts are always long on opinion but *very* short on facts.

400 kph is around 250 mph- that's not a low-speed turn. A Ki-84 would probably outturn the P-51 at that speed, but not a Luftwaffe fighter.

The P-51 should outturn the La-7 for one turn if the turn is entered at higher speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
The P-51's ineptitude at lower speed turning is enormously overblown on these boards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

whats overblowen in FB is the Mustangs turning performance under 400 KmH in FB

thats whats overblowen Lrrp

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HellToupee
08-21-2004, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Why don't you try and keep the personal invective out of your posts, huh Badsight?

The Ki-84's speed is as wrong as can be. So is its high-speed handling.

The laminar profile wing was so crappy that pretty much every prop fighter design that followed the Mustang featured it. Do you know for a fact that laminar wings turned poorly? The USAAF, the RAF and the Luftwaffe didn't think so. They all thought it turned well, and not just at 400 mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you KI whiners have said its speeds was incorrect , it isnt

go look at what i have posted about the Hayates DM you ignoramus

Laminar flow a TnB plane does not make , the Mustang was & is a POS turn fighter . . . . everywhere except FB that is



.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The raf thought so, the spitful was deemed worse than the standard wing spitfires because of the poor handling and limited performace gain.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 09:54 PM
Yet the RAF believed that the Mustang III and its laminar profile wing outturned the Spitfire 21 and its non-laminar wing. Besides, I'm not claiming that the P-51 turned as well as the Spitfire. It didn't, period.

However, because the Mustang couldn't turn with the Spitfire IX/XIV doesn't mean it was a poor turner- just that the Spitifre was an exceptional turner. The 109 couldn't turn with it either.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Why don't you try and keep the personal invective out of your posts, huh Badsight?

The Ki-84's speed is as wrong as can be. So is its high-speed handling.

The laminar profile wing was so crappy that pretty much every prop fighter design that followed the Mustang featured it. Do you know for a fact that laminar wings turned poorly? The USAAF, the RAF and the Luftwaffe didn't think so. They all thought it turned well, and not just at 400 mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you KI whiners have said its speeds was incorrect , it isnt

go look at what i have posted about the Hayates DM you ignoramus

Laminar flow a TnB plane does not make , the Mustang was & is a POS turn fighter . . . . everywhere except FB that is



.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The raf thought so, the spitful was deemed worse than the standard wing spitfires because of the poor handling and limited performace gain.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
08-21-2004, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
400 kph is around 250 mph- that's not a low-speed turn.
The P-51 should outturn the La-7 for one turn if the turn is entered at higher speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh jeez . . . always the fanboy , you are sooo up the Mustangs a$$ Lrrp

what speeds do you think the Mustang was doing at 180 degrees huh ?

& what speed do you think the planes were doing at 360 degrees

why dont you just admit it , the Mustang is WAY overmoddeled in FB

your have to be kidding or else your mental if you really believe the Mustang IRL was as good as it is in FB

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lrrp22
08-21-2004, 10:19 PM
What is obvious, Badsight, is that you have an overwhelming desire to denigrate the Mustang every chance you get. The Mustang was an exceptional turner at high speeds and a good turner at other speeds- you have not a single iota of proof that says otherwise. Deal with it.

The P-51 would have a large advantage over the La-7 as the high speed turn was entered- the La-7 would gain as speed bled off. If the Mustang pilot kept his speed up by descending during the turn, the La-7 would never catch him.

Your hatred of the Mustang goes a little deeper than just a dislike for a particular piece of American hardware, doesn't it Badsight?

Let me ask you this Badsight: in your objective opinion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif , should every non-American plan in FB outturn the Mustang below 300 mph?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
400 kph is around 250 mph- that's not a low-speed turn.
The P-51 should outturn the La-7 for one turn if the turn is entered at higher speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh jeez . . . always the fanboy , you are sooo up the Mustangs a$$ Lrrp

what speeds do you think the Mustang was doing at 180 degrees huh ?

& what speed do you think the planes were doing at 360 degrees

why dont you just admit it , the Mustang is __WAY__ overmoddeled in FB

your have to be kidding or else your mental if you really believe the Mustang IRL was as good as it is in FB

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HellToupee
08-21-2004, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Yet the RAF believed that the Mustang III and its laminar profile wing outturned the Spitfire 21 and its non-laminar wing. Besides, I'm not claiming that the P-51 turned as well as the Spitfire. It didn't, period.

However, because the Mustang couldn't turn with the Spitfire IX/XIV doesn't mean it was a poor turner- just that the Spitifre was an exceptional turner. The 109 couldn't turn with it either.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Why don't you try and keep the personal invective out of your posts, huh Badsight?

The Ki-84's speed is as wrong as can be. So is its high-speed handling.

The laminar profile wing was so crappy that pretty much every prop fighter design that followed the Mustang featured it. Do you know for a fact that laminar wings turned poorly? The USAAF, the RAF and the Luftwaffe didn't think so. They all thought it turned well, and not just at 400 mph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
you KI whiners have said its speeds was incorrect , it isnt

go look at what i have posted about the Hayates DM you ignoramus

Laminar flow a TnB plane does not make , the Mustang was & is a POS turn fighter . . . . everywhere except FB that is



.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The raf thought so, the spitful was deemed worse than the standard wing spitfires because of the poor handling and limited performace gain.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just sayin they tried a limanar flow wing on the spitful basically the same as spitfire 21 and tehy thought it was poor.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Fehler
08-21-2004, 11:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

early blackout levels and longer then any other aircraft they do not disapear by forward stick movement like all the other a/c

Wing snapping off at speeds as low as 540kmph in hardest possible turn
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will try and make you understand this one more time.

The P51 does not shed wings or blackout sooner than other aircraft. All planes (As was tested) blackout or shed wings at the same point in the programming.

The problem with the pony is that it's high speed elevators are OVERMODELLED and the plane can reach it's high G tolerance faster than any other plane in the game.

There is no simulated stick forces on the high speed elevators of the P-51. The controls never get heavy like in the 109. You cant get full deflection in most of the other planes at high speeds, thus you cant rip the wings off or blackout as fast.

If you are having a problem ripping off wings or blacking out, I suggest you get your ham fist off the joystick and learn to fly the plane.

(Just like us 190 drivers learned to fly the twitchy, banana-peel stalling FW190's.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

WUAF_Badsight
08-22-2004, 01:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Your hatred of the Mustang goes a little deeper than just a dislike for a particular piece of American hardware, doesn't it Badsight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the plane i like

people like you , Mustang fans , i cannot stand one bit

you are so up your own tailpipe with its role in WW2 to realise it merely was a average fighter that was average at best whose only usefull factor was it had range

it was superior at nothing

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ASH at S-MART
08-22-2004, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the plane i like

people like you , Mustang fans , i cannot stand one bit

you are so up your own tailpipe with its role in WW2 to realise it merely was a average fighter that was average at best whose only usefull factor was it had range

it was superior at nothing<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only Usefull Factor! ROTFLMAO! Ill bet that early in the war during BoB the 109s pilots would have killed for a little of that only useful factor.. Not to mention the bombers that were escorted by those 109s pilots! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To play down the importants of range and thus endurance shows how the game has re-writen history.. People play this game thinking the turn rate is the only thing that mattered in a fighter.. The same mistake Germany and Japan made with the early 109 and zero.. They were still thinking in terms of a WWI style of dog fight.. And that was just not the case by the time WWII started rolling.. The true importance of range and enduracne will most likly never be capture in a simulation.. Because people are not willing to fly for 6+ hours to get to a target.. Thus most people will play this game and get the wrong impression of what was really important in WWII aeral combat.. ie a well rounded fighter

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-22-2004, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Ill bet that early in the war during BoB the 109s pilots would have killed for a little of that only useful factor..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

no doubt the Mustangs excellent aerodynamics helped its range/economy too

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-22-2004, 03:17 AM
hehe u guys are unbelievable.

The P51 is NOT supposed to be a good TnB-Plane at all. The wings are not designed for it and so it shouldnt, wingloading plays no role when u have no lift.

Nearly all planes in FB have a better Powerloading than a P51, but still u can hang it on the prop as only the MW50 109s can, even with 100% fuel.

the P51D can outturn a NON MW50 109 in sustained turn and the only way to get out of it is using prop and hang on hit, but most likely the P51 will spray you to **** instandly.

btw:
leadspitter, meet me on HL "JaBo_HH-Black".

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/other%20Stuff/we%20rule%20your%20world3.jpg (http://www.hell-hounds.de)

WUAF_Badsight
08-22-2004, 03:53 AM
but it Won the war ! . . . . dont you know anything ! ! !

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Carnage2681
08-22-2004, 04:01 AM
The problem is the popularity of the Mustang.

I think the Bomber Crews in the B17 / B24 are really thankfull to their "little friends" because they (try) protecting them against German Fighters. Bomber Gunners where not as good as in FB in real Life http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So they created a myth around this planes. And this myth is going on till today. So the Mustang MUST be a superior plane in every situation. Also the Mustang / P47 Pilots claimed the killing of the first Jet Planes. Another reason to make them (planes) godlike in history. The german Pilots flying against the B17´s and they meet over thousand Mustangs/P47. So the german Pilots fear them. More food for the hype.

Hmm, did the Mustang enganged against La7/9 and Yak´s in Korea ? I´m really interested which plane was the better turnfighter there ???? Some information about that ?

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-22-2004, 04:16 AM
well korea is different.

The korean Pilots were not well trained at all.
The same like the average german pilot in 44 and later.

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/other%20Stuff/we%20rule%20your%20world3.jpg (http://www.hell-hounds.de)

KaRaYa-X
08-22-2004, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
People play this game thinking the turn rate is the only thing that mattered in a fighter.. The same mistake Germany and Japan made with the early 109 and zero.. They were still thinking in terms of a WWI style of dog fight.. And that was just not the case by the time WWII started rolling..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're mixing stuff up big time here... Yes, the Japanese had a favour for small, very maneuvrable planes with long range and limited armour - which was their doom as soon as the US came up with planes such as the Hellcat/Corsair which could just dictate a fight upon most japanese fighters of that time with ease. And yes, the Japanese were still thinking in terms of WWI dogfighting...

But claiming the German Luftwaffe made the same mistake and still had WWI combat in mind is just dead wrong... You might have heard of Walter Oesau, Adolf Galland, Werner M¶lders and Heinrich Bartels - the inventors of Boom and Zoom who introduced brand-new tactics and formations (such as the Schwarm, Rotte, etc.) The Luftwaffe had to fight against planes that were as maneuvrable or even better at that from day 1 (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Britain - anybody? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif).

But at the end of these 2 conflicts they still were more successful in air combat than their enemies - by employing proper energy-tactics...

However comapring most Luftwaffe planes with contemporary USAAF fighters will show that the German a/c are the better turn fighters because they sometimes weight less than half than their opponents aircraft (P47/P38) and just have the better power to weight ratio (helping in climb and turns

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

OldMan____
08-22-2004, 05:48 AM
Everyone knows what is needed. A less strong elevator at P51.. it will eliminate the strage turn capability, the balckouts, the wing shred and all the problems in P51. (except for the too high roll rate.. something shared with many planes in this game).

And people.. please.. be clear when you speak outturn. Are you speaking for a short very hard turn that opponent can´t follow.. or for continuous turning in circles until get enemy´s back? (the most pathetic maneuver in Air Combat).

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Maple_Tiger
08-22-2004, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

I tested the G-2, G-10, G6AS,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

big deal , you couldnt get the P-38 up over 11,000 m when it can do 12,500

the P-51 as it was in v2.01 would out-turn LA-7s in one turn & any Bf109 untill both were hanging on their props

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I guess i should not be surprised that you would say somthing that is not quite true.

