PDA

View Full Version : P-51D vs. FW190?



Wedge598
05-08-2007, 12:37 PM
I tried a few 1 vs 1 dogfights the other day to test out the P-51D against the FW190 and try out the K-14 sight.

I found that the battles pretty much ended in a stalemate for me. The FW190 would go into a steep climb when I got on his 6 and eventually would pull away far enough to the point where he's try to dive down onto me. I was able to counter that move but unable to get a bead on him before he'd start his climb again. We went back and forth several times. I was getting boring so I gave up.

I've heard that the P-51 is supposed to outclass the FW190 but clearly that fighter has a power advantage. Doesn't it? Or am I really just that bad?

AKA_TAGERT
05-08-2007, 12:38 PM
maybe.. maybe not

tigertalon
05-08-2007, 12:43 PM
What versions of planes are you flying and fighting against (especially this: Anton or Dora)?

At what altitude are you fighting?

What fuel load do you carry in the P51?

Answers to these questions are cruical to discuss this matchup.

bienenbaer
05-08-2007, 12:43 PM
what model of the FW-190 are you flying against? At what altitude? Probably you should check out the Il-2 compare utility.

JG4_Helofly
05-08-2007, 12:43 PM
I've heard that the P-51 is supposed to outclass the FW190

Where did you hear that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

M_Gunz
05-08-2007, 12:46 PM
From much reading right here about history I can tell you that a veteran in a FW, any FW,
can stand up to at least 10 veterans in P-51's. It was the 20:1 that got them every time!

faustnik
05-08-2007, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Wedge598:
I tried a few 1 vs 1 dogfights the other day to test out the P-51D against the FW190 and try out the K-14 sight.

I found that the battles pretty much ended in a stalemate for me. The FW190 would go into a steep climb when I got on his 6 and eventually would pull away far enough to the point where he's try to dive down onto me. I was able to counter that move but unable to get a bead on him before he'd start his climb again. We went back and forth several times. I was getting boring so I gave up.

I've heard that the P-51 is supposed to outclass the FW190 but clearly that fighter has a power advantage. Doesn't it? Or am I really just that bad?

Switch the fight and try the Fw190. See if the AI does the same thing to you.

IRL, advantage depended on version and altitude. In general, the Fw190 was very good at low level, the P-51 gained advantage at medium and high altitudes.

Wedge598
05-08-2007, 12:58 PM
Good points. I can't recall the specific FW190 I was against but the P-51D was the one with the K-14 site. I forget the name exactly. And I did have a full fuel load in it. Another dumb mistake by me.

See this is why I ask these dumb questions. It helps me learn. I'm still quite a newbie at combat sims so all your advice is appreciated.

Where is the compare utility you speak of? That sounds very interesting.

DKoor
05-08-2007, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Wedge598:
I tried a few 1 vs 1 dogfights the other day to test out the P-51D against the FW190 and try out the K-14 sight. I tried 1 Vs 4 German 190 aces (http://www.esnips.com/doc/3b267b2b-b022-4fc6-bbdc-01eb2f9831ab/KunaP51B-vs-4xFW190A-405) and won!


I found that the battles pretty much ended in a stalemate for me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


The FW190 would go into a steep climb when I got on his 6 and eventually would pull away far enough to the point where he's try to dive down onto me. Typically for the 190 Ai. You can counter this by;
1-running him down untill you or him run outta fuel, be aware that he's expand his fuel faster you have plenty (this actually is a bad choice since it'll take more than 1 hour)
2-let him above you and when he dives on you point your nose down and run he catch up with you you just keep running and when he starts to shoot make a gentle turn he'll miss - then make a gentle roll and voila you're on his six.... make a good use of those Brownings then


I was able to counter that move but unable to get a bead on him before he'd start his climb again. See above


We went back and forth several times. I was getting boring so I gave up. Yes Ai doesn't give up


I've heard that the P-51 is supposed to outclass the FW190 but clearly that fighter has a power advantage. It accelerates somewhat slower and climbs slower especially with full fuel load, but take it up high and you'll have the upper hand


Doesn't it? So, in the light of my answer above - no


Or am I really just that bad? Hey, every start is usually tough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
*
PS. Don't forget to trim the 51, untrimmed 51 is m.e.a.n. plane.

Xiolablu3
05-08-2007, 01:11 PM
If you are flying against a FW190A then the higher you go, the better the P51 gets.

Even against a Dora, the P51 has the advantage up high.

If you are a FW190 then try and keep the P51 low. If you are a P51 try and get him as high as possible.

These two fighters are extrememly similar in their performance and in 'style' of plane, except for the heights they should fight at.

Both great in a dive.
Both not so great climbers
Both have fantastic controls at high speeds.
Both very fast planes
Both not such great turners


However

P51 great at altitude
FW190 Great at low alt

Fw190 has much better firepower - only one good burst is needed to kill a fighter. MG's are a bit outdated by 1940-41, shame the P51 didnt have Cannon.


The FW190 roll rate can be an advantage at low speeds, but it is an even match at high speeds.

Generally its a very even contest, if the P51 can get the FW190 to above 5000-6000metres then he should win. If the Fw190 can keep the P51 down low around 3000m and lower, then he has an advantage, although its not as great as the P51 has over the FW190 up high.

Down low I would give the edge to the FW190 purely becasue it handles better down low, and the firepower is incredible.

Up high theres no doubt that the P51 has the upper hand, but unfortunatly its rare to see fights at 6000metres online.

tigertalon
05-08-2007, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Wedge598:
Good points. I can't recall the specific FW190 I was against but the P-51D was the one with the K-14 site.

That'd be P-51D-20


Originally posted by Wedge598:
And I did have a full fuel load in it. Another dumb mistake by me.


Aaaaaahhhh, that's it. Never ever try to dogfight in a P51 with more than 50% fuel. It carries enormous quantities of fuel that weight down your plane and destabilase it as it moves center of gravity backwards. AFAIK IRL pilots were advised the same thing.

Like faustnik pointed out, fight him at high altitudes, at lower 190s are better than high. If you are alone and meet a D-9 version below 6k, run like hell for you are outnumbered.

I'd suggest you start in quick mission builder, use 25% fuel in your P51, choose a single Fw190A4 as your opponent with 100% fuel, start at 7500 meters. Maybe even choose "advantage". When you will learn how to engage himself confidently enough on such setting, gradually change them to harder (better Fw190 version, lower altitude, non- or even disadvantage,...) The ultimate test being going 1v1 verusus ace Fw190D-9 at low altitude.

DKoor
05-08-2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
shame the P51 didnt have Cannon. He he I see that would be easily the most flown plane online ever in that setup http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
4xH is just insane firepower.... If they put that on later Spitfires they would be 2 times deadly too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Wedge598
05-08-2007, 01:30 PM
Thanks again guys.

About the trimming of the plane. I always try to trim the elevator and rudder before engaging but I'm not sure I'm doing it right.

At 90%-100% power I set the elevator trim once I've achieved max speed. And I do the same for the rudder but my question is. Isn't the trimming of the rudder a function of the wind and the direction your heading? Or is more a function of the engine torque? It just seems that the amount I need to trim changes depending on what direction I'm heading.

Can anyone clear up for me exactly what I'm trying to do to trim the rudder and also if I need to think about aileron trim as well?

fordfan25
05-08-2007, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've heard that the P-51 is supposed to outclass the FW190

Where did you hear that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>history>?

fordfan25
05-08-2007, 02:00 PM
first let me say the AI in this game is horrible. do not test FM aginst AI. i have AI out climb me when im in a 109k and AI is flying a p-47 lol.

With that said from my exp. p-51vs 190A. down low top speed is close . Anton has better excelration. anton has much better low alt climb and can zoom up and hold a nose up position longer. all around better in the vertical manuvers. level turning abilty is close and depends more on who starts with any kind of advantege and piolet skill,exp and who has the better control set up "something that is over looked on most discussions". The Anton has the abilty to stay stable at slower speeds as long asd the piolet knows what he is doing. the FW190 also has some stupid trick were it can be forced into a stall, flip around and the piolet can instantly recover the plan with little effort. Acts as a BS air break. and as the plane can remain very stable it gives its piolet a good chance of hitting you as you fly by. best counter is to pul UP and roll back down IMHO.

up high the p-51 has better power. low speed excelaration is still less from my exp but aboave 200MPH you start loseing him. you will find aboave 20k you have alot mo9re speed and better heat mangment. manuvers are slightly in your favor but try to keep the fight b&z.