I was able to get the P-38L to 12500m; however, the P-38J would not go any higher then 11500m. I still have both tracks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

WUAF_Badsight
08-22-2004, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
however, the P-38J would not go any higher then 11500m.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

my point exactly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maple_Tiger
08-22-2004, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Everyone knows what is needed. A less strong elevator at P51.. it will eliminate the strage turn capability, the balckouts, the wing shred and all the problems in P51. (except for the too high roll rate.. something shared with many planes in this game).

And people.. please.. be clear when you speak outturn. Are you speaking for a short very hard turn that opponent can´t follow.. or for continuous turning in circles until get enemy´s back? (the most pathetic maneuver in Air Combat).

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Now it's roll-rate is too good. Lmao. lol

If you looked at a roll-rate chart, you would se that the P-51 rolled better then most aircraft at higher speeds..

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

Maple_Tiger
08-22-2004, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
however, the P-38J would not go any higher then 11500m.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

my point exactly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Funny, i remember you saying that you couldn't get the L past 12500m. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

WUAF_Badsight
08-22-2004, 06:48 AM
well now your making stuff up

you complained about the j P-38 & you were showen that it could get to 12,500 even tho you only managed 11,000 something

& now you claim to have "tested" the Bf109s . . . please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-22-2004, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Everyone knows what is needed. A less strong elevator at P51.. it will eliminate the strage turn capability, the balckouts, the wing shred and all the problems in P51. (except for the too high roll rate.. something shared with many planes in this game).

And people.. please.. be clear when you speak outturn. Are you speaking for a short very hard turn that opponent can´t follow.. or for continuous turning in circles until get enemy´s back? (the most pathetic maneuver in Air Combat).

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Now it's roll-rate is too good. Lmao. lol

If you looked at a roll-rate chart, you would se that the P-51 rolled better then most aircraft at higher speeds..

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

can u give some comparable numbers at high and low speed for P51D and Fw190A

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/other%20Stuff/we%20rule%20your%20world3.jpg (http://www.hell-hounds.de)

OldMan____
08-22-2004, 07:22 AM
Yes it does roll too well as MOST planes in this game. Everytime someone post an annalysis from a real WW2 pilot, or aerobatics pilot, it says a lot of good things about almost the sim .. but in 90% of time they say.. but this plane X rolls too much in this game. Few planes do not have this problem in FB. and P51 is not one of those

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

OldMan____
08-22-2004, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Yes it does roll too well as MOST planes in this game. Everytime someone post an annalysis from a real WW2 pilot, or aerobatics pilot, it says a lot of good things about almost the sim .. but in 90% of time they say.. but this plane X rolls too much in this game. Few planes do not have this problem in FB. and P51 is not one of those

found this data (non official document source.. so when someone finds somethign better.. say it.)

at 300 mph

FW190A4 -2.7s
Spit V- 3.1s
p40- 3.1 s
P38J- 5 seg
P47- 5 seg
P51- 3.7 seg

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Kurfurst__
08-22-2004, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
However, because the Mustang couldn't turn with the Spitfire IX/XIV doesn't mean it was a poor turner- just that the Spitifre was an exceptional turner. The 109 couldn't turn with it either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm.

Mark Hanna on Bf 109G:


So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. "

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

GH_Klingstroem
08-22-2004, 09:43 AM
you guys are all missing the point! I just wanted to know if the p51 was to be able to turn with a 109g2 down low at the deck! If I was talking about a zero, people would say NO. so pls just answer that question! I was almost stalling my 109 with combat flaps and sometimes takeoff flaps and he was able to out turn me... No was that its real life performance... had it been a 109g6 or g14 I wouldnt even care cuz they are much heavier, but the g2 turns very well, that is why I was surprised!

lrrp22
08-22-2004, 10:07 AM
I was talking about the Spitfire, Isegrim.

I agree that as a turn fight slowed down and neared the stall, a 109 would have a turn (and roll) advantage over a Mustang. That doesn't mean the Mustang was incapable of turn-fighting Luftwaffe aircraft. FB reflects this.

Bear in mind that due to the power settings described, the 109 (and P-51) Hanna flew would have had much more docile handling characteristics than a combat loaded and powered wartime 109.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
However, because the Mustang couldn't turn with the Spitfire IX/XIV doesn't mean it was a poor turner- just that the Spitifre was an exceptional turner. The 109 couldn't turn with it either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm.

Mark Hanna on Bf 109G:

_
So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. _It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better._ The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. "_

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg
_
We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
08-22-2004, 10:22 AM
You like the Mustang? I'd hate to see what you would have to say about a plane you *didn't* like!

It's become obvious that you are impervious to any evidence that doesn't support your jaundiced view of things, particularly anything U.S.-related. I won't continue to debate you.

You're not an adult, are you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Your hatred of the Mustang goes a little deeper than just a dislike for a particular piece of American hardware, doesn't it Badsight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the plane i like

people like you , Mustang fans , i cannot stand one bit

you are so up your own tailpipe with its role in WW2 to realise it merely was a average fighter that was average at best whose only usefull factor was it had range

it was superior at nothing

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
08-22-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
I think you're mixing stuff up big time here... Yes, the Japanese had a favour for small, very maneuvrable planes with long range and limited armour - which was their doom as soon as the US came up with planes such as the Hellcat/Corsair which could just dictate a fight upon most japanese fighters of that time with ease. And yes, the Japanese were still thinking in terms of WWI dogfighting...

But claiming the German Luftwaffe made the same mistake and still had WWI combat in mind is just dead wrong... You might have heard of Walter Oesau, Adolf Galland, Werner M¶lders and Heinrich Bartels - the inventors of Boom and Zoom who introduced brand-new tactics and formations (such as the Schwarm, Rotte, etc.) The Luftwaffe had to fight against planes that were as maneuvrable or even better at that from day 1 (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Britain - anybody? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif).

But at the end of these 2 conflicts they still were more successful in air combat than their enemies - by employing proper energy-tactics...

However comapring most Luftwaffe planes with contemporary USAAF fighters will show that the German a/c are the better turn fighters because they sometimes weight less than half than their opponents aircraft (P47/P38) and just have the better power to weight ratio (helping in climb and turns<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know about all that.. But ONE thing is for SURE.. I have not seen any PROOF to support anything yet.. All I do see is a lot of accusations made BASED ON GAME DF situations people experienced here... A DF situation is hard to quantify because you don't know what the relative situations were at the start.. How much E advantage did Pilot A have over Pilot B.. Or How much Experience i.e. better pilot) advantage did Pilot A have over Pilot B.. Which is why the only thing I will BELIVE is a TRACK that shows a P51 doing something P51 Flight DATA SHEETS says it couldn't do. You know.. The things that Oleg bases there FM's on.. The rest is only good for whinning.

As for the 109 and WWII.. In summary the 109 started out as a fighter.. after several mods it ended up as a bomber chaser.. To make an analogy.. The bombers were the noisy cars driving down your street.. The 109 was the dog chasing the car.. And the P51 was the dog catcher

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Xnomad
08-22-2004, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
As for the 109 and WWII.. In summary the 109 started out as a fighter.. after several mods it ended up as a bomber chaser.. To make an analogy.. The bombers were the noisy cars driving down your street.. The 109 was the dog chasing the car.. And the P51 was the dog catcher. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ermm not a very good analogy, I have never needed a dog catcher to stop a dog from chasing me in my car.

I don't think any Bomber crew would tell you that a Bf 109 was just a yapping dog that was just a pesky annoyance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
The same mistake Germany and Japan made with the early 109 and zero.. They were still thinking in terms of a WWI style of dog fight.. And that was just not the case by the time WWII started rolling.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone who wants to argue about the tactics of the LW etc. should know that pilots like Moelders et al. invented modern fighter combat tactics, which are used to this day by every air force in the world.

These tactics were invented during the Spanish Civil war, so to say that LW used WWI tactics is ridiculous. You should really read something from the "other side" if you want to appear objective.

Your posts were so provocative in the Fw 190 forward view thread in ORR that it got it locked even though we asked you to stop, please try to remain more objective without trying to provoke the country bashing that analogies like the "dog chasing the car" are bound to bring.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

[This message was edited by Xnomad on Sun August 22 2004 at 12:31 PM.]

flyingscampi
08-22-2004, 01:33 PM
Hey, that 109 in your sig is too small!



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

lrrp22
08-22-2004, 01:48 PM
Xnomad,

I honestly don't think that the issue here is as much about a bunch "Amiwhiners" wanting the Mustang to be ueber as it is a large contingent of Mustang detractors who want it to be hapless at anything other than 25,000 ft and 400 mph.

Most of these 'Mustang Whiner' threads flare up because some 109 pilot got shot up by a Mustang, and not because some 'Amiwhiner' wants the Mustang to turn better. Those happen too, but they are far more rare than the "Oleg, please nueter the P-51" threads.

The Mustang is likely a little overmodeled in low speed turn performance, but you know what- every plane in FB has things that it does too well. The fact is, though, that the Mustang is cetainly undermodeled in dive acceleration and definitely could be much faster at lower altitudes. Few here are comfortable with the fact that from the summer of '44 on, the Mustang was generally as fast, or faster, at low level than *any* other late war piston fighter.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
As for the 109 and WWII.. In summary the 109 started out as a fighter.. after several mods it ended up as a bomber chaser.. To make an analogy.. The bombers were the noisy cars driving down your street.. The 109 was the dog chasing the car.. And the P51 was the dog catcher. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ermm not a very good analogy, I have never needed a dog catcher to stop a dog from chasing me in my car.

I don't think any Bomber crew would tell you that a Bf 109 was just a yapping dog that was just a pesky annoyance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
The same mistake Germany and Japan made with the early 109 and zero.. They were still thinking in terms of a WWI style of dog fight.. And that was just not the case by the time WWII started rolling.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone who wants to argue about the tactics of the LW etc. should know that pilots like Moelders et al. invented modern fighter combat tactics, which are used to this day by every air force in the world.

These tactics were invented during the Spanish Civil war, so to say that LW used WWI tactics is ridiculous. You should really read something from the "other side" if you want to appear objective.

Your posts were so provocative in the Fw 190 forward view thread in ORR that it got it locked even though we asked you to stop, please try to remain more objective without trying to provoke the country bashing that analogies like the "dog chasing the car" are bound to bring.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

[This message was edited by Xnomad on Sun August 22 2004 at 12:31 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xnomad
08-22-2004, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingscampi:
Hey, that 109 in your sig is too small!



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arggghhh http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif don't you start now too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif it's the wrong thread. You didn't get your scale comparison kit out did you? IMHO it's about right.

ASH at S-MART
08-22-2004, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Ermm not a very good analogy, I have never needed a dog catcher to stop a dog from chasing me in my car. I don't think any Bomber crew would tell you that a Bf 109 was just a yapping dog that was just a pesky annoyance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well no analogy is ever perfect.. But in this case it is spot on IMHO.. Espically when you consider the analogy was not about the bomber but the relation between the 109 and 51.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Someone who wants to argue about the tactics of the LW etc. should know that pilots like Moelders et al. invented modern fighter combat tactics, which are used to this day by every air force in the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read it again.. and I think you might pick up on the fact that I was talking about the design of the aircraft and not the tatics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
These tactics were invented during the Spanish Civil war, so to say that LW used WWI tactics is ridiculous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read it again and I am sure you will notice that I never said that.. I was talking about the mind set in and around the time the ZERO and 109 were designed.. ie turn fighters

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
You should really read something from the "other side" if you want to appear objective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And you should not read *into* things

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Your posts were so provocative in the Fw 190 forward view thread in ORR that it got it locked even though we asked you to stop, please try to remain more objective without trying to provoke the country bashing that analogies like the "dog chasing the car" are bound to bring.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Right.. I started all that.. You really do read into things!!