P-51 vs dora. below 20k feet he holds all the advantges. higher excelaration. as good in dog fight manuvers with much better low speed abilty. is much faster and has a BS dive rate that not even a p47 can catch.also be aware that the dora can take damnge from a roughly 6:00 position..... very well. last night it took 96 hits for me to down mad-mosses lol. and thats the norm. now from high deflection its not so tough.

The p51 get slightly faster at around 25k feet and has slightly better heat mangment. manuvers up there if both planes are at the same speed ect is roughly the same. maby slightly better for the 51 but for the most part its who has the most exp in said plane and who has a more stable controle set up ect.

Xiolablu3
05-08-2007, 02:38 PM
I wouldnt say that the contemporary P51 outclassed the FW190.

It did surpass it at certain points, just like the FW190 pulled ahead sometimes. Its much like the Spitfire vs BF109 struggle.

The P51B is comparable to the Fw190A6/A8 and the P51D is comparable to the Dora. However there were far more P51D's than Doras of course.

Why do you say that the P51 outclassed the FW190 Fordfan, I'm interested ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess if you are comparing the P51D from Summer-Autumn 1944 with the FW190A6-A9 from the same period until the Dora arrived.

I would give the Fw190A6 the edge over the P51B down low and mid alt.

DKoor
05-08-2007, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've heard that the P-51 is supposed to outclass the FW190

Where did you hear that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>history channel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>fixed

stalkervision
05-08-2007, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Wedge598:
I tried a few 1 vs 1 dogfights the other day to test out the P-51D against the FW190 and try out the K-14 sight.

I found that the battles pretty much ended in a stalemate for me. The FW190 would go into a steep climb when I got on his 6 and eventually would pull away far enough to the point where he's try to dive down onto me. I was able to counter that move but unable to get a bead on him before he'd start his climb again. We went back and forth several times. I was getting boring so I gave up.

I've heard that the P-51 is supposed to outclass the FW190 but clearly that fighter has a power advantage. Doesn't it? Or am I really just that bad?

Sounds exactly how i fight early spits in my 109e. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Climb away and zand B them over and over. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Same way I keep away from Mustangs and P-47's in any 109 except then I do a tight slats hanging out "spiral climb" to gain altitude over them and come back at them z and b or t and b. If I get bored with them this is also a perfect evasion manauver.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

mbfRoy
05-08-2007, 02:55 PM
Try it with someone instead of the AI if possible, you'll get a better picture that way.

John_Wayne_
05-08-2007, 02:56 PM
How d'you get early Spits in game?

DKoor
05-08-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
I'd suggest you start in quick mission builder, use 25% fuel in your P51, choose a single Fw190A4 as your opponent with 100% fuel, start at 7500 meters. Maybe even choose "advantage". When you will learn how to engage himself confidently enough on such setting, gradually change them to harder (better Fw190 version, lower altitude, non- or even disadvantage,...) The ultimate test being going 1v1 verusus ace Fw190D-9 at low altitude. Yes at such heights we can toy with ace Ai 190D (http://www.speedyshare.com/866346818.html) in P-51D.... even Ai cannot outrun player at all meaning it'd be 2x easier to outrun a human because no human can conserve energy to run like Ai. It took perhaps two minutes for me to catch him and few more until he took a swim. Also I started with 50% fuel and alt disadvantage.

It's quite different on deck. Once 190D starts to run and climb you simply cannot catch him with 51.

stalkervision
05-08-2007, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
How d'you get early Spits in game?


I didn't.. This is for BOBWOV..

The climbing spiral is a tactic I use when I fly Il-2 1946... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


I bet the first tactic will work well in BOB/SOW when it comes out though.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I bet an early spit would "clean my clock" if I tried a "climbing spiral" on it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

especially a "terminator ai spit!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

faustnik
05-08-2007, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would give the Fw190A6 the edge over the P51B down low and mid alt.

Well, you have to figure what the most important altitude is, and for the P-51, and Fw190, in 1944, I'd say 25,000 feet. At that altitude the performance advantage clearly lies with the P-51. If the Fw190 drags the Mustang low, and the Mustang follows, then the Fw190 can fight the P-51 on equal terms.

I made this chart to illustrate the Fw190's problem:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/1943_Speed_Compare_II.gif

This shows a P-47 instead of the P-51, but, you get the picture.

JG4_Helofly
05-08-2007, 04:39 PM
Thx for the chart Faustnik. This is pretty clear I would say. At low to low-mid alt the Anton hast the advantage but at medium-high alt the mustang has the advantage.

Just a question about the 190 in this chart. Was 1.42 ata at 2400rpm emergency power? If I remember correctly the fw190 reach it's max power at 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata.

VW-IceFire
05-08-2007, 04:46 PM
This chart shows the basic advantage/disadvantage of most of the 1943 and onward US planes. Their performance ultimate top speed is top of their class when you get to 25,000 feet but at lower altitudes they are just very good.

faustnik
05-08-2007, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:

Just a question about the 190 in this chart. Was 1.42 ata at 2400rpm emergency power? If I remember correctly the fw190 reach it's max power at 2700 rpm and 1.42 ata.

You are correct, it should say 1.42ata@2700rpm.

Nice catch!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Clipper_51
05-08-2007, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From much reading right here about history I can tell you that a veteran in a FW, any FW,
can stand up to at least 10 veterans in P-51's. It was the 20:1 that got them every time!

LOL! good 1 ace. I give you about 10 secs until you and your Dora are toast

Clipper_51
05-08-2007, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If you are flying against a FW190A then the higher you go, the better the P51 gets.

Even against a Dora, the P51 has the advantage up high.

If you are a FW190 then try and keep the P51 low. If you are a P51 try and get him as high as possible.

These two fighters are extrememly similar in their performance and in 'style' of plane, except for the heights they should fight at.

Both great in a dive.
Both not so great climbers
Both have fantastic controls at high speeds.
Both very fast planes
Both not such great turners


However

P51 great at altitude
FW190 Great at low alt

Fw190 has much better firepower - only one good burst is needed to kill a fighter. MG's are a bit outdated by 1940-41, shame the P51 didnt have Cannon.


The FW190 roll rate can be an advantage at low speeds, but it is an even match at high speeds.

Generally its a very even contest, if the P51 can get the FW190 to above 5000-6000metres then he should win. If the Fw190 can keep the P51 down low around 3000m and lower, then he has an advantage, although its not as great as the P51 has over the FW190 up high.

Down low I would give the edge to the FW190 purely becasue it handles better down low, and the firepower is incredible.

Up high theres no doubt that the P51 has the upper hand, but unfortunatly its rare to see fights at 6000metres online.

A 190 (any) turns worse, dives worse and (most important) zooms worse. They have an upper hand in firepower and roll. Sustained climb is a toss-up. They all stink over 24k against a P-51.

The best OL 190 pilots are hit and run guys and usually look for a way out in an even contest vs. 51, particularly at higher alts.

All this aaumes the P-51 engages at a speed of 230 mph IAS or higher.

The 190 is a good plane but the Mustang is better. Better at high or low speed, more even at lower alts, but nothing that can't be addressed.

And re: multiple 190's. Of course that's a huge problem, but two or three of anything on you is a problem.

Also, remember that the P-51D we have is a garden variety, mid-1944 version without the proper octane fuel, whereas (IIRC), the Doras we have are slightly rare versions. A properly boosted late-44 P-51D would do even better at lower alts.

despite all this, positional advantage, gunnery, surprise are all more important. I got hosed today by a Dora I never saw or heard. He could have been in a Cessna.

SithSpeeder
05-08-2007, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Clipper_51:

despite all this, positional advantage, gunnery, surprise are all more important. I got hosed today by a Dora I never saw or heard. He could have been in a Cessna. That's a quote worth saving!

* _54th_Speeder *

ake109
05-08-2007, 07:36 PM
That chart reminds me of a quote from a JG26 book (can't remember author). It had a German pilot quoting that he thinks the 190a is the fastest thing on the deck and there was absolutely nothing else out there that could catch it.