PS your last post had no PROOF in it either with regards to the topics at hand! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But makes for great whinning!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Xnomad
08-22-2004, 03:06 PM
Yeah OK Ash, fair point, I know you didn't start the bashing in the last thread but it's the way you write things that people get the wrong idea, remember the bit about (loosely quoted) " Imagine how bad it would be if the loosers (Germany) made a sim!!" I understood what you meant but the others didn't, and "Yes.. The majority of the Indians were killed by German immigrants who joined the US Army" didn't help keep that thread alive either.

I may have "read into" too much of what you said and after checking I can admit to that however, in this thread I felt that your statement was an over-simplification for something as complex as the history of the air war over Europe. This could be interpreted as another "the P-51 won the war post" (and that's why it should turn better at lower speeds etc.) which will end up in a country bashing match as they have before. Maybe you didn't mean it that way but that's the way it came across.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>PS your last post had no PROOF in it either with regards to the topics at hand!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of proof The P-51 being the dogcatcher wasn't exactly the argument we needed to prove that the P-51 should be superior to the Bf 109 in every respect, was it? And it isn't exactly the analogy to sum up the reason for the allies success in the air war.

Ok now it's a little OT again but nevertheless a reply to your previous statements:

May I add the Bf 109 wasn't really designed with WWI in mind either as it wasn't a turn fighter and was the first plane to incorporate all the revolutionary ideas that were kicking about at that time. A 1930's design it was, a 1914 design it wasn't.

I would say that is was more of a support fighter for Blitzkrieg tactics (a new tactic unlike entrenchment like in WWI), and yes the designers weren't exactly far sighted enough to incorporate an invasion of Britain etc in it's design.

I wouldn't throw it in as something designed out of WWI mind set, I think Ernst Udet didn't like the Bf 109 because he and many others like Goering envisioned a fighter's design as one similar to those used in WWI (open cockpit low wingloading), however when a demonstration was given they were impressed with it. If you can find proof for your statement that the design came out of a WWI mentality then I'm all ears.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-22-2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
That doesn't mean the Mustang was incapable of turn-fighting Luftwaffe aircraft. FB reflects this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

omg dude your too much


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
it's become obvious that you are impervious to any evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what evidence !

puhleeeez do bring out your "objective" & "scientific" pilot accounts

or even better , do tell us about how they were overboosted in the feild !

i think its you Lrrp with the bias here , your up in arms whenever anything US plane related is being put down , not too mention quick to put down A/C that the US forces fought *cough*Ki-84*cough*

i use the Mustang lots online , its a fun plane to use in FB , whats pathetic are the blind mustang fanboys
.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-22-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
PS your last post had no PROOF in it either with regards to the topics at hand! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But makes for great whinning!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok fair enough , but the knowledge about how the Luftwaffe apporached aircombat at the start of WW2 is assumed to be common

i mean well knowen about how they avoided TnB in favour of higher speed BnZ

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-22-2004, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Few here are comfortable with the fact that from the summer of '44 on, the Mustang was generally as fast, or faster, at low level than *any* other late war piston fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nice assumption Lrrp

you really dont like to tell factory specs do you , & you constantly bring up irrelevant feild performance when planes in FB have their data from the factory

as for dive , well dive in FB is not moddeled , not in the individual performance sense

faster & slower dive accelleration happens when you dive power off (slightly) but power on dives are nearly the same for all A/C in FB with Vne being the only difference

this game favours turn & climb , so getting the planes turning relative to each other is what is important (cause all in FB turn too good) & some are way better than they should be

the Mustang is one

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ASH at S-MART
08-22-2004, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Yeah OK Ash, fair point, I know you didn't start the bashing in the last thread<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank You!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
but it's the way you write things that people get the wrong idea,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some people.. Yes no mater what.. There will allays be some people that get upset.. And that is their problem not mine IMHO.. And that goes for things beyond this forum too.. I'm so very tired of trying to be all PC all the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
remember the bit about (loosely quoted) " Imagine how bad it would be if the loosers (Germany) made a sim!!" I understood what you meant but the others didn't, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Too bad for them!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
and "Yes.. The majority of the Indians were killed by German immigrants who joined the US Army" didn't help keep that thread alive either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! In light of what I was responding to I felt it was just fine.. I can be as silly as the rest.. Put another way.. Ask a stupid question.. Don't expect a smart answer.. Make a stupid statement.. expect a smart A$$ answer! I have never claimed or provided any proof of me being a saint! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
I may have "read into" too much of what you said and after checking I can admit to that<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is all I'm saying!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
however, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dang... why is it that 99% of the time when people admit they were wrong around here it is followed by however? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
in this thread I felt that your statement was an over-simplification for something as complex as the history of the air war over Europe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly! But note I said IN SUMMARY and also note that simplification is one of the reasons for an analogy.. So one should and should expect it to be simplified!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
This could be interpreted as another "the P-51 won the war post" (and that's why it should turn better at lower speeds etc.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could be.. but as I pointed out above.. There will allays be someone that gets upset no mater what I say.. So I no longer cater to them.. I say what I want and feel and if someone gets upset.. Well Ill cross that bridge when it gets here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
which will end up in a country bashing match as they have before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. does not mater what I say.. someone could be upset.. OR AS IN YOUR CASE totally read into it and see things that are not there and STILL get upset.. A real LOOSE LOOSE situation.. One that I gave up on trying to cater to and just say what I want to say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Maybe you didn't mean it that way but that's the way it came across.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh.. I wont loose any sleep over it.. Some might.. But as I pointed out I stopped worrying about those hyper sensitive PC minded folks years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Speaking of proof The P-51 being the dogcatcher wasn't exactly the argument we needed to prove that the P-51 should be superior to the Bf 109 in every respect, was it? And it isn't exactly the analogy to sum up the reason for the allies success in the air war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It wasn't meant as proof.. It was an attempt to paint an image of what was going on in the real war vs. what we see in the simulation.. Two totally different things.. Which is the source of most misconceptions of aircraft performance in this and other forums.. In short we don't fly like they did.. The majority of what goes on online is a LOAN WOLF LOW ALT TURN FIGHTS.. Where as in the real war that was the exception to the rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Ok now it's a little OT again but nevertheless a reply to your previous statements:

May I add the Bf 109 wasn't really designed with WWI in mind either as it wasn't a turn fighter and was the first plane to incorporate all the revolutionary ideas that were kicking about at that time. A 1930's design it was, a 1914 design it wasn't. I would say that is was more of a support fighter for Blitzkrieg tactics (a new tactic unlike entrenchment like in WWI),<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your opinion and you are welcome to it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
and yes the designers weren't exactly far sighted enough to incorporate an invasion of Britain etc in it's design. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Among other things

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
I wouldn't throw it in as something designed out of WWI mind set, I think Ernst Udet didn't like the Bf 109 because he and many others like Goering envisioned a fighter's design as one similar to those used in WWI (open cockpit low wingloading), however when a demonstration was given they were impressed with it. If you can find proof for your statement that the design came out of a WWI mentality then I'm all ears.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Right back at you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

lrrp22
08-22-2004, 08:48 PM
Nothing I have posted is an 'assumption'.

The only thing that matters is actual combat settings for a given type by a given Air Force. There was no such thing as "factory performance"- only that at which a given airframe operated operationally. How about the Ki-84's performance, do you have the audicty to claim that FB's Frank performance is based on Japanese 'factory data'? Maybe, if the Nakajima factory was located in Inglewood, CA or Castle Bromwhich, Birmingham.

*edited for gratuitus mean-spiritedness...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:


nice assumption Lrrp

you really dont like to tell factory specs do you , & you constantly bring up irrelevant feild performance when planes in FB have their data from the factory

as for dive , well dive in FB is not moddeled , not in the individual performance sense

faster & slower dive accelleration happens when you dive power off (slightly) but power on dives are nearly the same for all A/C in FB with Vne being the only difference

this game favours turn & climb , so getting the planes turning relative to each other is what is important (cause all in FB turn too good) & some are way better than they should be

the Mustang is one

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sun August 22 2004 at 07:59 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sun August 22 2004 at 08:42 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sun August 22 2004 at 08:44 PM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sun August 22 2004 at 08:44 PM.]

lrrp22
08-22-2004, 08:58 PM
What data, exactly, are you contesting? Relative wingloading? Standard operational power settings? Tactics vs. the Luftwaffe?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
That doesn't mean the Mustang was incapable of turn-fighting Luftwaffe aircraft. FB reflects this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

omg dude your too much


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
it's become obvious that you are impervious to any evidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what evidence !

puhleeeez do bring out your "objective" & "scientific" pilot accounts

or even better , do tell us about how they were overboosted in the feild !

i think its you Lrrp with the bias here , your up in arms whenever anything US plane related is being put down , not too mention quick to put down A/C that the US forces fought *cough*Ki-84*cough*

i use the Mustang lots online , its a fun plane to use in FB , whats pathetic are the blind mustang fanboys
.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sun August 22 2004 at 08:45 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
08-22-2004, 11:06 PM
Worthless thread, if this was a WW1 sim everybody would post SPAD and Albatross pilots invented BnZ and not Galland, Mulders and Skully, as if the computer gamers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif care for Bf~109 B,C, and D these aces flew.

although, a good thread to test out a minor sig mod, probably temp cos they should take out P~51 and Fw~190 for less planes more accurate FM esp Italian FM. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
The 109 was the dog chasing the car and the P51 was the dog catcher ~ASH_SMART

:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Maple_Tiger
08-23-2004, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
well now your making stuff up

you complained about the j P-38 & you were showen that it could get to 12,500 even tho you only managed 11,000 something

& now you claim to have "tested" the Bf109s . . . please http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Again your making stuff up... I'm not surprised.

You'r wronge, it was the P-38L that i got to reach 12500m. The J i managed 11500.

You should read wat people type first, before posting. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

[This message was edited by Maple_Tiger on Mon August 23 2004 at 03:57 AM.]

Maple_Tiger
08-23-2004, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
you guys are all missing the point! I just wanted to know if the p51 was to be able to turn with a 109g2 down low at the deck! If I was talking about a zero, people would say NO. so pls just answer that question! I was almost stalling my 109 with combat flaps and sometimes takeoff flaps and he was able to out turn me... No was that its real life performance... had it been a 109g6 or g14 I wouldnt even care cuz they are much heavier, but the g2 turns very well, that is why I was surprised!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



It deppends on the pilot. You said so your self, that you were only using combat flaps. The P-51 Pilot would need to use Landing flaps to get inside you.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

WOLFMondo
08-23-2004, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Few here are comfortable with the fact that from the summer of '44 on, the Mustang was generally as fast, or faster, at low level than *any* other late war piston fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were plenty of fighters that were as fast or faster than the Mustang down low, the Tempest V and Dora where pretty much the fastest aircraft on the western front at SL. In 1945 the Spitfire Mk22 was probably the fastest prop plane under 5000ft.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

Xnomad
08-23-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
The same mistake Germany and Japan made with the early 109 and zero.. They were still thinking in terms of a WWI style of dog fight.. And that was just not the case by the time WWII started rolling..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
I wouldn't throw it in as something designed out of WWI mind set, I think Ernst Udet didn't like the Bf 109 because he and many others like Goering envisioned a fighter's design as one similar to those used in WWI (open cockpit low wingloading), however when a demonstration was given they were impressed with it. If you can find proof for your statement that the design came out of a WWI mentality then I'm all ears.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:Right back at you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry guys that I'm changing the topic of the thread but it appears that Ash needs a history lesson.

Groan http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif. Ash, you are the one who is coming up with the revolutionary theory that the Bf 109 was designed by a WWI mindset so you are the one who is supposed to bring the proof not me. It is common knowledge that the Bf 109 was state of the art 1930's design and has absolutely nothing to do with WWI aircraft design and the tactics that WWI aircraft use (turn and burn)

Anyway if you want proof here we go:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> By Xnomad
May I add the Bf 109 wasn't really designed with WWI in mind either as it wasn't a turn fighter and was the first plane to incorporate all the revolutionary ideas that were kicking about at that time. A 1930's design it was, a 1914 design it wasn't. I would say that is was more of a support fighter for Blitzkrieg tactics (a new tactic unlike entrenchment like in WWI),
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> By ASH_SMART
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ash it's not an opinion! It's a well known fact.

From "Augsburg Eagle" by William Green Copyright 1980.

Page 7

The annals of military aviation are punctuated by technical innovations initiated spontaneously and independently in several countries almost simultaneously, and a supreme example in the development of the single-seat fighter was the marriage of the all-metal stressed-skin monocoque structure with the low-wing cantilever monoplane configuration, and the embelishment of this union with cockpit canopy and retractable undercarriage.

It was claimed that the Messerschmitt Bf 109 established this nouvelle vogue; that this German warplane was the progenitor of such fighters, which, in piston-engined form, were to attain their zenith during World War II.

Page 13

"Udet, like so many other German pilots of the period, still believed an open cockpit, fixed undercarriage and biplane configuration to be prerequisites in the design of any successful fighter, and his prejudice, which Messerschmitt was aware would be shared by many pilots unwilling to accept the demise of the lightly loaded and readily forgiving biplane, was anything but encouraging."


From "Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Luftwaffe Fighter" by Air Vice-Marshal Ron **** copyright 1997

Page 11

"As the celebrated Lufwaffe fighter leader, Adolf Galland, has pointed out: "[The pilots] could not or simply would not see that for modern [late 1930s] fighter aircraft the tight turn as a form of aerial combat represented the exception, and further, that it was quite possible to see, shoot and fight from a closed cockpit."

Page 12
(During the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939)
"The German pilots soon found it to their advantage to use their aircraft's superior performance at altitude in claiming the "high ground," so dictating the terms of any engagement and avoiding turning dogfights by diving down on their enemies in slashing high-speed "hit and run" attacks."

So you see Ash, the Bf 109 was a 1930's design and had nothing to do with WWI or it's style of fighting. The Bf 109 wasn't designed as a turn fighter, and possibly energy tactics and boom and zoom were used for the first time in the Spanish Civil War by the Legion Condor (Luftwaffe in disguise), that was in 1937 well before WWII.

I think you will find that most of Germany's opponents in 1939 and 1940 fell to the Luftwaffe as their planes were of WWI design e.g. France and Poland etc. The British however had been developing the Spitfire during the time the Bf 109 was developed also a revolutionary plane! The Russians also had planes designed from a WWI mentality in that they were turn fighters but still to call them WWI design is also insulting as the I-16 was a revolutionary design for it's time as well.

As Lexx has stated your Dog analogy is a classic, who is going to listen to a person talk about the P-51 being so good that it turned the Bf 109 into just a pesky nuisance, this same person believes that Germans designed their planes with a WWI mind set, this very same amateur historian who hasn't heard of Moelders who revolutionised aircraft tactics. I get the impression that you believe the Luftwaffe were stuck behind the times during WWII when infact they were the innovators and the mistakes they made were learnt by everyone too.

Argggh people like you make me sound so one sided, I'll have you know I'm British and German but I constantly find I have to argue the German side due to the ignorance that you find on these boards.

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

[This message was edited by Xnomad on Mon August 23 2004 at 04:05 AM.]

Xnomad
08-23-2004, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
As for the 109 and WWII.. In summary the 109 started out as a fighter.. after several mods it ended up as a bomber chaser.. To make an analogy.. The bombers were the noisy cars driving down your street.. The 109 was the dog chasing the car.. And the P51 was the dog catcher
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just one last quote in reply to your great little analogy. Bear in mind that the Bf 109 was the most common LW fighter when reading this quote:

From "The Big Show" By Pierre Clostermann Copyright 2004

(if you don't know this book it's the best pilot's story of WWII, a French Pilot in the RAF)

Appendix G - Some opinions concerning German Fighters.

Professor O.P. Fuchs, from the Zurich Institute (Switzerland), weapons expert assigned to the North American Committe for Aeronautics in the U.S.A:

Whilst during the period of July - August - September 1944 the reports of losses on either side was 1 to 1 (i.e. for the total losses recorded in combat on the German side, the same number were recorded on the allied side, especially the fighters, and a small proportion of bombers),

from 22 February to 26 March 1945 (reliable data can only be given for this period) the ratio was 1 to 7.5, due to the use of the new gun/rocket combination. So, for the total of German fighters destroyed, there were seven and a half times as many allied losses (this time with a large proportion of four-engine bombers). These figures speak for themselves.
(From the estimate of onboard weaponry efficiency. Interavia, I/48.)

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

Nanuk66
08-23-2004, 08:03 AM
'.. A real LOOSE LOOSE situation.. '

'I wont loose any sleep over it'

And you're a natural english speaker.

Shame on you!

And before u bash me for being Australian again..im not an Aussie.

Oh and FUITE

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

lrrp22
08-23-2004, 09:46 AM
Not true, RAF Mustang III/IV's were considerabley faster (~640 kph) than the D-9 at sea level and were right there with +11 lbs boosted Tempet V's.

By the fall of '44, the RAF's Merlin Mustang force stood at 250 airplanes. This rose to nearly 350 operational examples by late Winter/early Spring of '45.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Few here are comfortable with the fact that from the summer of '44 on, the Mustang was generally as fast, or faster, at low level than *any* other late war piston fighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were plenty of fighters that were as fast or faster than the Mustang down low, the Tempest V and Dora where pretty much the fastest aircraft on the western front at SL. In 1945 the Spitfire Mk22 was probably the fastest prop plane under 5000ft.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
http://www.wolfgaming.net
Home of WGNDedicated<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Sorry guys that I'm changing the topic of the thread but it appears that Ash needs a history lesson.

Groan http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif. Ash, you are the one who is coming up with the revolutionary theory that the Bf 109 was designed by a WWI mindset so you are the one who is supposed to bring the proof not me. It is common knowledge that the Bf 109 was state of the art 1930's design and has absolutely nothing to do with WWI aircraft design and the tactics that WWI aircraft use (turn and burn)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never said it was a cloth covered bi-plane.. All I stated was the 109 started out as a turn fighter and ended up as a bomber chaser.. During the 30s a lot of emphasis was still on WWI style turn fighting.. As time went on and B17s started bombing Berlin that emphases quickly changed and the modified the 109 to be more intercept like.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Anyway if you want proof here we go:

Ash it's not an opinion! It's a well known fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One I don't agree with.. But that is my opinion

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
From "Augsburg Eagle" by William Green Copyright 1980.

Page 7

The annals of military aviation are punctuated by technical innovations initiated spontaneously and independently in several countries almost simultaneously, and a supreme example in the development of the single-seat fighter was the marriage of the all-metal stressed-skin monocoque structure with the low-wing cantilever monoplane configuration, and the embelishment of this union with cockpit canopy and retractable undercarriage.

It was claimed that the Messerschmitt Bf 109 established this nouvelle vogue; that this German warplane was the progenitor of such fighters, which, in piston-engined form, were to attain their zenith during World War II.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to be READING INTO things again? Take note that I never said the Bf109 was a wooden frame cloth covered bi-plane! I simply said it was designed with the emphases on turning.. i.e. WWI style of DF's.. Much like the ZERO.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Page 13

"Udet, like so many other German pilots of the period, still believed an open cockpit, fixed undercarriage and biplane configuration to be prerequisites in the design of any successful fighter, and his prejudice, which Messerschmitt was aware would be shared by many pilots unwilling to accept the demise of the lightly loaded and readily forgiving biplane, was anything but encouraging."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which only helps my argument.. The Bf109 was a transition aircraft.. The cross over from the old way to the new way.. Which means it had a little bit of both.. Great for GAMES where 99% of the action is LOAN WOLF.. LOW ALT.. WWI STYLE TURN FIGHTS.. But that didn't fit the air war of WWII

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
From "Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Luftwaffe Fighter" by Air Vice-Marshal Ron **** copyright 1997

Page 11

"As the celebrated Lufwaffe fighter leader, Adolf Galland, has pointed out: "[The pilots] could not or simply would not see that for modern [late 1930s] fighter aircraft the tight turn as a form of aerial combat represented the exception, and further, that it was quite possible to see, shoot and fight from a closed cockpit."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which only helps my argument.. The Bf109 was a transition aircraft.. The cross over from the old way to the new way.. Which means it had a little bit of both.. Great for GAMES where 99% of the action is LOAN WOLF.. LOW ALT.. WWI STYLE TURN FIGHTS.. But that didn't fit the air war of WWII

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Page 12
(During the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939)
"The German pilots soon found it to their advantage to use their aircraft's superior performance at altitude in claiming the "high ground," so dictating the terms of any engagement and avoiding turning dogfights by diving down on their enemies in slashing high-speed "hit and run" attacks."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just so you know.. The CHOICE between using TnB vs. BnZ is RELATIVE to the aircraft.. Sense the Bf109 was faced with many better turn fighters in the Spanish Civil War it is not hard to understand why they would employ BnZ tactics.. For example.. In WWII the F4u vs. Zero.. The F4u pilots employed BnZ tactics.. In Korea the F4u vs. MiG the F4u employed TnB tactics.. It is all relative.. But does not change the design.. Just the tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
So you see Ash, the Bf 109 was a 1930's design and had nothing to do with WWI or it's style of fighting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to be READING INTO things again? Take note that I never said the Bf109 was a wooden frame cloth covered bi-plane! I simply said it was designed with the emphases on turning.. i.e. WWI style of DF's.. Much like the ZERO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
The Bf 109 wasn't designed as a turn fighter, and possibly energy tactics and boom and zoom were used for the first time in the Spanish Civil War by the Legion Condor (Luftwaffe in disguise), that was in 1937 well before WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tactics is all relative.. But does not change the intent of the design.. Pilots will use their strengths.. Like the F4u did against the MiG where it used it's tighter turning radius RELATIVE to the fast moving MiG so to did the Bf109 pilots against those better Turing WWI era fighters

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
I think you will find that most of Germany's opponents in 1939 and 1940 fell to the Luftwaffe as their planes were of WWI design e.g. France and Poland etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. As Chuck said.. It's the man not the machine.. EXPERIENCE (i.e. Vets) can make up for a lot that a plane may lack.. As it was for Germany in the beginning.. it was the flip side of the coin for Germany at the end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
The British however had been developing the Spitfire during the time the Bf 109 was developed also a revolutionary plane! The Russians also had planes designed from a WWI mentality in that they were turn fighters but still to call them WWI design is also insulting as the I-16 was a revolutionary design for it's time as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your READING INTO THINGS AGAIN! Calling something a WWI style turn fighter is not an insult.. It is an observation.. Most things happen gradually.. Out with the old and in with the new.. But not over night! In the 30s a lot of new ways of doing things were coming out.. But a lot of old ways remained.. Take the Fw190 for example.. It was not a transition aircraft like the Bf109 was.. It was build as a full up WWII fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
As Lexx has stated your Dog analogy is a classic,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
who is going to listen to a person talk about the P-51 being so good that it turned the Bf 109 into just a pesky nuisance, this same person believes that Germans designed their planes with a WWI mind set, this very same amateur historian who hasn't heard of Moelders who revolutionised aircraft tactics. I get the impression that you believe the Luftwaffe were stuck behind the times during WWII when infact they were the innovators and the mistakes they made were learnt by everyone too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There you go again.. READING INTO things.. Why do you just stick with what I wrote as to what you think I am thinking?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Argggh people like you make me sound so one sided, I'll have you know I'm British and German but I constantly find I have to argue the German side due to the ignorance that you find on these boards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't be too hard on yourself.. A lot of people here think they see things that are not here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Just one last quote in reply to your great little analogy. Bear in mind that the Bf 109 was the most common LW fighter when reading this quote:

From "The Big Show" By Pierre Clostermann Copyright 2004

(if you don't know this book it's the best pilot's story of WWII, a French Pilot in the RAF)

Appendix G - Some opinions concerning German Fighters.