DKoor
05-08-2007, 08:01 PM
In game Mustang Mk.III owns any FW (including Condor too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ) up to around 4,5k it's just insanely fast piston aircraft.
I guess they used to beat them IRL too.... just there wasn't many such fights, P-51D was more common variant and they weren't really good like Mustang Mk.III on low altitudes.

But I just played few QMB's on 7500m starting alt with P-51D.... you can select four Ai aces, and 51 toys with them on that altitude.... it's just incredibly fast aircraft on high altitudes.

LoL after all Oleg just may got it spot on and if it ain't for inability to select which fuel tanks should be used....

lowfighter
05-08-2007, 10:02 PM
About horisontal acceleration starting low 100m and slow 300 Km/h, in my tests, the human (me)piloted P51D22 with 50% fuel is considerably better than AI FW190A8 and comparable with AI dora (both 100%fuel). AI FW190A8 runs at 1.62 ata and 2700 rpm. A human can squeeze more by setting the prop pitch at 100, which gives 2900 rpm so a human flying the A8 might be harder to catch (if he flies smoothly) than an AI FW190A8.

jermin122
05-09-2007, 01:31 AM
Both not so great climbers

If you are comparing them to spitfire 25lb, then you are right. But actually, D9, A9, P51 and P47are all good climbers. The difference is their best climb speed varies.

Xiolablu3
05-09-2007, 02:22 AM
I am comparing them to any standard contemporary Spitfire or Bf109. (Also maybe the P38? I hear lately that this was an excellent climber)

They may be good climbers, but they are not great.

If you look at any climbing chart showing same period WW2 fighters 1942 or after, the FW190 will usually be mid to low on the graph. I think the early versions in 1941-42 MAY have been able to climb with the Spitfire V, but thats the only Spitfire with a lower climb than a FW190.

Please prove me wrong if I am mistaken. I like to be put right.


Thx for the excellent chart Faust! Is the Spitfire Vc on the chart a LowFlyer version? I didnt think Spitfire V's were that bad at altitude?

faustnik
05-09-2007, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If you look at any climbing chart showing same period WW2 fighters 1942 or after, the FW190 will usually be mid to low on the graph.
Please prove me wrong if I am mistaken. I like to be put right.

No, that's not correct. Fw190s could climb with most contemporaries up until the Merlin 63 engined Spit IX. If you compare it to the Spit though, you are comparing it to a fantastic climber. It remained equal or superior in low level climb to many of the USAAF fighters, which were also built for top speed performance. You have to be very careful with climb figures given books, especially general a/c references. Fw190 climb tests are frequently listed at climbing power levels, not WEP levels.

If you look at this chart:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?set_al...clude=view_photo.php (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?set_albumName=Fw190_Graphs&id=fw190g8_climb&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php)

The line labeled "2" is the "climb rate @ climbing power". The other lines are full power and full power with boost (EN cooling). This was the reason I became interested in the Fw190, there is a lot of mystery and confusion surrounding it. I'm really interested in the Cobra for the same reasons.



Thx for the excellent chart Faust! Is the Spitfire Vc on the chart a LowFlyer version? I didnt think Spitfire V's were that bad at altitude?

It was a Merlin 45, so, no I don't think it was the low level version. It was a 4 cannon version so slightly heavy, although that shouldn't be a huge factor in Vmax. It was being phased out in fornt line service by then anyway. The speed for the A5 would be similar to a fully rated A3 or A4 in 1942 though. You can see why the Spit Vs were in trouble.

JtD
05-09-2007, 11:56 AM
Faustnik, unless you are talking about climb below 500m for the 1.65 ata versions, I don't think the Fw had much of an advantage over any late Allied fighter. You actually have to look pretty hard to find a mid 44 plane that is considerably (say 10%+) worse than the Fw. If you find one, it is usually a plane with twice the range and full fuel tanks.

While the climb is probably sufficient in most engagements to not be a handicap, it certainly isn't a strong point of the plane.

faustnik
05-09-2007, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Faustnik, unless you are talking about climb below 500m for the 1.65 ata versions, I don't think the Fw had much of an advantage over any late Allied fighter. You actually have to look pretty hard to find a mid 44 plane that is considerably (say 10%+) worse than the Fw. If you find one, it is usually a plane with twice the range and full fuel tanks.

While the climb is probably sufficient in most engagements to not be a handicap, it certainly isn't a strong point of the plane.

You're not reading what I posted. I'm not claiming an advantage in '44, and Xios' question was 1942. If you get into late 1944, I agree. Of course, then you are talking 1.65ata A8s, A9s and heading into Doras, which all had good low level climb rates. No, the Fw190 was built for speed performance over climb performance but, I mentioned that above too.

Not sure what you are posting about???

JtD
05-09-2007, 12:17 PM
Mainly about P-51D vs. Fw 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"It remained equal or superior in low level climb to many of the USAAF fighters, which were also built for top speed performance."

Unless you are talking about 1.65 ata versions below 500m etc., etc..

fordfan25
05-09-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wouldnt say that the contemporary P51 outclassed the FW190.

It did surpass it at certain points, just like the FW190 pulled ahead sometimes. Its much like the Spitfire vs BF109 struggle.

The P51B is comparable to the Fw190A6/A8 and the P51D is comparable to the Dora. However there were far more P51D's than Doras of course.

Why do you say that the P51 outclassed the FW190 Fordfan, I'm interested ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess if you are comparing the P51D from Summer-Autumn 1944 with the FW190A6-A9 from the same period until the Dora arrived.

I would give the Fw190A6 the edge over the P51B down low and mid alt. becaus the p51 rules and the FW drooles http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif be sure to remembe5r that by the time the dora was at its peak in numbers there were alot of p51d's that were useing the higher boost like the mk3 iirc. wich we dont have in game. and g suits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. plus IRL most fights aginst the FW were at 25+ not like ITG "In The Game" were every mission is a tactical ground attack mission were you are lucky to find a blue at 15k feet lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. all jokeing aside i think over all the two fighters were closely matched IRL. almost dead even at med alt,low alt going to the FW and high going to the p-51.

fordfan25
05-09-2007, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've heard that the P-51 is supposed to outclass the FW190

Where did you hear that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>history </div></BLOCKQUOTE>i sux </div></BLOCKQUOTE>fixed

DKoor
05-09-2007, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
About horisontal acceleration starting low 100m and slow 300 Km/h, in my tests, the human (me)piloted P51D22 with 50% fuel is considerably better than AI FW190A8 and comparable with AI dora (both 100%fuel). AI FW190A8 runs at 1.62 ata and 2700 rpm. A human can squeeze more by setting the prop pitch at 100, which gives 2900 rpm so a human flying the A8 might be harder to catch (if he flies smoothly) than an AI FW190A8. Hey mate if it's no secret, how do you test? I wanna run some tests too....
Other than in combat I don't know how to get Ai into full power climb.

faustnik
05-09-2007, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Mainly about P-51D vs. Fw 190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"It remained equal or superior in low level climb to many of the USAAF fighters, which were also built for top speed performance."

Unless you are talking about 1.65 ata versions below 500m etc., etc..

Ummm, go to here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html

Compare low level climb with EB104 data (which I think you have).

Fw190 climb is not in the Spit IX range, but, certainly respectable at low level.

But, maybe you read things differently than I do???

Brain32
05-09-2007, 12:59 PM
With that said from my exp. p-51vs 190A. down low top speed is close.
Only FW190A9 can come close to the P51D, and only with prop pitch set at 100%, even then P51D gas a 3-4kmh advantage. But then again why would you run away from one FW190 in a P51D(in the game ofcourse)?

Anton has better excelration.
O really? Would like to see that, maybe YOU can show it to us?

anton has much better low alt climb and can zoom up and hold a nose up position longer. all around better in the vertical manuvers.
What are you smoking?

level turning abilty is close and depends more on who starts with any kind of advantege and piolet skill,exp and who has the better control set up "something that is over looked on most discussions".
OK m8, first I thought you were simply full of sh1t, but now it seems like you are describing a Dora(that's FW190D9) not the Anton.

The Anton has the abilty to stay stable at slower speeds as long asd the piolet knows what he is doing.
Same can be said for P51D.

the FW190 also has some stupid trick were it can be forced into a stall, flip around and the piolet can instantly recover the plan with little effort. Acts as a BS air break. and as the plane can remain very stable it gives its piolet a good chance of hitting you as you fly by. best counter is to pul UP and roll back down IMHO.
I wish this was really true, but in the series of "tweaking" through patches, FW190's lost their historical snap stall ability, now the P51's have it and use it widely.


P.S: If you EVER decide to show me all that what you wrote about FW190A, me and my P51D will be ready http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
05-09-2007, 01:07 PM
Faustnik, the EB104 is a 3850kg version, not a 4100. A-5@1.42 has a climb rate in the range of 15m/s. This is the alternative to the A-8@1.65 climb rates around 15 m/s. The Mustang MkIII (P-51B) had a climb rate of around 17.5 m/s at low alts.

Yes, the A-4, considerably lighter than the usual 1944 versions, had a better climb. But this hardly means that the Fw remained superior as the war went on.

1942: A-4 is superior to most US planes (P-40)
1943: A-5 has possibly a slight advantage over most US planes (P-40, P-47early, but not P-38)
1944: A-8 is somewhat inferior to most US planes (P-38, P-47later, P-51)

I guess we both know the actual numbers, just depends on which you pick and how you look at them. I, personally, didn't quite feel comfortable with your summary. But, well, that could be just me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
05-09-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
But, well, that could be just me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Probably.

Xiolablu3
05-09-2007, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Faustnik, unless you are talking about climb below 500m for the 1.65 ata versions, I don't think the Fw had much of an advantage over any late Allied fighter. You actually have to look pretty hard to find a mid 44 plane that is considerably (say 10%+) worse than the Fw. If you find one, it is usually a plane with twice the range and full fuel tanks.

While the climb is probably sufficient in most engagements to not be a handicap, it certainly isn't a strong point of the plane.

You're not reading what I posted. I'm not claiming an advantage in '44, and Xios' question was 1942. If you get into late 1944, I agree. Of course, then you are talking 1.65ata A8s, A9s and heading into Doras, which all had good low level climb rates. No, the Fw190 was built for speed performance over climb performance but, I mentioned that above too.

Not sure what you are posting about??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think you read my post wrong, Faust.

I was talking specifically AFTER 1942, not ABOUT 1942.

I agree that in 1942 things were very even on the climb front, maybe the BF109 and the Merlin 61 Spit were a bit higher at that time.

EDIT: I just realised that I wrote '1942 or after' when I actually meant 'Very Late 1942 and after'.

ANYWAY I meant after the vanilla MkV's and into the highly boosted V versions and MkIX Spitfires which is late 1942. Certainly 1943.

faustnik
05-09-2007, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I meant after the vanilla MkV's and into the highly boosted V versions and MkIX Spitfires which is late 1942. Certainly 1943.

Gotcha, yeah, those Spit could really climb, especially the Merlin 63 & 66 versions.

I think the factors that evened this out somewhat were high speed climb and zoom climb. The Fw190 was very good in these areas. At least, that's the opinion I get from reading the RAF test pilot sources.

fordfan25
05-09-2007, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> With that said from my exp. p-51vs 190A. down low top speed is close.
Only FW190A9 can come close to the P51D, and only with prop pitch set at 100%, even then P51D gas a 3-4kmh advantage. But then again why would you run away from one FW190 in a P51D(in the game ofcourse)?

Anton has better excelration.
O really? Would like to see that, maybe YOU can show it to us?

anton has much better low alt climb and can zoom up and hold a nose up position longer. all around better in the vertical manuvers.
What are you smoking?

level turning abilty is close and depends more on who starts with any kind of advantege and piolet skill,exp and who has the better control set up "something that is over looked on most discussions".
OK m8, first I thought you were simply full of sh1t, but now it seems like you are describing a Dora(that's FW190D9) not the Anton.

The Anton has the abilty to stay stable at slower speeds as long asd the piolet knows what he is doing.
Same can be said for P51D.

the FW190 also has some stupid trick were it can be forced into a stall, flip around and the piolet can instantly recover the plan with little effort. Acts as a BS air break. and as the plane can remain very stable it gives its piolet a good chance of hitting you as you fly by. best counter is to pul UP and roll back down IMHO.
I wish this was really true, but in the series of "tweaking" through patches, FW190's lost their historical snap stall ability, now the P51's have it and use it widely.


P.S: If you EVER decide to show me all that what you wrote about FW190A, me and my P51D will be ready http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>im not going to argue with you on this.Fw antons A9 at least has in my exp better low speed and low alt atrabutes all around as long as the FW piolet is worth a shi* in the FW. i have little exp in the FW myself so your challenge to me would prove nothing. i am how ever some what effecent in the p-51 and have flown aginst GOOD FW piolets and have seen waht can be done in them. why dont we get ski in hear to discusse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . with my controls ect ect the FW is noticbly more stable at low speeds and has the abilty to pull higher max angle of attack at lowert speeds. also the BS stall break the FW is capable of is still very posable in current version of the game that is onething i KNOW i can do and will be glad to demandstrat for you next time we are in WC togather. in fact if you would like to test dive rates and climb abilty ect let me know. we will find a nice quiet edge of the map and you can make a track ect.

Brain32
05-09-2007, 05:33 PM
why dont we get ski in hear to discussehttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
Well m8 I would not be afraid of Jesus Christ, Buddha and Allah in a 3-seater FW190A9 while in P51D so bring it on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Clipper_51
05-09-2007, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> why dont we get ski in hear to discussehttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
Well m8 I would not be afraid of Jesus Christ, Buddha and Allah in a 3-seater FW190A9 while in P51D so bring it on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol~! Classic Brain

fordfan25
05-09-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> why dont we get ski in hear to discussehttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
Well m8 I would not be afraid of Jesus Christ, Buddha and Allah in a 3-seater FW190A9 while in P51D so bring it on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>being afraid or not makes no deffernce. how ever i was not suggesting you two should fight i mentuned ski because he is is well versed and has done very well sence useing the a9 and would be a good source of info on the subject. so you can realy chill on the self ego strokeing

Jaws2002
05-09-2007, 07:11 PM
In the game the mustang. all mustangs are better planes then the Antons. No question about that.
I flew Pony for a bit last night in some coops and that thing is pure joy to fly. One on one it should eat a 190A alive.

deepo_HP
05-09-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
In the game the mustang. all mustangs are better planes then the Antons. No question about that.
I flew Pony for a bit last night in some coops and that thing is pure joy to fly. One on one it should eat a 190A alive.

well, i flew anton last sunday for a bit in a campaign and it was such a great feeling. against a pony it should rule the sky.

Ratsack
05-09-2007, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
...

With that said from my exp. p-51vs 190A. down low top speed is close .

You should be able to comfortably out run any Anton at low alt, except the A-9. That one is still slower, but the margin is smaller. Next is the A-8, followed at a fair margin by the A-5/6. However, as you get up toward 2,000 m, the A-6 is faster than the A-8, so it's important to know what you're doing and what you're up against.




Anton has better excelration.

Don't know about that. At low speeds I think you'd be wrong. The way the Anton's engine control is modeled, it can't maintain revs below about 250 kmh. At low speeds it accelerates very poorly indeed. At higher speeds, I think some tests would be interesting. Excess power method might do the trick.




anton has much better low alt climb

I think you'll find that depends upon speed. Low speed, the Anton's dead.



and can zoom up and hold a nose up position longer. all around better in the vertical manuvers.

Again, I think you're conflating a whole lot of low and high speed performance characteristics.




level turning abilty is close and depends more on who starts with any kind of advantege

No dice. The P-51 out turns the Anton quite easily. The only way they are close is if the Mustang driver doesn't deploy combat flaps as the speed drops, or if he doesn't have good rudder control. If the latter, he's likely to stall out or be more timid in the turn. However, the same is true of the Fw 190 in this game.




and piolet skill,exp and who has the better control set up "something that is over looked on most discussions".

Here I agree with you. The pilot more experienced or comfortable at riding the stall will win this one if his opponent isn't. Similarly, rudder pedals help enormously in turning both these planes.




The Anton has the abilty to stay stable at slower speeds as long asd the piolet knows what he is doing.