Professor O.P. Fuchs, from the Zurich Institute (Switzerland), weapons expert assigned to the North American Committe for Aeronautics in the U.S.A:

Whilst during the period of July - August - September 1944 the reports of losses on either side was 1 to 1 (i.e. for the total losses recorded in combat on the German side, the same number were recorded on the allied side, especially the fighters, and a small proportion of bombers),

from 22 February to 26 March 1945 (reliable data can only be given for this period) the ratio was 1 to 7.5, due to the use of the new gun/rocket combination. So, for the total of German fighters destroyed, there were seven and a half times as many allied losses (this time with a large proportion of four-engine bombers). These figures speak for themselves.
(From the estimate of onboard weaponry efficiency. Interavia, I/48.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again.. READING INTO THINGS! This is really bad too because I all ready said the analogy was not targeted at the bomber as much as it was to paint a picture of the P51 vs. Bf109 situation.. YOU KNOW the *topic* at hand.. Dont belive me? Take a look at the title of the thread! P51 vs Bf109.. Get it?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NaNuK66:
'.. A real LOOSE LOOSE situation.. '

'I wont loose any sleep over it'

And you're a natural english speaker.

Shame on you!

And before u bash me for being Australian again..im not an Aussie.

Oh and FUITE

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sorry.. were you under the false impression that I give a rat a$$ about what you think about me or my spelling? Please, for future referance.. I dont.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Kurfurst__
08-23-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Not true, RAF Mustang III/IV's were considerabley faster (~640 kph) than the D-9 at sea level and were right there with +11 lbs boosted Tempet V's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, that 640 km/h claim is based on a single cleaned-up Mustang III tested by the Brits w/o bombrack, aerials etc. The test was done to find which aircraft could be employed best as special diver chaser, with modifications to increase speed, and not to show the operational performance of the 'normal' units. Neil Stirling has posted quite a few Mustang tests, for operationally equipped planes, and none of them show such speeds. They top out at about 385mph maximum!. at full boost.
The claim is even less valid for the Mustang IVs, ie. everyone knows the P-51D was not as aeredynamic as the B/C. In brief, 400mph+ speed for the Mustang is quite a bit of a wishful thinking, 380 mph being far more realistc for RAF Mustangs, ~370 for 8th AF Mustangs, and 360mph for the rest (non-150grade) Mustangs elsewhere at SL. That ain`t bad neither, but far from the fastest of them all props claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By the fall of '44, the RAF's Merlin Mustang force stood at 250 airplanes. This rose to nearly 350 operational examples by late Winter/early Spring of '45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not doubting you, but could we please have a source or reference for that? I have the listing of unit TOE for the 2nd TAF, and they show only one or two Mustang equipped units.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Kurfurst__
08-23-2004, 10:22 AM
Uh, just scrolled back, what an awfully silly thread, LOL.

Guess '109' and 'Mustang' are just evil words possessing dark powers to be unleashed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

arcadeace
08-23-2004, 10:56 AM
109 vs p51... page 6... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Xnomad
08-23-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
The same mistake Germany and Japan made with the early 109 and zero.. They were still thinking in terms of a WWI style of dog fight.. And that was just not the case by the time WWII started rolling..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ash above is your statement.

Below is my answer, once again. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

"As the celebrated Lufwaffe fighter leader, Adolf Galland, has pointed out: "[The pilots] could not or simply would not see that for modern [late 1930s] fighter aircraft the tight turn as a form of aerial combat represented the exception, and further, that it was quite possible to see, shoot and fight from a closed cockpit."

You quite clearly meant that the bf 109 was a WWI fighter by replying to what I said.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Xnomad:
I wouldn't throw it in as something designed out of WWI mind set, I think Ernst Udet didn't like the Bf 109 because he and many others like Goering envisioned a fighter's design as one similar to those used in WWI (open cockpit low wingloading), however when a demonstration was given they were impressed with it. If you can find proof for your statement that the design came out of a WWI mentality then I'm all ears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by Ash:
Right back at you!
--------------------------------------------

Notice the bit about open cockpit and low wingloading, you didn't say then that that wasn't what you meant, all you said was it's over to me, where was your countering argument for the WWI design then?

So clearly you wanted proof, that I dug up and presented. The world waits with baited breath for Ash to conjour up his proof that the Bf 109 came out of a WWI mind set.

Your arguments about "reading into things" are sounding pathetic, stop hiding behind ambiguity it's childish and pathetic, how can one have an intelligent adult discussion with someone like you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Once again a quote repeated to hammer it into the dense matter. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

"This German warplane was the progenitor of such fighters, which, in piston-engined form, were to attain their zenith during World War II"

Admit it, this plane has absolutely nothing to do with WWI. Either come up with an argument and stick to it or don't bother saying anything at all, I'm sure anyone who has read your previous posts will have made up their mind about you, and that you just don't have what it takes to take part in an intelligent discussion.

Shall I dissect everything you just replied with, with the ridiculous answer of "you're reading into things too much"?

Here's a little flavour:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> By ASH
You seem to be READING INTO things again? Take note that I never said the Bf109 was a wooden frame cloth covered bi-plane! I simply said it was designed with the emphases on turning.. i.e. WWI style of DF's.. Much like the ZERO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ash, you are reading into things too much. Did I ever say that you called the Bf 109 a wooden framed, cloth covered bi-plane?

Get my picture? It's a ridiculous way to argue.

If the Bf 109 was built with an empahsis on turning then how come the wingloading was so high and the plane was designed with an emphasis on speed and not turning. If a plane is built with an emphasis on turning then nothing turns better than a bi-plane. ASH I am dieing for the information about the Bf 109 being built as a turner, that was the arguments so bring up the facts or be quiet.

EDIT: Here's another quick quote from : http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Me-109_fighter

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Since the fighter was being designed primarily for high speed flight, a smaller wing would be optimized for high speed use.

Another drawback of the high wing-loading is that the plane would require more energy to maneuver. Given the limited amount of power available, this effectively meant that the Bf 109 would not be able to turn as tightly as other designs with larger wings. The high lift devices would offset this to some degree, but they also increased drag and so slowed the plane further.
Given that MANEUVERABILITY WAS LAST ON THE RLM's WISH-LIST, Messerschmitt was certain the benefits outweighted the drawbacks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

End of EDIT

You are either trolling or you just don't have what it takes to argue, take your pick. I refuse to discuss this any further with you. And I wait dilligently for you to prove to us that the Bf 109 was designed as a turn fighter with WWI dogfighting in mind. Please proceed with you research I'm sure we are all itching to hear this one. I made my point, you had no argument to counter my proof except that "I was reading in too much", http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif please take a few days to think about this and I'll give you a chance to come up with a more intelligent reply.

Good Day!

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

[This message was edited by Xnomad on Mon August 23 2004 at 10:39 AM.]

BSS_Goat
08-23-2004, 11:03 AM
+1 post for me woooohhhoooo

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

http://www.blacksheep214.com/

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

lrrp22
08-23-2004, 11:06 AM
Here is a list of RAF Merlin Mustang squadrons and their conversion dates:

2nd TAF/ADGB Mustang III/IV Squadrons

65 Sqn----------Dec43
122 Sqn----------Jan44
19 Sqn----------Mar44
306 Sqn----------26Mar44
315 Sqn----------27Mar44
129 Sqn----------Apr44
316 Sqn----------19Apr44
234 Sqn----------00Sep44
309 Sqn----------20Oct44
64 Sqn----------Nov44
126 Sqn----------Dec44
165 Sqn----------Jan45
118 Sqn----------1Feb45
303 Sqn----------4Apr45 (IV)
441 Sqn----------Apr45 (IV)
442 Sqn----------9Apr45 (IV)

I don't want to get into the argument over FB377 again but the fact is that with wing racks and full combat equipment a well-used, in-sqaudron service (316 Sqn) Mustang III was capable of ~395 mph/636 kph at sea level.

What Neil Stirling has posted is the 383 mph at sea level that FB377 did as recieved from 316 Sqn. "As recieved" was very worn with six coats of badly chipped paintwork- hardly representative of what a fresh airframe would have been capable of.

It was not specially prepared. The "very poor" paintwork, a result of 3 months of hard squadron use, was restored on the leading 2 ft of the wings and the rest of the airframe "rubbed down", that's all.

Without wingracks (+8 mph), a small aerial bracket (+1 mph) and with slightly larger exhaust stacks (+1 1/2 mph) FB 377 did 405 mph/652 kph.

*Before* it was even tested, while in service with 316 (polish) Squadron, FB377 was already responsible for 10 V-1 shoot downs- two by wing tipping. It had to have its port wingtip replaced as a result of one of these tippings.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Not true, RAF Mustang III/IV's were considerabley faster (~640 kph) than the D-9 at sea level and were right there with +11 lbs boosted Tempet V's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, that 640 km/h claim is based on a single cleaned-up Mustang III tested by the Brits w/o bombrack, aerials etc. The test was done to find which aircraft could be employed best as special diver chaser, with modifications to increase speed, and not to show the operational performance of the 'normal' units. Neil Stirling has posted quite a few Mustang tests, for operationally equipped planes, and none of them show such speeds. They top out at about 385mph maximum!. at full boost.
The claim is even less valid for the Mustang IVs, ie. everyone knows the P-51D was not as aeredynamic as the B/C. In brief, 400mph+ speed for the Mustang is quite a bit of a wishful thinking, 380 mph being far more realistc for RAF Mustangs, ~370 for 8th AF Mustangs, and 360mph for the rest (non-150grade) Mustangs elsewhere at SL. That ain`t bad neither, but far from the fastest of them all props claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
By the fall of '44, the RAF's Merlin Mustang force stood at 250 airplanes. This rose to nearly 350 operational examples by late Winter/early Spring of '45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not doubting you, but could we please have a source or reference for that? I have the listing of unit TOE for the 2nd TAF, and they show only one or two Mustang equipped units.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg
_
We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Ash above is your statement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And they wonder why I quote the whole post.. Jezzz.. But I digress.. Before you were seeing things that were not there.. Now your not seeing what is there.. Go back and read the whole paragraph and the quote it was for.. This OUT OF CONTEXT snipit you posted above is misleading at best.. The paragraph was about design differences between the 109 and 51.. Where in that one it was in response to someone playing down the 51's endurance advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Below is my answer, once again. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

"As the celebrated Lufwaffe fighter leader, Adolf Galland, has pointed out: "[The pilots] could not or simply would not see that for modern [late 1930s] fighter aircraft the tight turn as a form of aerial combat represented the exception, and further, that it was quite possible to see, shoot and fight from a closed cockpit."