Agreed. As does the Mustang.



the FW190 also has some stupid trick were it can be forced into a stall, flip around and the piolet can instantly recover the plan with little effort. Acts as a BS air break. and as the plane can remain very stable it gives its piolet a good chance of hitting you as you fly by.

This move used to be called the 'von Roll'. I haven't seen it for a while. It disappeared about the same time that a lot of Blue players started complaining that the Fw 190 lost its instantaneous turn. About patch 3.XX, from memory.



...

up high the p-51 has better power. low speed excelaration is still less from my exp but aboave 200MPH you start loseing him. you will find aboave 20k you have alot mo9re speed and better heat mangment. manuvers are slightly in your favor but try to keep the fight b&z.

Good advice.

cheers,
Ratsack

lowfighter
05-09-2007, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
. Hey mate if it's no secret, how do you test? I wanna run some tests too....
Other than in combat I don't know how to get Ai into full power climb.[/QUOTE]

It's more horizontal acceleration although the AI will start climbing after a while. You are in a red plane close behind another red plane and far away there's a blue plane flying straight. The red AI will accelerate to catch the blue plane. So should the player, so it's a race between the 2 red planes. Here's a P51D20 with 50%fuel versus a FW190D9 AI with 100 fuel. Of course you can try some other planes.
Two things:
1.I don't know what radiator settings is the AI using.
2. When the mission starts the AI will only gradually increase the power, perhaps 6-7 seconds till he goes to full power, so if you fire too fast the trottle at the beginning you'll have the advantage of initial acceleration over the AI. That's a weak thing about the test...

[MAIN]
MAP Crimea/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
player usa0103
army 1
playerNum 0
[Wing]
usa0103
usa0102
g0103
[usa0103]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.P_51D20NA
Fuel 50
weapons default
[usa0103_Way]
NORMFLY 30993.21 69791.36 100.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 100056.34 69819.59 100.00 300.00 &0
[usa0102]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.FW_190D9
Fuel 100
weapons default
[usa0102_Way]
NORMFLY 30530.21 69803.47 100.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 101107.86 69879.12 100.00 300.00 &0
[g0103]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.P_47D27
Fuel 100
weapons none
[g0103_Way]
NORMFLY 34087.01 69723.39 100.00 650.00 &0
NORMFLY 102458.18 69803.05 100.00 650.00 &0
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]

Xiolablu3
05-10-2007, 01:21 AM
I must really suck at flying the Mustang III's cos I took one on a bombing raid online once, saw I was about to be attacked by a Bf109, so I dived down 45 degrees,, shallow divebombed the targets and then headed off for home as fast as I could on the deck.


The BF109 easily caught me after a bit of a chase?!?

Not sure what I was doing wrong, or if the bomb racks slowed me down THAT much.

I presume the Bf109 was a G10 or G14, certainly not a K.

He did start higher than me, but I thought I had picked up a lot of speed in the bombing dive too.

Just remembering one of the rare times I flew a Mustang III.


DOnt worry about Brain, he seems to think all red planes are amazing, yet flies blue (?) I am sure he has whips and chains in his basement and loves to be 'punished' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
05-10-2007, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
test... Thanks I'll look into it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bewolf
05-10-2007, 04:32 AM
The 51 is one hell of a smooth ride. I took it up for some spins lately, first time really in all the time I own the game (I just think the P51 has such a reputation and hyppe, I never could come over myself to fly it, opposite to the 38 or the 47). But damn, this thing is pure hell. I does everything the 190 does, just better. It's only weaks spots are the lack of cannons, really. Flew it on some dogfight servers and even beat several La7 wiith the P51D, flying exactly the way I would have flown my trusty 190. This thing is pure hell. Though it takes some time to come to speed, it is one of those planes, once you have speed, you just do not lose it anymore. In all honesty, next tiime ppl complain about the 51, I woon't be able to take them serious anymore.

Btw, the "BS spin" of the 190 some guys complained about is historical correct. I do not know if I can find those andectodes again, but this kinda spin was a real LW tactic used by expirienced pilots.

HellToupee
05-10-2007, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I must really suck at flying the Mustang III's cos I took one on a bombing raid online once, saw I was about to be attacked by a Bf109, so I dived down 45 degrees,, shallow divebombed the targets and then headed off for home as fast as I could on the deck.


The BF109 easily caught me after a bit of a chase?!?

Not sure what I was doing wrong, or if the bomb racks slowed me down THAT much.

I presume the Bf109 was a G10 or G14, certainly not a K.

He did start higher than me, but I thought I had picked up a lot of speed in the bombing dive too.

Just remembering one of the rare times I flew a Mustang III.


DOnt worry about Brain, he seems to think all red planes are amazing, yet flies blue (?) I am sure he has whips and chains in his basement and loves to be 'punished' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

well its still faster with racks than even a k4, but it still loses alot of speed with the racks, the mustang III takes a very long time to reach its max speed like the other 51s plus its rudder trim is very important as much so as the tempest, with it off u wont outrun much at all.



Well m8 I would not be afraid of Jesus Christ, Buddha and Allah in a 3-seater FW190A9 while in P51D so bring it on Wink2

also typical of brain, how poor the anton is and how super the 51, im pretty sure me like most people 1v1 would rather be in the anton, the performance is close in all aspects varies with alt, climb goes to the 190 at most heights, plus the anton can afford to take risks under the 51s guns a 51 with a anton behind him cannot since it tends to explode.

Brain32
05-10-2007, 07:06 AM
DOnt worry about Brain, he seems to think all red planes are amazing, yet flies blue (?) I am sure he has whips and chains in his basement and loves to be 'punished'
You know some people like some challenge not just mere executions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif BTW I don't fly Blue and I don't fly Red, I fly both because I play this game for far too long to spend much time in one plane or on one side only. I just MOSTLY play Blue because I like those planes, the real ones I mean http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


also typical of brain, how poor the anton is and how super the 51, im pretty sure me like most people 1v1 would rather be in the anton
That's great, so you and most other people will be the victims of my poor P51D and my poor, weak, harmless 50cal's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Oh yes I forgot you flew Blue 7 years ago so you must be damn dangerous in their planes now and know them inside-out to perfection http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the performance is close in all aspects varies with alt, climb goes to the 190 at most heights
If you were Lithuanian you would be called ROFLMAOIDIS

plus the anton can afford to take risks under the 51s guns a 51 with a anton behind him cannot since it tends to explode.
Please, please take risks in front of my gunsight and my weak poor 50 cal's, oh yes I forgot you flew Blue 7 years ago and you don't do it anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Manu-6S
05-10-2007, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
im pretty sure me like most people 1v1 would rather be in the anton, the performance is close in all aspects varies with alt, climb goes to the 190 at most heights, plus the anton can afford to take risks under the 51s guns a 51 with a anton behind him cannot since it tends to explode.

I tend to agree there: last night I took a P51C and, using FW tactic, bf109s could do nothing agaist me, but then I found an A6 and I was so cautious because I know that he needs only 1 second of aim to take me out. Above all because I was not used to fly P51 and I don't know its limit. However I could damage him twice without danger.

BUT after a training session with my teammates I found that 0.5 seconds of a good .50cal shot can seriously do more damage to an Anton (usually control damage) than 2 hits of 20mm to a p51; more than once after switching plane between us I found that after a little burst of a p51 my Anton was useless (PK or control damage) while a smoking P51 could do what he wanted.

I always said that P51 is a beast and 0.50cal are really usefull... your only problem as p51 pilot are the kill steales since your enemy can always return to home (if fw190, not if bf109)

DKoor
05-10-2007, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
If you were Lithuanian you would be called ROFLMAOIDIS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Originally posted by Manu-6S:
BUT after a training session with my teammates I found that 0.5 seconds of a good .50cal shot can seriously do more damage to an Anton If you catch him at convergence you'll saw something off with .5sec of .50cal treatment.... ~10 x 12,7mm bullets in the same spot... nasty.

Manu-6S
05-10-2007, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
BUT after a training session with my teammates I found that 0.5 seconds of a good .50cal shot can seriously do more damage to an Anton If you catch him at convergence you'll saw something off with .5sec of .50cal treatment.... ~10 x 12,7mm bullets in the same spot... nasty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also because it's easier deflection shooting with the american weapons then the useless FW' revi.

JtD
05-10-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:

... im pretty sure me like most people 1v1 would rather be in the anton...

I'd rather be in the 51.

JG14_Josf
05-10-2007, 10:40 AM
I'd rather be in the P-51. Being a target isn't cool.

Manu-6S
05-10-2007, 11:50 AM
Another P51 for me... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Poll? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

tigertalon
05-10-2007, 11:54 AM
Another P51 for me please...

Duh, I forgot it's pilot what counts! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

faustnik
05-10-2007, 12:00 PM
Is the question P-51D vs. A8 or A9?

Out of the three, I'd take the A9.

Ratsack
05-10-2007, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Is the question P-51D vs. A8 or A9?

Out of the three, I'd take the A9.

So would I, but only as a matter of principle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
05-10-2007, 12:36 PM
Only Fw 190 id take over a contemporary P51 is a Fw 190 D9. Even then thats assuming the fight is below 6000m.

fordfan25
05-10-2007, 03:00 PM
i dont know how much better the dora is over the Anton in a dog fight how ever last night i was in a dora "and i am not a FW piolet my any means". Clipper was in a p51D in warclouds. there was also a spitty involved. the fight started at about 12k ft IIRC. make a long story as short as i can lol. i jumped the spity and made one pass. i then begain to attack clipper. my motor was over heating from the start i jammed my flaps and my motor began to sound nasty so i dove away hopeing to sneak out. clipper fllowed me in the dive. with my flaps jammed and motor haveing a heat stroke i knew i could not out run him.he manged to get a few hits on me. minor wing hits. the fight at that point started at around 350mph with clipper prob 300m behind me on my 6 and on the deck. i was still able to out turn him long enough to get almost on his 6. he then disengaged. i manged to get a handfull of hits on him untill a spitty PKed me. now thats with a squeeling motor,jammed flaps,some 50cal holes and him starting on my 6:00 and me being only what i would call a some what mediocer FW piolet with limated exp online in her. not to mentune i stalled the plane twice. now im not saying im a better piolet than clipper or any one so dont any body get that idea "i dont feel the need to thump my cheast and talk big shi* like some http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif" im just saying theat even in that condetion a dora is a major threat to a p51 as long as the piolet is not a complet n00b. now i have what i would call little online exp " unlike some in this thread who admitedly fly a p51 for the first time and claim it to be all that and a bag of chips lol" i will say i have seen little deff in turning abilty between the A9 and the dora. though i could be wrong on that account.

MrMojok
05-10-2007, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> why dont we get ski in hear to discussehttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
Well m8 I would not be afraid of Jesus Christ, Buddha and Allah in a 3-seater FW190A9 while in P51D so bring it on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brain, that may be the funniest quote I have ever read on any message board, ever. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
05-10-2007, 05:19 PM
i dont know how much better the dora is over the Anton in a dog fight
The answer is A LOT, it's MUCH faster, it accelerates MUCH better, it climbs MUCH better and it turns MUCH better, yes the Dora is really a FockeWulf, not FockeWulf look a like like Antons are.

As for the fight I would have to see a track, the important thing is - you didn't get my squadmate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif if it's PFS_Clipper that you are talking about.

im just saying theat even in that condetion a dora is a major threat to a p51
I never claimed otherwise, like I said several times Dora is the only German plane left that can compete with Allied wonders, and also I'm glad that my Pony wasn't uberized by Oleg because of ubi forum t3h war winners, that, along with the fact that it's my favourite Allied plane together with the Tempest is the reason I fly it so much.

i will say i have seen little deff in turning abilty between the A9 and the dora.
A little?!?!?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

though i could be wrong on that account.
No you are not wrong at that account, you just underestimated the difference a bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




Brain, that may be the funniest quote I have ever read on any message board, ever. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
What can I say, ubi forum FM discussion can be very inspiring http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DKoor
05-10-2007, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> i will say i have seen <span class="ev_code_RED">little</span> deff in turning abilty between the A9 and the dora.
A little?!?!?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Xiolablu3
05-11-2007, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Is the question P-51D vs. A8 or A9?

Out of the three, I'd take the A9.

Me too.

BTW Fordfan, the Dora is a much better fighter to fighter plane in the game. You cant really compare it to an Anton.

I would say FW190A4 vs SPitfire Vb in the game is a bit like Dora vs Spitfire IX as in you hld most of hte cards in the Dora except for sustained turn. But the later models of Anton are not really comparable, since you dont have the advantages you hold over the enemy when you are in a FW190A4 in 1942 or a Dora in 1944/45.

Bewolf
05-11-2007, 02:17 AM
Which is still odd, though, as the A9 should deliver similar performance, if not more, at low alts then the Dora. Which in this game is not the case at all. Oddly enough When it comes to manouverbility, the A4 is best, followed by A5 and 6, and worst A8/A9. At least the first three versions should be pretty similiar in performance.

Oh and I played the 51 a bit more yesterday. it really is a heckk of plane. As long as you do not turn, you just do not lose energy. it is amazing, and very believeable. If it had cannons, it would be "the" uber plane per se. No joke. And I do not want to imply it is overmodelled.

Kurfurst__
05-11-2007, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Which is still odd, though, as the A9 should deliver similar performance, if not more, at low alts then the Dora.

I always believed the A-9 was somewhere between the A-8 and D-9 in all respects, basically it was an A-8 with more power, isn't that so...?

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 03:49 AM
I think that the Fw 190 D9 has a flight model that should be retrofitted to the Fw 190 Antons. Sure give them less speed climb turn ect whatever but just the feel of the D9 and the way it is able to hold climb angles, enter turns and execute transitions is completely different and imo much more like a fighter aircraft.

Switching from a Fw 190 A8 to a D9 is like jumping from a underpowered slug to a proper fighting machine.

Xiolablu3
05-11-2007, 04:15 AM
I dont know what it is about the 190A8, I can do great in a FW190A6 and a FW190A9 (Very proud of my 'never been shot down by a SPitfire for a year whilst in any FW190' record) , but I really struggle in a A8.

It doesnt SEEM any different, but it must be since everyopne else says the same.

I can stay alive in it OK, but when it comes to getting kills I find it really hard.In the A6 and A9, anything that gets in front of me is usually toast.

Just what is it with the A8? Is it a bomber destroyer version with more armour and even more weight than the other JAbo FW190A's?

HellToupee
05-11-2007, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think that the Fw 190 D9 has a flight model that should be retrofitted to the Fw 190 Antons. Sure give them less speed climb turn ect whatever but just the feel of the D9 and the way it is able to hold climb angles, enter turns and execute transitions is completely different and imo much more like a fighter aircraft.

Switching from a Fw 190 A8 to a D9 is like jumping from a underpowered slug to a proper fighting machine.

uhh its able to hold things like climb angles and such because the doras climb rate is alot better, you are feeling the performance not the fm. Even tho their listed weight is about the same doras performance is alot better which is ither its just way more aerodynamic or its modeled with alot more power, my money is on the power, power to weight is what makes a plane feel good.

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think that the Fw 190 D9 has a flight model that should be retrofitted to the Fw 190 Antons. Sure give them less speed climb turn ect whatever but just the feel of the D9 and the way it is able to hold climb angles, enter turns and execute transitions is completely different and imo much more like a fighter aircraft.

Switching from a Fw 190 A8 to a D9 is like jumping from a underpowered slug to a proper fighting machine.

uhh its able to hold things like climb angles and such because the doras climb rate is alot better, you are feeling the performance not the fm. Even tho their listed weight is about the same doras performance is alot better which is ither its just way more aerodynamic or its modeled with alot more power, my money is on the power, power to weight is what makes a plane feel good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong

Fw 190 A9 has <span class="ev_code_RED">more</span> HP at sea level than the D9 yet flies like a brick. The Fw 190 A5 should have a similar power to weight ratio as the D9 also. So it is not just power it is flight model. The D9 was an improvement over the Fw 190 Anton at medium to high altitudes below that the Anton was at least as manuverable.

Bewolf
05-11-2007, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Which is still odd, though, as the A9 should deliver similar performance, if not more, at low alts then the Dora.