You quite clearly meant that the bf 109 was a WWI fighter by replying to what I said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You quite clearly have a bad crystal ball and or should get your money back from the palm reader that told you that is what I was *thinking*.. Base it on what I said.. And be so kind as to not take it out of context

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Notice the bit about open cockpit and low wingloading, you didn't say then that that wasn't what you meant, all you said was it's over to me, where was your countering argument for the WWI design then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I was replying to the provide proof thing.. In that you made that statement as if the open cockpit and wing loading was some kind of proof that the 109 was not a designed to be good turn fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
So clearly you wanted proof, that I dug up and presented.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Master of the obvious statements about the 109 not being made of wood, cloth covered with and open cockpit and two wings does not prove that the 109 was not designed to be a good turn fighter.. i.e. WWI *style* which is not to be confused with WWI *technology*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
The world waits with baited breath for Ash to conjure up his proof that the Bf 109 came out of a WWI mind set.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Hey.. if you want to belive that the early 109s were not good turn fighters.. be my guest!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Your arguments about "reading into things" are sounding pathetic, stop hiding behind ambiguity it's childish and pathetic, how can one have an intelligent adult discussion with someone like you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stop reading into things and 2nd guessing me and taking what I said out of context and Ill stop

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Once again a quote repeated to hammer it into the dense matter. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

"This German warplane was the progenitor of such fighters, which, in piston-engined form, were to attain their zenith during World War II"

Admit it, this plane has absolutely nothing to do with WWI.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I admit it was not a bi-plane with a wooden frame and cover with cloth and an open cockpit.. But it was a transition type of aircraft with an emphasis on turn fighting.. In contrast to the Fw190

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Either come up with an argument and stick to it or don't bother saying anything at all,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Nice try!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
I'm sure anyone who has read your previous posts will have made up their mind about you, and that you just don't have what it takes to take part in an intelligent discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Likewise I'm sure

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Shall I dissect everything you just replied with, with the ridiculous answer of "you're reading into things too much"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well if you did so you wouldn't have made the out of context mistake

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Here's a little flavour:

[QUOTE] By ASH
Ash, you are reading into things too much. Did I ever say that you called the Bf 109 a wooden framed, cloth covered bi-plane? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No but you did say bi-plane and open cockpit.. I was just trying to anticipate your next CRYSTAL BALL reading and insure you that I was not thinking in terms of wood and cloth

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Get my picture? It's a ridiculous way to argue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. trying to guess at what I'm thinking instead of addressing what I said is a ridiculous way to argue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
If the Bf 109 was built with an emphasis on turning then how come the wingloading was so high and the plane was designed with an emphasis on speed and not turning. If a plane is built with an emphasis on turning then nothing turns better than a bi-plane. ASH I am dieing for the information about the Bf 109 being built as a turner, that was the arguments so bring up the facts or be quiet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I said it before and Ill say it again.. If you want to belive the Bf109 was not good turn fighter relative to other fighters and later WWII designs be my guest! The simple fact is the mind set at the onset of the war changed very quickly.. And the Fw190 shows that IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
You are either trolling or you just don't have what it takes to argue, take your pick.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Again.. the sure sign of a man who has been bested is when he has to resort to this type of attack.. What next? Are you going to call me ugly too?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
I refuse to discuss this any further with you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Promise?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
And I wait dilligently for you to prove to us that the Bf 109 was designed as a turn fighter with WWI dogfighting in mind. Please proceed with you research I'm sure we are all itching to hear this one. I made my point, you had no argument to counter my proof except that "I was reading in too much", http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif please take a few days to think about this and I'll give you a chance to come up with a more intelligent reply.

Good Day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good By!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Xnomad
08-23-2004, 11:44 AM
Just in case you don't read the edit here it is again from:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Me-109_fighter

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the fighter was being DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR HIGH SPEED FLIGHT, a smaller wing would be optimized for high speed use......

Another drawback of the high wing-loading is that the plane would require more energy to maneuver. Given the limited amount of power available, this effectively meant that the Bf 109 would not be able to turn as tightly as other designs with larger wings. The high lift devices would offset this to some degree, but they also increased drag and so slowed the plane further.
Given that MANEUVERABILITY WAS LAST ON THE RLM's WISH-LIST, Messerschmitt was certain the benefits outweighted the drawbacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASH STOP BEATING ABOUT THE BUSH, PULL YOUR FINGER OUT AND FIND THE PROOF!

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xnomad:
Just in case you don't read the edit here it is again from:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Me-109_fighter

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the fighter was being DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR HIGH SPEED FLIGHT, a smaller wing would be optimized for high speed use......

Another drawback of the high wing-loading is that the plane would require more energy to maneuver. Given the limited amount of power available, this effectively meant that the Bf 109 would not be able to turn as tightly as other designs with larger wings. The high lift devices would offset this to some degree, but they also increased drag and so slowed the plane further.
Given that MANEUVERABILITY WAS LAST ON THE RLM's WISH-LIST, Messerschmitt was certain the benefits outweighted the drawbacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASH STOP BEATING ABOUT THE BUSH, PULL YOUR FINGER OUT AND FIND THE PROOF!

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Xnomad-Sig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey your back! So.. what part of transition design are you having trouble with? Maybe that crystal ball might help? And dont forget! I allready gave you permission to *belive* that the early 109 was *not* a good turn fighter RELITIVE to other *later* (ie during) WWII aircraft like the Fw190 and others.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 04:13 PM
To compare a 109 to a dog and a P51 to a dog catcher is so original and accurate and must've been spouted by some genius who no doubt thinks the P51 is the finest prop fighter ever.

Which is fine except he is wrong, the 109 is a superior dogfighter in almost every respect to the P51 the only advantages in the GAME being that the P51 has overmodelled guns and has very good control at high speeds.

Now if we were to make real life comparsions between the two we can see that the 109 late G/K series has greater 1800 ~ 2000 HP when compared with the P51D's 1490 ~ 1710 HP. The 109 is lighter and therefore has a greater power to weight ratio than the Mustang so it climbs faster, at a steeper angle, it also accelerates faster. Also the K4 had a greater level speed 452mph compared with 437mph for the Mustang.

As for weapons the 109 had centrally mounted cannons and mgs which gave a concentrated cone of fire. Nose guns needed little convergence and did not jam as easily as wing guns.The rounds fired by the 109 were heavier than the M2's rounds. You can argue this point but it seems like a general consensus that every airpower moved towards cannons and nose mounted guns at some stage.

The Mustang had the benefit of numerical superiority in most cases, fresher pilots who were by and large better trained compared to their counterparts who we rush trained ( with the exception of experten). They also entered combat normally with an altitude advantage. These factors contributed to the fact that the Mustang was highly reguarded.

I dont think that 200 odd luftwaffe fighters the normal frontline strength in mid - late 1944 on the western front gave a suitable challenge to western fighter pilots.

A schwarme of late 109's flown by an experienced squadren, flown clean with no externals would pose a problem to any late war western fighters. It is just a misconception that the Mustang was the best fighter of the war it is certainly the most hyped.

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
To compare a 109 to a dog and a P51 to a dog catcher is so original and accurate and must've been spouted by some genius who no doubt thinks the P51 is the finest prop fighter ever.

Which is fine except he is wrong, the 109 is a superior dogfighter in almost every respect to the P51 the only advantages in the GAME being that the P51 has overmodelled guns and has very good control at high speeds.

Now if we were to make real life comparsions between the two we can see that the 109 late G/K series has greater 1800 ~ 2000 HP when compared with the P51D's 1490 ~ 1710 HP. The 109 is lighter and therefore has a greater power to weight ratio than the Mustang so it climbs faster, at a steeper angle, it also accelerates faster. Also the K4 had a greater level speed 452mph compared with 437mph for the Mustang.

As for weapons the 109 had centrally mounted cannons and mgs which gave a concentrated cone of fire. Nose guns needed little convergence and did not jam as easily as wing guns.The rounds fired by the 109 were heavier than the M2's rounds. You can argue this point but it seems like a general consensus that every airpower moved towards cannons and nose mounted guns at some stage.

The Mustang had the benefit of numerical superiority in most cases, fresher pilots who were by and large better trained compared to their counterparts who we rush trained ( with the exception of experten). They also entered combat normally with an altitude advantage. These factors contributed to the fact that the Mustang was highly reguarded.

I dont think that 200 odd luftwaffe fighters the normal frontline strength in mid - late 1944 on the western front gave a suitable challenge to western fighter pilots.

A schwarme of late 109's flown by an experienced squadren, flown clean with no externals would pose a problem to any late war western fighters. It is just a misconception that the Mustang was the best fighter of the war it is certainly the most hyped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jezzzz.. You guys must really be paranoid? Xnomad reads that and thinks it was a comparsions of the 109 to the B17 and imply the 109 was just a pest to the B17.. You read it and think it imply that the 109 is a INFERIOR fighter relative to the P15..

Now before Larry Fine shows up and makes it 3 out of 3.. Allow me to set record strait AGAIN.. It was an attempt to paint a mental image of the real world JOB that the Bf109 and P51... The Bf109 was like a mad dog chasing after the bombers in the hopes of stopping them.. The P51 was like a dog catcher trying to stop the dogs..

Nothing more.. Nothing less.. So you two MIND READERS put your crystal balls away.. Nothing to see here.. Leave your bias at the door.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-23-2004, 04:49 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-23-2004, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
To compare a 109 to a dog and a P51 to a dog catcher is so original and accurate and must've been spouted by some genius who no doubt thinks the P51 is the finest prop fighter ever.

Which is fine except he is wrong, the 109 is a superior dogfighter in almost every respect to the P51 the only advantages in the GAME being that the P51 has overmodelled guns and has very good control at high speeds.

Now if we were to make real life comparsions between the two we can see that the 109 late G/K series has greater 1800 ~ 2000 HP when compared with the P51D's 1490 ~ 1710 HP. The 109 is lighter and therefore has a greater power to weight ratio than the Mustang so it climbs faster, at a steeper angle, it also accelerates faster. Also the K4 had a greater level speed 452mph compared with 437mph for the Mustang.

As for weapons the 109 had centrally mounted cannons and mgs which gave a concentrated cone of fire. Nose guns needed little convergence and did not jam as easily as wing guns.The rounds fired by the 109 were heavier than the M2's rounds. You can argue this point but it seems like a general consensus that every airpower moved towards cannons and nose mounted guns at some stage.

The Mustang had the benefit of numerical superiority in most cases, fresher pilots who were by and large better trained compared to their counterparts who we rush trained ( with the exception of experten). They also entered combat normally with an altitude advantage. These factors contributed to the fact that the Mustang was highly reguarded.

I dont think that 200 odd luftwaffe fighters the normal frontline strength in mid - late 1944 on the western front gave a suitable challenge to western fighter pilots.

A schwarme of late 109's flown by an experienced squadren, flown clean with no externals would pose a problem to any late war western fighters. It is just a misconception that the Mustang was the best fighter of the war it is certainly the most hyped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/images/hellcat_head_short.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

lrrp22
08-23-2004, 04:57 PM
Your "superior dogfighter in almost every respect" comment is as gross a simplification of the two aircrafts' merits as the silly "Mustang won the War" posts.

Certainly, the 109 had a power to weight advantage over the Mustang (though not nearly as extreme as your figures imply) but the late G's and K's paid a heavy price for it in handling qualities. I dare say that the oft-quoted Mark Hanna would have had a much different opinion of the 109's docile handling if he had flown a war-loaded K-4 at combat power as oppossed to a stripped down Buchon flown at little more than cruise settings.

The Mustang had some pretty profund advantages over the 109 as well, high speed handling being a very important one. Its weaponry was far more than adequate to tear a 109 apart in short order.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
To compare a 109 to a dog and a P51 to a dog catcher is so original and accurate and must've been spouted by some genius who no doubt thinks the P51 is the finest prop fighter ever.

Which is fine except he is wrong, the 109 is a superior dogfighter in almost every respect to the P51 the only advantages in the GAME being that the P51 has overmodelled guns and has very good control at high speeds.

Now if we were to make real life comparsions between the two we can see that the 109 late G/K series has greater 1800 ~ 2000 HP when compared with the P51D's 1490 ~ 1710 HP. The 109 is lighter and therefore has a greater power to weight ratio than the Mustang so it climbs faster, at a steeper angle, it also accelerates faster. Also the K4 had a greater level speed 452mph compared with 437mph for the Mustang.

As for weapons the 109 had centrally mounted cannons and mgs which gave a concentrated cone of fire. Nose guns needed little convergence and did not jam as easily as wing guns.The rounds fired by the 109 were heavier than the M2's rounds. You can argue this point but it seems like a general consensus that every airpower moved towards cannons and nose mounted guns at some stage.

The Mustang had the benefit of numerical superiority in most cases, fresher pilots who were by and large better trained compared to their counterparts who we rush trained ( with the exception of experten). They also entered combat normally with an altitude advantage. These factors contributed to the fact that the Mustang was highly reguarded.

I dont think that 200 odd luftwaffe fighters the normal frontline strength in mid - late 1944 on the western front gave a suitable challenge to western fighter pilots.

A schwarme of late 109's flown by an experienced squadren, flown clean with no externals would pose a problem to any late war western fighters. It is just a misconception that the Mustang was the best fighter of the war it is certainly the most hyped.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 05:01 PM
This forum the last time I checked was about FB a dog fighting game when was the last time you posted something to do with it , the tactics the players use or the planes they fly?

Less of the ' JEEZZZ U GUYS ' and more of the backing up your comments with any useful info.

All Im posting is some info I thinks is relevant given ur comments, all ur posting are accusations that people are mind reading you or im 'lookin in my crystal ball'.

I only made the mistake that u had something to say about the topic and thread but i guess that was me being over optimistic

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
This forum the last time I checked was about FB a dog fighting game when was the last time you posted something to do with it , the tactics the players use or the planes they fly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The last time I checked there was a search by user option.. Use it and you will have your answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Less of the ' JEEZZZ U GUYS ' and more of the backing up your comments with any useful info. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Guess I hit pretty close to home with the parnoid thing huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
All Im posting is some info I thinks is relevant given ur comments, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Think again

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
all ur posting are accusations that people are mind reading you or im 'lookin in my crystal ball'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What am I to think what with both of you missing the mark?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I only made the mistake that u had something to say about the topic and thread but i guess that was me being over optimistic<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, you made more than one mistake.. The first being that you thought I cared about what you think

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Blutarski2004
08-23-2004, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
, the 109 is a superior dogfighter in almost every respect to the P51 the only advantages in the GAME being that the P51 has overmodelled guns and has very good control at high speeds.


..... Here we go with the 50cal "overmodelled guns" bit again. Has it ever dawned on anyone that perhaps German guns have just been UNDER modelled in this lovely sim?



Now if we were to make real life comparsions between the two we can see that the 109 late G/K series has greater 1800 ~ 2000 HP when compared with the P51D's 1490 ~ 1710 HP. The 109 is lighter and therefore has a greater power to weight ratio than the Mustang so it climbs faster, at a steeper angle, it also accelerates faster.


..... and the Mustang was generally faster at height, had a much better high speed roll performance, turned at least as well as most late 109 models, had a very good dive performance, had cleaner aerodynamic lines, MUCH longer endurance, and much better cockpit visibility in the D series. So what's your point?


Also the K4 had a greater level speed 452mph compared with 437mph for the Mustang.


..... For how long ;-] ?



As for weapons the 109 had centrally mounted cannons and mgs which gave a concentrated cone of fire. Nose guns needed little convergence and did not jam as easily as wing guns.The rounds fired by the 109 were heavier than the M2's rounds. You can argue this point but it seems like a general consensus that every airpower moved towards cannons and nose mounted guns at some stage.


..... Both a/c were perfectly capable of expeditiously shooting each other down.



The Mustang had the benefit of numerical superiority in most cases,


..... theater-wise true, tactically speaking far less so due to shuttle fighter escort coverage requirements. See the book TARGET BERLIN for an interesting discussion on this point.


fresher pilots who were by and large better trained compared to their counterparts who we rush trained ( with the exception of experten).


..... Generally true by the time that the P51 entered ETO combat.


They also entered combat normally with an altitude advantage.


..... You really need to support this claim with some proof. Nearly all Germn fighter intercepts were controlled and vectored from the ground with benefit of radar early warning. It was usually the German fighters who would enter combat with INITIAL height advantage.


These factors contributed to the fact that the Mustang was highly reguarded.

I dont think that 200 odd luftwaffe fighters the normal frontline strength in mid - late 1944 on the western front gave a suitable challenge to western fighter pilots.


..... What about the 850 odd German fighters which took off for Bodenplatte?


A schwarme of late 109's flown by an experienced squadren, flown clean with no externals would pose a problem to any late war western fighters. It is just a misconception that the Mustang was the best fighter of the war it is certainly the most hyped.


..... I will confidently state that the P51 was the very finest long range escort fighter of World War 2.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BLUTARSKI

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 05:14 PM
hey havoc my simple statistics are labled clearly because few people here seems to look beyond the simplistic or the stereotypes when discussing these aircraft.

My stats are to show that look at certain aspects and you will see areas where a '1930's' fighter was superior to a 1940's design.

Also I did mention the high speed handling advantages of the mustang which are a huge benefit. Aside from that and range it is not the kind of fighter that can prevail in a yurn and burn fight. Low acceleration, poor climbrate slow roll rate all of these things are fatal when you are fighting against a 109 which has all the advantages when fighting in this scenario.

I think in the game the Mustang is not Uber I dont think it was in real life. Also flying a 'combat' loaded K4 I think you will find that it weighed less than a Buchon. Which also was aero dynamically different with less torque and also with wing cannons if i remember corretly. An empty ammo less one maybe not but just a point there.

The K series was designed to be faster than the Mustang D and it was. I think an experienced LW pilot would take the handling disadvantages readily for the bosst in speed and climb. Statistically it was superior.

With regs to the weapons I didnt say the Mustangs guns would have a prob with a 109. a B17 yes. I only pointed out the advantages of the 109 weapon layout.

Any way back to the game a 109 can hump a mustang anywhere any time. - if im flying it ; )

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
hey havoc my simple statistics are labled clearly because few people here seems to look beyond the simplistic or the stereotypes when discussing these aircraft.

My stats are to show that look at certain aspects and you will see areas where a '1930's' fighter was superior to a 1940's design.

Also I did mention the high speed handling advantages of the mustang which are a huge benefit. Aside from that and range it is not the kind of fighter that can prevail in a yurn and burn fight. Low acceleration, poor climbrate slow roll rate all of these things are fatal when you are fighting against a 109 which has all the advantages when fighting in this scenario.

I think in the game the Mustang is not Uber I dont think it was in real life. Also flying a 'combat' loaded K4 I think you will find that it weighed less than a Buchon. Which also was aero dynamically different with less torque and also with wing cannons if i remember corretly. An empty ammo less one maybe not but just a point there.

The K series was designed to be faster than the Mustang D and it was. I think an experienced LW pilot would take the handling disadvantages readily for the bosst in speed and climb. Statistically it was superior.

With regs to the weapons I didnt say the Mustangs guns would have a prob with a 109. a B17 yes. I only pointed out the advantages of the 109 weapon layout.

Any way back to the game a 109 can hump a mustang anywhere any time. - if im flying it ; )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yawn.. Well it is clear that you think a Turn n Burn is all that maters.. Which is why you think the 30s desings were better than the 40s.. ie The transition aircraft from TnB to BnZ era.. All great stuf for GAMES.. but it doesnt win wars! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 05:21 PM
Gee do you study at harvard with those smart comments ??

Like I said get a clue then we can talk about aircraft or tactics or whatever else you need educating on.

Until then just ***** about this post with ur buddies. * )

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Gee do you study at harvard with those smart comments ??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I teach at harvard

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Like I said get a clue then we can talk about aircraft or tactics or whatever else you need educating on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Still upset that I pointed out how parnoid you are?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Until then just ***** about this post with ur buddies. * )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you like some chezze to go with that?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 05:25 PM
Blutarski

If you know about Bodenplatte you will know that this was the result of hoarding fuel , aircraft and men for months leading up to the operation. This was not a normal op this was a last resort. Hence the fact that normal strength was around the 200 mark due to fuel restrictions if nothing else.

Also look at the tactical situation. 109s attack bomber formation , mustangs bounce from above. or Consider fighter sweep operations where Stangs were operating over german airbases shooting up runways . In both scenarios they would have height superiority.

Kurfurst__
08-23-2004, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... and the Mustang was generally faster at height,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it wasn`t, unless you compare the older 109 models to the newer P-51 models. Level speed does not mean much in air combat though, acceleration does.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>had a much better high speed roll performance, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, and so? Rolling manouvers are useful in manouvering combat, which happens typically at speeds the 109 had better roll rate.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>turned at least as well as most late 109 models, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it wished for that, but it couldn`t. Didn`t have the power ratio, didn`t have the stall characteristics, and was generally too heavy for that. Not hopelessly worser, BUT definietely worser.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>had a very good dive performance,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. So did the 109.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
had cleaner aerodynamic lines, MUCH longer endurance, and much better cockpit visibility in the D series. So what's your point?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still drag was similiar. It had a nice cocpit, long endurance - good thing for an escort fighter. The Germans on the other hand were quite pleased with the good protection and visibility the Erla Hood offered. But what`s the point?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also the K4 had a greater level speed 452mph compared with 437mph for the Mustang.

..... So did the Do335 and the Me262. In a similar fashion, few 109K sorties were really ever made.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dead wrong. 109K was quite widespread in the LW ranks, and formed the bulk with the other high alt 109s.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for weapons the 109 had centrally mounted cannons and mgs which gave a concentrated cone of fire. Nose guns needed little convergence and did not jam as easily as wing guns.The rounds fired by the 109 were heavier than the M2's rounds. You can argue this point but it seems like a general consensus that every airpower moved towards cannons and nose mounted guns at some stage.


..... Both a/c were perfectly capable of expeditiously shooting each other down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was only saying the 109 was built with a more advanced layout and more weight-efficient weapons system, which is true - that`s all.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A schwarme of late 109's flown by an experienced squadren, flown clean with no externals would pose a problem to any late war western fighters. It is just a misconception that the Mustang was the best fighter of the war it is certainly the most hyped.


..... I will confidently state that the P51 was the very finest long range escort fighter of World War 2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite true. Both of you.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 05:28 PM
Ash, if you teach at Harvard, then you have just confirmed the rest of the worlds fears about the intelligence of Americas finest.

sorry me just getting paranoid again ooops

lrrp22
08-23-2004, 05:28 PM
"Also flying a 'combat' loaded K4 I think you will find that it weighed less than a Buchon."