I always believed the A-9 was somewhere between the A-8 and D-9 in all respects, basically it was an A-8 with more power, isn't that so...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jup, but as mynameisroland already said, not more power then the A8 only, but also more then the D9 at sea level. The A9 really was monster with a 2000 hp rated 801TS engine.

I remember when it was introduced into this series in the beginning.
It rocked so hard everybody flew it for the time beeing. Shortly after it got pretty much neutered for whatever reasons.

Manu-6S
05-11-2007, 06:40 AM
IMO the BMW is badly modelled; Jumo instead is modelled like a "normal" engine, compared to the other ingame engines.

But the drifting issue of the Antons (no other planes lose so little speed using rudder) make me think to a weight issue.

A9 is a dream if you fly it the way you must in this game... however I don't know if this way is realistic.

HellToupee
05-11-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think that the Fw 190 D9 has a flight model that should be retrofitted to the Fw 190 Antons. Sure give them less speed climb turn ect whatever but just the feel of the D9 and the way it is able to hold climb angles, enter turns and execute transitions is completely different and imo much more like a fighter aircraft.

Switching from a Fw 190 A8 to a D9 is like jumping from a underpowered slug to a proper fighting machine.

uhh its able to hold things like climb angles and such because the doras climb rate is alot better, you are feeling the performance not the fm. Even tho their listed weight is about the same doras performance is alot better which is ither its just way more aerodynamic or its modeled with alot more power, my money is on the power, power to weight is what makes a plane feel good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong

Fw 190 A9 has <span class="ev_code_RED">more</span> HP at sea level than the D9 yet flies like a brick. The Fw 190 A5 should have a similar power to weight ratio as the D9 also. So it is not just power it is flight model. The D9 was an improvement over the Fw 190 Anton at medium to high altitudes below that the Anton was at least as manuverable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes but look at things like speed and climb, they are signficantly better, this indicates d9 has some large advantage ither in power, or its just heapes better aerodynamically. Climb especially is much worse in the a9, climb is onething that makes a plane feel poor, eg take a tempest vs a d9 at 3000meters the tempest feels like a brick and the d9 still feels like it can do climbing turns steep angles etc, but fight lower and tempest has no brick feeling.

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I think that the Fw 190 D9 has a flight model that should be retrofitted to the Fw 190 Antons. Sure give them less speed climb turn ect whatever but just the feel of the D9 and the way it is able to hold climb angles, enter turns and execute transitions is completely different and imo much more like a fighter aircraft.

Switching from a Fw 190 A8 to a D9 is like jumping from a underpowered slug to a proper fighting machine.

uhh its able to hold things like climb angles and such because the doras climb rate is alot better, you are feeling the performance not the fm. Even tho their listed weight is about the same doras performance is alot better which is ither its just way more aerodynamic or its modeled with alot more power, my money is on the power, power to weight is what makes a plane feel good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong

Fw 190 A9 has <span class="ev_code_RED">more</span> HP at sea level than the D9 yet flies like a brick. The Fw 190 A5 should have a similar power to weight ratio as the D9 also. So it is not just power it is flight model. The D9 was an improvement over the Fw 190 Anton at medium to high altitudes below that the Anton was at least as manuverable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes but look at things like speed and climb, they are signficantly better, this indicates d9 has some large advantage ither in power, or its just heapes better aerodynamically. Climb especially is much worse in the a9, climb is onething that makes a plane feel poor, eg take a tempest vs a d9 at 3000meters the tempest feels like a brick and the d9 still feels like it can do climbing turns steep angles etc, but fight lower and tempest has no brick feeling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the differenece between an A9 a D9 and a Tempest. All three have around 2000 HP to play with, all three are fighters yet only two of them have FMs that are fighter like.

The D9 shares the same fuselage and same wing as the A8/9 all that has been added is a fuselage fillet and a few refinments, slightly broader rudder ect. Its amazing how these changes result in a completely amazing aircraft at all altitudes, even at heights where it produces less HP than the A9 lol. Its like a Mustang I and a P51 C. Different engine changed areodynamics yet from all accounts the Mustang I was still a top fighter at low level. The D9 like the Merlin engined Mustang added high altitude performance to an already excellent fighter.

The Tempest can turn and climb all it wants up high. Problem is you have picked the worst height for it because thats where its supercharger switches gear try it up at 5500m the come back and tell me its **** up high.

Blutarski2004
05-11-2007, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The D9 shares the same fuselage and same wing as the A8/9 all that has been added is a fuselage fillet and a few refinments, slightly broader rudder ect.


.....D-type fuselage is completely different from the A-type forward of the firewall as well, is it not?

JG4_Helofly
05-11-2007, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The D9 shares the same fuselage and same wing as the A8/9 all that has been added is a fuselage fillet and a few refinments, slightly broader rudder ect.


.....D-type fuselage is completely different from the A-type forward of the firewall as well, is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They added a 49cm segment to the fuselage to compansate for the long nose, but did this modification change the flight behaviour so much?

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The D9 shares the same fuselage and same wing as the A8/9 all that has been added is a fuselage fillet and a few refinments, slightly broader rudder ect.


.....D-type fuselage is completely different from the A-type forward of the firewall as well, is it not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but then it would have to be seeing as it was a completely different engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pilots who flew the D9 said it lost some roll rate and it was less manuverable but that it performed better at altitude. They may have said it kept its speed better too but I cant remember.

Bit like these two really:

different engine, minor mods here and there and both performed well but with the more powerful Centauraus Tempest II being slightly faster but with no great improvement in manuverability or climb up to the Sabre's rated alt.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/tempestII.jpg

Bremspropeller
05-11-2007, 03:24 PM
Pilots who flew the D9 said it lost some roll rate and it was less manuverable but that it performed better at altitude


Do you have sources for that? I also read that in "second calss" rated books, but "First in combat with D-9" somehow tells quite a diffferent story.

Besides that I really can't imagine where the plane might have noticeably lost it's rollrate (wingspan being the same; vert tail slightly larger).

mynameisroland
05-11-2007, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pilots who flew the D9 said it lost some roll rate and it was less manuverable but that it performed better at altitude


Do you have sources for that? I also read that in "second calss" rated books, but "First in combat with D-9" somehow tells quite a diffferent story.

Besides that I really can't imagine where the plane might have noticeably lost it's rollrate (wingspan being the same; vert tail slightly larger). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I have time over the weekend I can try and find them.

The D9 was longer and slightly heavier with some increased lateral stability maybe? Im not sure why it would be less manuverable other than that.

Jaws2002
05-11-2007, 07:01 PM
If you would put the engine from the dora in the a9 i bet it would fly almost the same as dora.
The only problem i see is the bad modeling of the BMW-801 engine/prop/komandogerate at low speed.
But at this point in game is no point in talking about it too much. Is too late.

VW-IceFire
05-11-2007, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
If you would put the engine from the dora in the a9 i bet it would fly almost the same as dora.
The only problem i see is the bad modeling of the BMW-801 engine/prop/komandogerate at low speed.
But at this point in game is no point in talking about it too much. Is too late.
You probably already know this but for those that don't...you can somewhat negate that low speed problem by setting the "prop pitch" to 100% from auto. As near as I can tell you can run forever with it at 100% and the boost on and all you get is overheat faster...but I think that helps...it certainly does when you want to take off in a hurry.

HellToupee
05-11-2007, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I know the differenece between an A9 a D9 and a Tempest. All three have around 2000 HP to play with, all three are fighters yet only two of them have FMs that are fighter like.

They all have differnt engines, if a9 was supposed to fly like a d9 then its performance would be similar its not, unless theres docos saying a9 could climb with a d9 for example.



The D9 shares the same fuselage and same wing as the A8/9 all that has been added is a fuselage fillet and a few refinments, slightly broader rudder ect. Its amazing how these changes result in a completely amazing aircraft at all altitudes, even at heights where it produces less HP than the A9 lol. Its like a Mustang I and a P51 C. Different engine changed areodynamics yet from all accounts the Mustang I was still a top fighter at low level. The D9 like the Merlin engined Mustang added high altitude performance to an already excellent fighter.

but the D9 wasnt just better at high alt, its performance was better at low alt as well, especially climb to the antons.



The Tempest can turn and climb all it wants up high. Problem is you have picked the worst height for it because thats where its supercharger switches gear try it up at 5500m the come back and tell me its **** up high.

yes i picked 3000m for precisely that reason, its power is low at that height and thus it feels heavy and unmanoverable, 5500 being a peak would be the other way around.

Ratsack
05-11-2007, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
If you would put the engine from the dora in the a9 i bet it would fly almost the same as dora.
The only problem i see is the bad modeling of the BMW-801 engine/prop/komandogerate at low speed.
But at this point in game is no point in talking about it too much. Is too late.
You probably already know this but for those that don't...you can somewhat negate that low speed problem by setting the "prop pitch" to 100% from auto. As near as I can tell you can run forever with it at 100% and the boost on and all you get is overheat faster...but I think that helps...it certainly does when you want to take off in a hurry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This seems to have changed sometime among the recent patches. At low speeds switching to 100% 'prop pitch' doesn't seem to help much, if at all. Under some circumstances you seem to be better off in auto.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-11-2007, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I know the differenece between an A9 a D9 and a Tempest. All three have around 2000 HP to play with, all three are fighters yet only two of them have FMs that are fighter like.

They all have differnt engines, if a9 was supposed to fly like a d9 then its performance would be similar its not, unless theres docos saying a9 could climb with a d9 for example.



The D9 shares the same fuselage and same wing as the A8/9 all that has been added is a fuselage fillet and a few refinments, slightly broader rudder ect. Its amazing how these changes result in a completely amazing aircraft at all altitudes, even at heights where it produces less HP than the A9 lol. Its like a Mustang I and a P51 C. Different engine changed areodynamics yet from all accounts the Mustang I was still a top fighter at low level. The D9 like the Merlin engined Mustang added high altitude performance to an already excellent fighter.

but the D9 wasnt just better at high alt, its performance was better at low alt as well, especially climb to the antons.



The Tempest can turn and climb all it wants up high. Problem is you have picked the worst height for it because thats where its supercharger switches gear try it up at 5500m the come back and tell me its **** up high.

yes i picked 3000m for precisely that reason, its power is low at that height and thus it feels heavy and unmanoverable, 5500 being a peak would be the other way around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without going into the entire argument again, I think there's a very clear difference in the feel of the FMs for the D-9 and most of the Antons. I say 'most' because the one that feels most similar to me is the A-4, which of course has this very weird de-rated engine and so is the most underpowered of the entire series. There is a real difference in how these two feel under Gs, and the common factor simply can't be a more powerful engine.

cheers,
Ratsack

lowfighter
05-11-2007, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
If you would put the engine from the dora in the a9 i bet it would fly almost the same as dora.
The only problem i see is the bad modeling of the BMW-801 engine/prop/komandogerate at low speed.
But at this point in game is no point in talking about it too much. Is too late.
You probably already know this but for those that don't...you can somewhat negate that low speed problem by setting the "prop pitch" to 100% from auto. As near as I can tell you can run forever with it at 100% and the boost on and all you get is overheat faster...but I think that helps...it certainly does when you want to take off in a hurry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This seems to have changed sometime among the recent patches. At low speeds switching to 100% 'prop pitch' doesn't seem to help much, if at all. Under some circumstances you seem to be better off in auto.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure it helps but the question is how much? So the best way too answer it is to do an acceleration test starting at low speed. With pitch on auto and then 100%. I'll do a test starting 300 Km/h or so and see how long does it take to reach say 400 and 500 Km/h.

Niipzu
05-11-2007, 11:41 PM
Have any of you noticed how the late Antons have enermous kinetic energy/ drag? They hardly slow down in landing finals compared to Dora for example. It may be only a feeling, but always when changing to a after d i suffer from serious overshooting :P

Manu-6S
05-12-2007, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Niipzu:
Have any of you noticed how the late Antons have enermous kinetic energy/ drag? They hardly slow down in landing finals compared to Dora for example. It may be only a feeling, but always when changing to a after d i suffer from serious overshooting :P

I really think that Antons are planes made of patches:

- Since it can not have the manouvrability of a normal plane it was modelled with higher weight = shutters when you pull to much stick, **** thrust at low speed.

- The engine should have have great power but since it's overall porked (KG) they resolved with very lower drag to reach the same speed = slowly lose speed using rudder.

I guess that Antons are different planes in Il2 because of these things.

lowfighter
05-12-2007, 02:01 AM
I've got two tracks with A8 accelerating at auto prop pitch and 100% prop pitch. The difference is not so big but with 100%pp I could overtake the P51 AI which is accelerating in front of me. With auto I could gain on him first but couldn't overtake. The fact that I could overtake the P51 doesn't mean the A8 has better acceleration than the P51 because the P51 AI is increasing power to maximum in 5-7 seconds while I increase the power and all other settings maybe in1-2 seconds, so I'll have an advantage of initial acceleration. If you'd like to see the tracks I can paste the content of the .ntrk files here and you can save them with wordpad as .ntrk files.

HellToupee
05-12-2007, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I know the differenece between an A9 a D9 and a Tempest. All three have around 2000 HP to play with, all three are fighters yet only two of them have FMs that are fighter like.

They all have differnt engines, if a9 was supposed to fly like a d9 then its performance would be similar its not, unless theres docos saying a9 could climb with a d9 for example.



The D9 shares the same fuselage and same wing as the A8/9 all that has been added is a fuselage fillet and a few refinments, slightly broader rudder ect. Its amazing how these changes result in a completely amazing aircraft at all altitudes, even at heights where it produces less HP than the A9 lol. Its like a Mustang I and a P51 C. Different engine changed areodynamics yet from all accounts the Mustang I was still a top fighter at low level. The D9 like the Merlin engined Mustang added high altitude performance to an already excellent fighter.

but the D9 wasnt just better at high alt, its performance was better at low alt as well, especially climb to the antons.



The Tempest can turn and climb all it wants up high. Problem is you have picked the worst height for it because thats where its supercharger switches gear try it up at 5500m the come back and tell me its **** up high.

yes i picked 3000m for precisely that reason, its power is low at that height and thus it feels heavy and unmanoverable, 5500 being a peak would be the other way around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without going into the entire argument again, I think there's a very clear difference in the feel of the FMs for the D-9 and most of the Antons. I say 'most' because the one that feels most similar to me is the A-4, which of course has this very weird de-rated engine and so is the most underpowered of the entire series. There is a real difference in how these two feel under Gs, and the common factor simply can't be a more powerful engine.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No not just the engine, but d9 somehow in rl did more with its power it was faster and climbed better. A4 has least power yest but it is also the lightest, lowest wingloading makes it slightly better at lower speed turning, its climb rate is closer to the a9 than the d9 is the a5 is better than the a9 in climb at many heights.

My point is while D9 and a9 may have had similar stats like weight and engine power, the d9 still performed much better in the tests ive seen, especially in climb. Why should the a9 then fly like the d9, the D9 is significantly better in performance, IMO if u buffed the a9 to be as fast and climb like a d9 it would feel just the same.

tigertalon
05-12-2007, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
You probably already know this but for those that don't...you can somewhat negate that low speed problem by setting the "prop pitch" to 100% from auto. As near as I can tell you can run forever with it at 100% and the boost on and all you get is overheat faster...but I think that helps...it certainly does when you want to take off in a hurry.

That's true, but the improvement is nowhere near of what it should be. Simply look at rpm gauge and listen to the engine after takeoff be it auto or 100% - it reaches optimal rpm (~2800) only at speeds of about 360kph IAS. Below that it's more like a plane with fixed pitch.

lowfighter
05-12-2007, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
You probably already know this but for those that don't...you can somewhat negate that low speed problem by setting the "prop pitch" to 100% from auto. As near as I can tell you can run forever with it at 100% and the boost on and all you get is overheat faster...but I think that helps...it certainly does when you want to take off in a hurry.

That's true, but the improvement is nowhere near of what it should be. Simply look at rpm gauge and listen to the engine after takeoff be it auto or 100% - it reaches optimal rpm (~2800) only at speeds of about 360kph IAS. Below that it's more like a plane with fixed pitch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


A8, full throttle+boost+auto pp: 2700 rpm at 350 Km/h
A8, full throttle+boost+100pp:2900 rpm at 350 Km/h

DKoor
05-12-2007, 06:29 AM
P-51D vs. FW190?
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/osp_img/titlecovers/T1893AL.JPG