You're kidding, right? You are going to try and tell me that a warbird Buchon, no doubt flown without weapons, ammunition or armor, is going to be heavier than the heaviest 109 at combat weight?

You don't think the massive torque resulting from a wartime DB605D running at emergency power is going to degrade low speed handling well below that enjoyed by a Buchon pushing 1200 HP or so?

The 452 mph figure is also very debatable.

Edit: Your 'heavier' Buchon appears to be around 1100 lbs lighter than a combat-loaded K-4: 6303 lbs Gross (probably as flown by Hanna) and 7010 lbs Max takeoff weight, and that's armed.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
hey havoc my simple statistics are labled clearly because few people here seems to look beyond the simplistic or the stereotypes when discussing these aircraft.

My stats are to show that look at certain aspects and you will see areas where a '1930's' fighter was superior to a 1940's design.

Also I did mention the high speed handling advantages of the mustang which are a huge benefit. Aside from that and range it is not the kind of fighter that can prevail in a yurn and burn fight. Low acceleration, poor climbrate slow roll rate all of these things are fatal when you are fighting against a 109 which has all the advantages when fighting in this scenario.

I think in the game the Mustang is not Uber I dont think it was in real life. Also flying a 'combat' loaded K4 I think you will find that it weighed less than a Buchon. Which also was aero dynamically different with less torque and also with wing cannons if i remember corretly. An empty ammo less one maybe not but just a point there.

The K series was designed to be faster than the Mustang D and it was. I think an experienced LW pilot would take the handling disadvantages readily for the bosst in speed and climb. Statistically it was superior.

With regs to the weapons I didnt say the Mustangs guns would have a prob with a 109. a B17 yes. I only pointed out the advantages of the 109 weapon layout.

Any way back to the game a 109 can hump a mustang anywhere any time. - if im flying it ; )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Mon August 23 2004 at 04:42 PM.]

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 05:34 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif at last someone who is unblinkered. Thank you for giving some perspective to this argument Kufurst.

Lets keep it simple for a dog fight at low to medium altitudes the Mustang Pilot is in trouble if he sticks around.

Also Ash you keep putting words in other peoples mouths the only person talking about Tand B vs B and Z is you. I am a LW flyer how many of us ar T and Bers? As the other guy posted a couple of pages back the Germans invented B and Z in the 109. So what are you getting at?

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Ash, if you teach at Harvard, then you have just confirmed the rest of the worlds fears about the intelligence of Americas finest.

sorry me just getting paranoid again ooops<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Man.. you really are upset about me pointing out your error and that it stems from you being paranoid? Please.. let it go! As i said.. I really dont care what you think.. You should do the same! Just get over that paranoid thing that makes you see things that are not there!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 05:40 PM
Irrp why is the speed debatable? Every max speed quoted is at max boost / MW50 , overload power. Should the 109 not qoute this?

Weights for K4
empty 4886 pounds
max 7440 pounds
1800 HP
'Buchon'
empty 5855 pounds
max 7011 pounds
1610 HP

mynameisroland
08-23-2004, 05:43 PM
posted 23-08-04 16:19
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
hey havoc my simple statistics are labled clearly because few people here seems to look beyond the simplistic or the stereotypes when discussing these aircraft.

My stats are to show that look at certain aspects and you will see areas where a '1930's' fighter was superior to a 1940's design.

Also I did mention the high speed handling advantages of the mustang which are a huge benefit. Aside from that and range it is not the kind of fighter that can prevail in a yurn and burn fight. Low acceleration, poor climbrate slow roll rate all of these things are fatal when you are fighting against a 109 which has all the advantages when fighting in this scenario.

I think in the game the Mustang is not Uber I dont think it was in real life. Also flying a 'combat' loaded K4 I think you will find that it weighed less than a Buchon. Which also was aero dynamically different with less torque and also with wing cannons if i remember corretly. An empty ammo less one maybe not but just a point there.

The K series was designed to be faster than the Mustang D and it was. I think an experienced LW pilot would take the handling disadvantages readily for the bosst in speed and climb. Statistically it was superior.

With regs to the weapons I didnt say the Mustangs guns would have a prob with a 109. a B17 yes. I only pointed out the advantages of the 109 weapon layout.

Any way back to the game a 109 can hump a mustang anywhere any time. - if im flying it ; )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yawn.. Well it is clear that you think a Turn n Burn is all that maters.. Which is why you think the 30s desings were better than the 40s.. ie The transition aircraft from TnB to BnZ era.. All great stuf for GAMES.. but it doesnt win wars!

What did win WW2? let me guess the Mustang Bing and Zing the hordes of LW fighters? No, what won WW2 in no small part was the 36000 plus Sturmoviks attacking the Wermacht from 41 to 45. From 28k outside Moscow to Berlin.

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What did win WW2? let me guess the Mustang Bing and Zing the hordes of LW fighters? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually I think Bob Hope had more to do with it than Bing! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
No, what won WW2 in no small part was the 36000 plus Sturmoviks attacking the Wermacht from 41 to 45. From 28k outside Moscow to Berlin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. Had it not been for the Russians we might all be speaking German.. Thank god for the Russians! They did more to win the war in Euro then the rest of the allieds combined IMHO! Now the pacific.. That is a diffent story IMHO

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

WTE_Galway
08-23-2004, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Thank god for the Russians! They did more to win the war in Euro then the rest of the allieds combined IMHO! Now the pacific.. That is a diffent story IMHO
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, the US did pretty much win the war in the pacific

but the P51 was not the major factor in the pacific, the P38 had the highest kill tally against the japanese

lrrp22
08-23-2004, 06:18 PM
Because it undoubtedly represents the very rare 1.98 ata boost for the DB605DC. Do we have any actual tests that detail the conditions under which 452 mph was achieved?

On a related note, Kurfurst can probably answer this- why does the K-4 achieve its top speed at ~6100m when the very similar and identically engined G-10 achieves its top speed at ~7400m?

I understand why the lower-rated DB605AM-equipped G-6's and G-14's reach their top speeds around 6100m, but why the K-4 with its much larger supercharger and higher critical altitude?

I'm not arguing one way or another here, I'm just curious...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Irrp why is the speed debatable? Every max speed quoted is at max boost / MW50 , overload power. Should the 109 not qoute this?

Weights for K4
empty 4886 pounds
max 7440 pounds
1800 HP
'Buchon'
empty 5855 pounds
max 7011 pounds
1610 HP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
yes, the US did pretty much win the war in the pacific

but the P51 was not the major factor in the pacific, the P38 had the highest kill tally against the japanese<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. and just to be clear.. I never said the P51 was a big factor let alone a factor at all in the pacific.. But I do stand by my Bob Hope statement! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Maple_Tiger
08-23-2004, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
Thank god for the Russians! They did more to win the war in Euro then the rest of the allieds combined IMHO! Now the pacific.. That is a diffent story IMHO
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, the US did pretty much win the war in the pacific

but the P51 was not the major factor in the pacific, the P38 had the highest kill tally against the japanese<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



The P-38 won the war!

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
-----------------------------
The more less you'r travelling, the further back in time you go.

BSS_Goat
08-23-2004, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:



The P-38 won the war!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats what he said Maple. I was wondering but now I know. Post Count +1

http://images.allposters.com/images/dar/yng-17.jpg

http://www.blacksheep214.com/

Patriotism is your conviction
that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it
--George Bernard Shaw

LuftLuver
08-23-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Any way back to the game a 109 can hump a mustang anywhere any time. - if im flying it ; )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh roland,

I really miss guys like you on the eastern front servers. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif With your newly-whined uber turners I would have thought you would jump at the chance to test your mettle against the Yaks and La's. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://members.cox.net/kinetic/SigImages/tonystewartchevy.jpg
"All your road courses are belong to us."

mynameisroland
08-24-2004, 03:37 PM
Hey LuftLuver,

I was on line last nite flying vs yak 9s and lagg 5s in a 109 G2. It was very good, close fights. Then the server introduced yak 3s to unbalance it with no K$ or G6AS and only late war G6 which is like a flying coffin vs a yak 3.

So I do like fighting Russkis but much prefer fighting US types the only one that is any prop is the P63 but even then its sluggish in acceleration, climb and roll

VFA-195 Snacky
08-24-2004, 04:58 PM
It's a Russian sim. Nuff said

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."

WUAF_Badsight
08-24-2004, 11:29 PM
"transition fighter"

heh heh

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Skullin
08-25-2004, 11:37 AM
well, sorry to interrupt your pissing contest, but... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I tried to take up the p51 last night against some A6M5's (the '44's i think), and i couldn't believe it. Was just using the UBQMB and had the flights start in the air head on.

Well, I immediately start climbing like i always do, but at the merge the enemies just pulled right up into me and blasted me to peices. I tried 3 more times before finally escaping the merge, and then the zero's were STILL outclimbing me. I'd go into very patient, prolonged spiral climbs, try diving on them, and then they'd pull right up into me and i'd lose altitude on them every subsequent pass until eventually one of them got on my 6 and crushed me easily.

Beleive me, i'm not whining, i really don't even care. I fly 109's 90% of the time, but just like to take other planes up occasionally. By the way, i took up a G2 against the same zero's and had no problem in taking out all 4 !

I just couldn't believe that i was getting out climbed by zero's. There is definitely something wrong there. And the fact that they lit me up so easily was quite a shock too, as i expected the p51 to last a little longer than that.

Just my observasions for whatever it's worth.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
08-25-2004, 02:26 PM
what about fast speed climb and not doing spiral climb?
Zero is almost the same as buggy I-16, it just keep nose up and outclimbs everything.
speed is the key what you should use. they aint fast.

LuftLuver
08-25-2004, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skullin:
well, sorry to interrupt your pissing contest, but... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I tried to take up the p51 last night against some A6M5's (the '44's i think), and i couldn't believe it. Was just using the UBQMB and had the flights start in the air head on.

Well, I immediately start climbing like i always do, but at the merge the enemies just pulled right up into me and blasted me to peices. I tried 3 more times before finally escaping the merge, and then the zero's were STILL outclimbing me. I'd go into very patient, prolonged spiral climbs, try diving on them, and then they'd pull right up into me and i'd lose altitude on them every subsequent pass until eventually one of them got on my 6 and crushed me easily.

Beleive me, i'm not whining, i really don't even care. I fly 109's 90% of the time, but just like to take other planes up occasionally. By the way, i took up a G2 against the same zero's and had no problem in taking out all 4 !

I just couldn't believe that i was getting out climbed by zero's. There is definitely something wrong there. And the fact that they lit me up so easily was quite a shock too, as i expected the p51 to last a little longer than that.

Just my observasions for whatever it's worth.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing wrong with the P51 in those regards. You are flying it wrong, probably entering the fight too slow and taking no advantage of the zoom. I use the P47 to take out 4 ace Zeros for target practice and in the P51 it's even easier.

More likely something wrong with the Zeros. They must have been better than this.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://members.cox.net/kinetic/SigImages/tonystewartchevy.jpg
"All your road courses are belong to us."

Skullin
08-25-2004, 03:57 PM
Probably right about me not "flying it right", like i said i mainly fly 109's which seem to gradual climb much better. I still think that in any kind of climb the p51 should be miles above the zeros by the time they merge, but oh well. Speed is the key for sure, and i eventually found that out, but with 4 ace zeros chasing you, it's hard to gain much altitude on them to B&Z, or at least it's hard to have the patience http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

LuftLuver
08-25-2004, 04:29 PM
Right.

The Zeros should gobble up any US plane down low in a climb. I have read about P38s, 51s etc extending in a fast or speed climb. Keep it fast and pulled back to just a few degrees climb because it works in the game as well. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif