PDA

View Full Version : Tips on flying the P-51



JtD
06-02-2006, 10:59 AM
I have been surprised to find that many posts suggesting how much the P-51, as modelled in game, sucks. So I figure it's about time for everyone who flies that bird with a little, or better much, success, to post what makes him/her successfull. Maybe a few hints can make one or the other pilot pick that plane in his/her next sortie. I am just an occasional P-51 pilot, but I tend to stay alive flying one. My hints are focusing on the D-5 model:

1st) Joystick settings. The P-51 has a very effective rudder, even little stick input will lead to rather big nose movements. Around neutral position, you should not have stick-steps larger than 6-7. Give it a little testing, it makes a HUGE difference when you want to keep a firing solution on evading planes.

2nd) Gun convergence. It is a matter of personal taste, but as you usually will not fire much further than 500 meters, you should not set it any larger than 250. Mine is usually set to 150.

3rd) Fuel: The P-51 has a long range. Most likely you will never need more than 50% fuel. With this fuel you can fly around at high speeds for ages.

4th) General flight: Fly high, stay fast. This is true for about every plane, but even more for the P-51. You have a high speed high altitude plane, so you can not expect to avoid trouble if you climb at low speeds or don't climb at all. Really good altitudes to fly at are 3500 and 7500 - no other prop plane will come close to your top speeds at these alts. In fact, most struggle to keep up with you even if you only fly at 100% power. A cruise speed of 500-600 kph is totally possible and advisable.

5th) Combat: Opponents: The P-51 will frequently face Japanese and German opponents. I'd like to focus on the latter, namely the 190A-8, the G6Late and the G-14, which are about what the P-51 would mostly face in combat. You are pitted against D-9's and K-4? Choose a different server. The P-51 is an early 44 plane and should compete against contemporaries.

6th) Combat: Getting bounced: It may sound just too simple, but your best and most effective maneuver is to push the stick forward and enter a steep dive. Your dive limit is higher than the dive limit of any of your opponents, so once you are past 850 you can be sure he broke off. Keep in mind that you must not pull the stick hard when pulling out, wings tend to leave your plane if you do. Safest thing to avoid that is to trim nose down by about 6-12 ticks. Once you seperated, keep it fast and sooner or later the enemy will be left in the dust. Against the Bf you may dive right down to sea level whilst against the FW you should try to keep it above 1000 meters.

7th) Combat: General tactics: Get to your best altitudes, as I said around 3500 and 7500 meters. If necessary cool your engine before you start to mix it. If you just fly straight and level at 100% power, noone can catch you and you will still cool down.
Once co-alt, only the G-14 has a chance to gain the initiative. The other two planes do not have a sufficient anough climb rate to overcome your speed advantage and, sooner or later, will either be forced to react or will have to settle with the fact they can't get you.

8th) Combat: Your best maneuvre: Zoom climb. The P-51 has a tremendous zoom climb, owing to the higher starting speed it almost always will have. As a matter of fact, zoom climbs never work if the other guy is close on your six. The best starting situation for a zoom climb would be a head on, so once you seperated you need to turn around. I suggest a zoom climb with a wing over. Make sure you are far enough from him. Come back down and fly about level with the bandit. You should have a considerably higher speed now and will start the engagement with a strong E-advantage. You don't need to do a 12 o'clock head on, because competent enemies will use this moment to blow you out of the sky, esp. the FW stands a good chance. So fly past him, at best slightly below him, so he has the choice to either turn for a rather poor firing solution and bleed E in the process, or to let you go. If he tries to take the shot, you have almost won. Start climbing at a shallow angle and gradually steepen the climb. Most of it should be carried out at around 45?. Once your plane gets slow, you should perform another wingover and either start attacking the enemy stalling below you, or repeat a few dive-zoomclimb maneuvers until your E-advantage is big enough.

9th) Combat: You got the advantage: Now you just wasted minutes of your precious time to establish an E-advantage. DON'T BLOW IT! You cannot turn with any opposition, it is the best way to get killed. Against the 109, you will not even complete a 360 turn before he will gain on you. So, esp. against the 109, do not throttle back and try to sit on their 6. It just does not work. Use repeated hit and run passes, force them into evading action and beware of the huge cannons that will always be on your 6 when you passed the opponent. Seperate a little before you zoom up again. In case you start to maneuvre a litte, use the combat flaps. This way, you can afford half a turn with a FW and probably get a good firing solution.

10th) Combat: Firing: Keep in mind that your plane is not armed with 4 mini-nuke throwers like a FW. You will, most likely, need a few bursts on target and thus a few attacks to achieve visible results. Just don't lose your patience.

11th) Combat: The opponent is an ace? Well, most likely he is not going to play your zoomblimb games, but as he is slower, his only option would be to disengage. In a 109, he will climb. You just keep going and leave him alone. In a 190, whatever he does, you can match it. If he turns away, turn around and chase him down. He climbs, you climb as well, but keep in mind you need high speed climbs. He dives, dive as well. The FW essentially has no real option to disengage.

12th) Combat: You biggest problem: You know, most good pilots will sooner or later call their team for help. This help will usually arrive with all possible advantages. Since the above style of fighting take a lot of time, this help will often arrive before you got your first decent burst into the enemy. KEEP CHECKING YOUR 6! When the help arrives, you are usually back to No. 6 of my list, but noone says you may not call for help yourself...

Well, I think that's about all for now. If you want to put it into a nutshell: Use your speed advantage!

reverendkrv1972
06-02-2006, 11:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

not much wrong with the p51 if its used right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

good post JtD

Speed is life in a pony

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-02-2006, 11:23 AM
Nice post. I'd have to agree with most all your points. Should be helpful for those wondering why <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">THEIR p-51 isn't winning teh war.</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif



TB

WOLFMondo
06-02-2006, 11:24 AM
Definately agree on the stick settings. For the P51 my elevator deflection doesn't go past 50, which helps a ton and makes it a very steady ride.

Brain32
06-02-2006, 11:26 AM
5th) Combat: Opponents: The P-51 will frequently face Japanese and German opponents. I'd like to focus on the latter, namely the 190A-8, the G6Late and the G-14, which are about what the P-51 would mostly face in combat. You are pitted against D-9's and K-4? Choose a different server. The P-51 is an early 44 plane and should compete against contemporaries.
The only thing I partially disagree with, you can match Dora in every aspect besides sustained climb rate, and speed at certain altitudes, at 5000-7500m you are in quite speed disadvantage but you have an edge in turn rate, K4 is slightly a pain, but if you keep your speed above 450kmh(500 being ideal) you can completely outmanouver it. The biggest pain about P51 is annoying wing drop stall even at high speeds...
BTW I keep my stick settings all 100, but I trim P51 9-12clicks nose down...

TgD Thunderbolt56
06-02-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW I keep my stick settings all 100, but I trim P51 9-12clicks nose down...


Ditto. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

carguy_
06-02-2006, 11:38 AM
I might add that until you approach 6500m you`re equal or worse in a co-alt fight against G10,G14,K4.You`re pretty much better in everything than early Gustavs but try not to underestimate the pilot.

Higher than 6500m you`re faster and more maneuverable.

Avoid T&B in the D and disengage.

B and C variants outclass Gustavs in B&Z/T&B above 2500m/280kph.

While B&Zing always gain significant separation from the victim.


And maybe the most important - keep an eye out for anything.You can disengage whenever you want.If you ID a Luftwaffle above you disengage immediately before he sees you.


About the guns.From my experience a half second burst from 200m normally renders your enemy out of the fight.If you know you hit him you can repeat the pass again with a little more impunity but NOT sitting on him as if you two were the only ones on the server!

justflyin
06-02-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
BTW I keep my stick settings all 100, but I trim P51 9-12clicks nose down...


Ditto. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Planes get awfully twitchy with all sliders at 100%. I'm a little too ham-fisted for that. Especially during shooting. 100% sliders for YAW, make my gunnery go to s*h*i*t.

It used to be an advantage back in the day, but with the latest V4.04, I don't see it helping anymore. Just creates less REAL stick travel.

Of course, I guess it's time to test it again for me, as well. hehe

Eagle_361st
06-02-2006, 12:03 PM
Excellent post and I agree JtD. The Pony when flown properly can be a real server terror. And I will also say that most of your points about the P-51 can be applied to the P-47 (my ride). Both aircraft should kept in an high "E" state and speed is life in both birds. Coordination and top cover are also very, very good to have if possible. And this applies to anything in the game, fly the ride like it was supposed to and you will find that aircraft are not nearly as "porked" as you thought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
06-02-2006, 01:25 PM
Here's a tip: just ignore the P51 'cause it's FUBARed

HayateAce
06-02-2006, 02:31 PM
Even the most reasonable folks playing this sim know there is something not quite right with the P51D.

VW-IceFire
06-02-2006, 02:58 PM
I know most are skeptical but the P-51 is WAAY better in 4.05 than 4.04. In 4.05 I can fight in it effectively again...it was combat ineffective in 4.04 for me.

MB80
06-02-2006, 03:09 PM
Another tip: Stop knockin on my FW190A9.. you won't kill me at good alt, the only way to kill a FW190A9 fast is to hit the pilot from his 6 (=bug!!) and the dive I do if someones knockin on my tail.. you won't survive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
06-02-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Even the most reasonable folks playing this sim know there is something not quite right with the P51D.

Here is my take

1. 3.xx....Too Good
2. 4.01....This is Bad
3. 4.02....This is Bad Redux
4. 4.03....WTF?*
5. 4.04/4.05....WTF Redux

*Note: This is the point where i pretty much gave up on the P51

PBNA-Boosher
06-02-2006, 03:19 PM
I've always had problems with the 51 and getting its speed up. Trimming has been a problem, also its controls are a bit twitchy, but that's just my joystick settings. (I'm unwilling to change them as my joystick is on its last legs.) One thing I love about the 51 is the way (if you're good with it) it dives. Other than that, if you find me in a P-51, force me to land and put me in something else. I'm just compromising everyone's life out there....

Xiolablu3
06-02-2006, 05:02 PM
The thing that annoys me about the P51 and the Corsair, is that its almost impossible to aim the guns while doing any kind of manouvre.

You have to be going dead straight to get any kind of decent shot at him. We all know that the 50's need a second or 2 to do bad damage, which is fair enough. But when the plane that carries them is so erratic in manouvres, its almost impossible to do.

I know there are ways to fly the P51 better, and JTD's hints are great. But I feel the P51 is still not right. Fair enough I have never flown one, so I cant comment for sure, but I cannot believe that it was so much worse a plane for fighting than its contemporaries.

I understand to get all that range, hi-altitude performance and high speed was maybe to concede some of the low speed handling, precise manouvring, and low alt prformance but I cannot beleive it was this bad. Its like a bad handling, wobbly FW190A, with **** guns.

Saying that, I do meet people online who love the P51 and are real aces in it. They prefer it to any other plane. Not the Muustang III either, the regular Pony.

clipped_spit
06-02-2006, 07:46 PM
I find the P51 (in this game) is pretty much a sitting duck for a skilled Me109 under 2000 meters.

Way too easy to stall and fall off. Is that how they really were?

BfHeFwMe
06-02-2006, 09:08 PM
The P-38's were phased out, also the P-47 except for a few units who excelled in them which were allowed to choose. The reason, it was a far easier airplane to handle for all and could get the same job done without requiring an ace with high time.

It's nerfed, the original readme proves it, "FM tested and verified by real P-51 Pilot." So what's this version of it been verified by? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PBNA-Boosher
06-02-2006, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by clipped_spit:
I find the P51 (in this game) is pretty much a sitting duck for a skilled Me109 under 2000 meters.

Way too easy to stall and fall off. Is that how they really were?

2000 meters = roughly 6000 feet. Yeah, that's correct. P-51's didn't handle as well below 10K feet. Besides, the Merlin engine fries easily. In real life a few 7.62mm bullets could cause it to seize.

Bearcat99
06-02-2006, 09:32 PM
Good post.... I have found that from 150-200 works good for the convergence.... also as far as fuel.. especially in DF servers.. you will rarely need more than 25%.... for coops I sometimes do 25 & tanks or 50... I rarely run out of fuel.... I have found that the B&Z is the best way to fight in the P-51 and patience is a must... also dont try to match your opponent move for move... find that comfortable zone wher you can rech out and touch and just keep him in sight.... trying to match him move for move.. especially AI will get you in trouble.. also.... if you get a jammed gun... disengage...if you get too much wing damage.. disengage.... if possible lastly.. watch your temps.....

I am also not so sure about that zoom climb... <aybe I am doing something wrong....

Also... you have pitch.. use it... it can help keep the engine revved down and your speed up.

I also agree that the 4.05 Mustang... is a huge improvement over 4.03 & 4.04... especially 4.04.... I like this one best of all.. it isnt the rocket of FB1.0.. which was too good if you ask me.... I like this one.... OH... also.. for some reason get closer... at least on my PC.. I still get ocillations in the 51... not major.. but enough to skew the aim at certain distances... also.. practice those deflection shots.... try to avoid firing in a high speed turn... it is better to go for the deflection shots and let him fly into it.. than to try to tag him under your nose in a turn.. at least for me...

VW-IceFire
06-02-2006, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by clipped_spit:
I find the P51 (in this game) is pretty much a sitting duck for a skilled Me109 under 2000 meters.

Way too easy to stall and fall off. Is that how they really were?
If you have 4.05 its better...its more competitive. Some tricks include trimming nose down, manually operating the radiator, and modifyign your joystick settings. I agree that in 4.04 its totally 100% useless. In 4.05 I can throw it around a bit again.

There is a wing fall of problem that existed only on the P-51D...the earlier models did not have the problem but in the game they do. Also part of the problem is that the elevator behaves a-historically. People wanted the elevator to be stronger so it was and now it easily exceeds the planes G tolerances for a defective wing structure. Its a bloody pain...especially when you come from flying a more solid plane like the FW190.

ImpStarDuece
06-02-2006, 10:23 PM
I don't fly the P-51 online (Mostly Mosquito and P-47) but offline I find it the best of the USAAF 'Big 3'.

Its fast at all altitudes, can turn better than the P-47, is more comfortable at speed than the P-38 and has the best foward and rear visibility of the 3.

I do have a soft spot for the P-51C though. Better handling, more 'chuckable' and much less twitchy than the D, despite the cut in armament.

Oh, and I disagree about it not being able to go one on one with the 190D-9 and 109K-4. In all flight regiemes but low and slow, I find it an excellent match for them, particularly above 15,000 feet. Its also not that much different in time period: the first B/C operations were in December 1943, and the fist D model operations were in June/July, 1944 a handful of months before the Dora and Kurfurst appeared.

JtD
06-03-2006, 12:15 AM
Now you mention it I'd like to confess I am talking about 404 mostly. It is a potent weapon even there. I figure I tried 405 offline and had I tend to agree that the dogfighting capabilities have improved.

After writing that post I went to my fav server to check my theory out and got 1 190 A-6, 2 190A-8 and 1 109 G-14 within two sorties. However, I succumbed to stupidity when I crashed into my next victim a G-6AS after making him play my game at 8km...

Apart from that, I only begun to adjust stick settings yesterday and it makes a huge difference. My hit percentage with the P-51 about doubled - and this makes them useful weapons. Try it!

WRT D-9 and K-4: I didn't mean to say you should never ever see one in a 51D. But if you are constantly put against the latest German technology, this is not correct.

danjama
06-03-2006, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Even the most reasonable folks playing this sim know there is something not quite right with the P51D.

Here is my take

1. 3.xx....Too Good
2. 4.01....This is Bad
3. 4.02....This is Bad Redux
4. 4.03....WTF?*
5. 4.04/4.05....WTF Redux

*Note: This is the point where i pretty much gave up on the P51 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"You are pitted against D-9's and K-4? Choose a different server. The P-51 is an early 44 plane and should compete against contemporaries."

That seems a bit ***** to me, how about working for a damn kill?!

Other than that, most of it is correct, although i can see a bit of bull****.

"the 190 essentially has no real option to disengage"

Errr, what kind of BS is this? There is no way a P51 will catch a 190 in a spiral dive snap roll to zoom climb, the roll just wont keep up. That right there is a quick way to get a 190 on your ***. A smart pilot would keep his altitude against a diving opponent, including 190!

JtD
06-03-2006, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by danjama:

That seems a bit ***** to me, how about working for a damn kill?!

If you are flying a P-51 you will almost always need to work for a kill. It's not like flying a Spit, Tempest, 109 or 190, where many kills come with little effort. I figure you haven't tried the 51 much, otherwise you'd know.


There is no way a P51 will catch a 190 in a spiral dive snap roll to zoom climb, the roll just wont keep up.

And how do you want to disengage? I mean, you just burned a lot of valuable E...

danjama
06-03-2006, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:

That seems a bit ***** to me, how about working for a damn kill?!

If you are flying a P-51 you will almost always need to work for a kill. It's not like flying a Spit, Tempest, 109 or 190, where many kills come with little effort. I figure you haven't tried the 51 much, otherwise you'd know.


There is no way a P51 will catch a 190 in a spiral dive snap roll to zoom climb, the roll just wont keep up.

And how do you want to disengage? I mean, you just burned a lot of valuable E... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've flown the P51 enough to know that it can easily hold its own against Dora's and K4's. I fly 47's and 51's pretty much all the time now, although the 47 is preferred.

If the 51 follows that 190 into the dive, his roll speed will not be able to cope, especially at the bottom of the dive where the 190 has superior roll rate and can snap and pull right up.. The 190 would not need to disengage, as the P51 would be at a complete disadvantage and basically cannon fodder from that point. The smart P51 pilot would not follow the dive in the first place, but ive seen all too many do it.

JtD
06-03-2006, 04:10 AM
Yep, that's what I said, don't maneuvre with the Germans. So all you'd get from that trick would be a P-51 with an even stronger advantage - and a FW that has no way near disengaged.

carguy_
06-03-2006, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by JtD:

If you are flying a P-51 you will almost always need to work for a kill. It's not like flying a Spit, Tempest, 109 or 190, where many kills come with little effort. I figure you haven't tried the 51 much, otherwise you'd know.


I find the P51 to be safer and overall more comfortable fighter than any 109/190.The elevator authority and ease of controls lets me pull any firing angle I desire.And 50cal machineguns seem to be a more adapted weapon against fighters than German cannons.

For me the P51 is just a faster P40.With an exception of the D,I have all the pluses of the Curtiss Hawk,which is a fearsome enemy in `42 scenarios.

gdfo
06-03-2006, 05:03 AM
The use of 100% settings for the sliders would also be effected by the brand of stick you use. Some have a loose feel to them and some do not. Also as I understand it the use of rudder pedals, can help at 100% settings, once they are learned.

bazzaah2
06-03-2006, 05:12 AM
Stick settings are really important and I've found at long last that Eric Brown's settings give most stability, at least on my CH Combtastick.

Pinker15
06-03-2006, 08:32 AM
All those advices are great but P51 still sucks. If we meet enemy E/A like fw190D9 or 109 G10/K4 on equal conditions, and he is as skilled as we than all those advices can help us only to stay alive and run away. Great zoom climb capability is too small to make this plane efective esspecially when if U can do only one zoom because P51 regain E slow.

JtD
06-03-2006, 09:48 AM
The problem with the G-10, K-4 and D-9 is that they have a better zoomclimb than the 51. Speedwise they are on par and are better at almost any other aspect. High speed maneuvering is great and very helpful against the 109, but if you maneuver you will soon find you low or slow. Not good, not good at all.

If I find myself in a dogfight with these, I tend to keep running until they cook their engines...

Xiolablu3
06-03-2006, 09:55 AM
A P51 pilot was very unlikely to face a 190D or 109K4, adn if he did he would probably outnumber them 10 to 1.

Around a 1000 of each made and many of these will have been destroyed on the ground.

I would say he was much more likely to meet 190A8's and 109G with gunpods. Some 109G6's too.

VW-IceFire
06-03-2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Pinker15:
All those advices are great but P51 still sucks. If we meet enemy E/A like fw190D9 or 109 G10/K4 on equal conditions, and he is as skilled as we than all those advices can help us only to stay alive and run away. Great zoom climb capability is too small to make this plane efective esspecially when if U can do only one zoom because P51 regain E slow.
Again...if your talking about handling...then 4.05 is an improvement.

carguy_
06-03-2006, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
A P51 pilot was very unlikely to face a 190D or 109K4, adn if he did he would probably outnumber them 10 to 1.


Worthy of stressing for those who want to become Mustang heroes flying 1v1 against a 109@2400m.The P51 is a great fighter although still outclassed by a slower enemy in a turning fight.



I would say he was much more likely to meet 190A8's and 109G with gunpods. Some 109G6's too.

Those models can be used up to their best advantages by a skilled pilot.To add to that,most red heroes we have flying online are Spitfire aces who can`t fly anything else than a La or P40.
This time Lufwaffles have both the numbers and skill - nothing like it was in WWII`43-`45.

Brain32
06-03-2006, 10:32 AM
P51: 104(with WEP ofcourse), PP at 90% = for as long as you have fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Also P51 will accelerate like mad in a very shallow dive, just very shallow is enough(if you barely notice you loose alt, you got it right). BTW every plane(on late WF atleast) has some "magical" power setting on which it can run "forever" except two of them, one is Tempest that unfortunately has no cure, and the other extreme is the SpitfireMk9 which can run at only 85% throtthle with wep and still achieve his max level speed...

Bellator_1
06-03-2006, 10:58 AM
Firstly I'd like to say I fly mostly the Ta-152H, Spitfire IX, Fw-190 D-9 and A-8, Bf-109K-4 and the P-51D.

My experience is that when in a dogfight flying the P-51D then DON'T turn with any of these except the A-8, all the others will be on your six in no time. (Especially the Spit and 109)

Whenever I'm fighting the Dora-9 in the P-51D I try to stay high, and not get suckered into a low alt dogfight, cause if I don't then he'll most likely splatter me, cause the Dora's got superior roll, turn and climb at low alt. (Atleast the 44 version has) And avoid a scissors fight with this bird ! Trust me, you'll lose it!

Against the A-8 I can do about anything but follow him in a Split S maneuver, where if I do he'll be on my *** within seconds, so don't do that. But climbing can easily be done without fear, and turning is "reasonably" safe against this bird if you use combat flaps properly. (But god have mercy on your soul if the A-8 J¤ger version ever makes into this game ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif )

Against the K-4, well, what can I say... If you don't have an alt advantage to begin with, and the K-4 driver is as good as yourself, well, then your pretty much f*cked... But if your brave enough to give it a shot at a dogfight then just remember - "Avoid climbing and turning at all costs !" Excellent E preservation is the key, cause speed is REALLY precius against this killer.

Against the Ta-152H, well, just try and avoid it OK..

Anyway that was my two cents, please let me know if my observations are wrong....

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Pinker15
06-03-2006, 11:44 AM
Conclusion is that if U are P51 driver better for U is to avoid late LW birds like D9 k4 etc. Thats really sad. Im not sure if it was in real. Now I know why we have Achtung Spitfire !!!! call not Achtung Mustangs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Bellator_1
06-03-2006, 11:50 AM
The only reason the P-51 enjoyed succes in real life was because of its superior range and the fact that it out-numbered its enemy's 10 to 1.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
06-03-2006, 12:19 PM
And because it enjoyed a 50-100 kph speed advantage over most contemporary opponents, had excellent dive and zoom climb abilities, a good high speed handling, good vision from the cockpit and a lot of other qualities that simply do not matter on dogfight servers.

Bellator_1
06-03-2006, 12:55 PM
If by contemporary opponents you mean fighter-bombers and ground attack planes, then yeah, but against "fighters", no.

The P-51 was infact slower than most Axis "fighters", and just slightly faster than their fighter-bombers. But with a 10 to 1 numerical advantage that didn't matter squat!

But you bring up a good point about the excellent all-round vision of the P-51's canopy, something which is extremely important. And its zoom climb and diving abilities were also good.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
06-03-2006, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
(But god have mercy on your soul if the A-8 J¤ger version ever makes into this game ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif )

:

What is the A8 Jager version please?

danjama
06-03-2006, 01:05 PM
I think the Jager version is the fighters version, which is probably boosted to 26.999ata and has an airbrake, or other uber accessories.

Bellator_1
06-03-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I think the Jager version is the fighters version, which is probably boosted to 26.999ata and has an airbrake, or other uber accessories.

LOL that would be cool ! Like a Merc Mclaren airbrake ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif Haha ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No its just a lighter and cleaner A-8, with wheel doors and a different engine setup.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

VW-IceFire
06-03-2006, 02:13 PM
Ok...logged some actual stick time in the P-51 in 4.05 and let me say that its a massively different experience than 4.04. With 4.04 if you looked at it the wrong way it would flip over on its back, wallow, and crash. It was a useless aircraft in all except the most experienced of Mustang drivers with the most discipline. Without that sort of thing behind me (my best fighters are the Tempest, FW190, Ki-100, and Corsair right now - I'm out of practice on everything else) I took the P-51D into battle on UK-Dedicated2.

In two separate secenarios and managed to succeed. I was able to match Bf109s and FW190s in tactical air combat (i.e. under 3,000m or less than 10,000 feet).

So this is what I can sumarize for flying the P-51 in such a setting.

- take 25% fuel unless you plan to fly long distances
- trim nose down, keep the slip indicator ball centered
- use a high yo-yo to follow a turn when you have lots of speed
- take the lag pursuit when chasing enemies as opposed to lead pursuit (ask about this if you're unclear)

Try it in 4.05...its quite a bit improved. ITs back to being a good fighter!

JtD
06-03-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
...The P-51 was infact slower than most Axis "fighters", and just slightly faster than their fighter-bombers...

The P-51 would do 708 in 1943. Say 1st half of 44. At that time you'd have 109's crawling around at 1.3 ata mainly, later 1.42, later with MW50. The G-6 had a top speed of about 650@7000 meters. That's 50 kph short of the P-51's top speed. 7000 meters being the best alt, so the 51 only had 30 kph in hand. At 5000 and 8000 however, the 51 shined and easily had 80 kph advantage. The added boost and MW50 would not help the high alt performance, so the advantage would remain the same up high, while the gap was noarrowed but not closed at lower alts.

The 190 with 1.42 and/or 1.65 ata had a higher top speed than the 109 but also were more of a low alt fighter. While it was close between the 51 and the 190 below 6k, the FW would have an almost 100 kph speed disadvantage at 8k and up.

Could please point me to data only remotly suggesting that the German fighters were capable of 700+ kph in the first half of 44?

JtD
06-03-2006, 02:23 PM
What is lag and lead pursuit? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bellator_1
06-03-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
...The P-51 was infact slower than most Axis "fighters", and just slightly faster than their fighter-bombers...

The P-51 would do 708 in 1943. Say 1st half of 44. At that time you'd have 109's crawling around at 1.3 ata mainly, later 1.42, later with MW50. The G-6 had a top speed of about 650@7000 meters. That's 50 kph short of the P-51's top speed. 7000 meters being the best alt, so the 51 only had 30 kph in hand. At 5000 and 8000 however, the 51 shined and easily had 80 kph advantage. The added boost and MW50 would not help the high alt performance, so the advantage would remain the same up high, while the gap was noarrowed but not closed at lower alts.

The 190 with 1.42 and/or 1.65 ata had a higher top speed than the 109 but also were more of a low alt fighter. While it was close between the 51 and the 190 below 6k, the FW would have an almost 100 kph speed disadvantage at 8k and up.

Could please point me to data only remotly suggesting that the German fighters were capable of 700+ kph in the first half of 44? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well already in 42 the 109 could do 685 km/h.

But if were talking high alt then your right JtD, the P-51 was then good in 43 and the beginning of 1944(And actually remained decent at high alt throughout the war), but not much later it was over-shined by the German fighters in terms of fighting capability. However that didn't matter much cause with a 10 to 1 numerical advantage, it was more than enough to counter the superior performance of the German fighters.

However the P-51 wasn't the only allied fighter around, there was also the Spitfire xiv which was more than capable of tangling with the German fighters in a one on one!

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

FatBoyHK
06-03-2006, 03:16 PM
There is no different between 404 and 405. I think no one fly Mustang as much as I do online, so I think I am qualified to have a opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and Luither confirmed it too.

But either way, the tips JTD gave are all valid.

One thing I want to add is, if you want to aim easily when manouvering, you MUST trim your mustang according to the speed it has. If the ball is not centered, it will yaw badly when you start pushing moderate G.

tomtheyak
06-03-2006, 04:16 PM
Good tips guys, and thanx, gonna get some time in her and see if I can make it work.

On a side note, I posted this info here a while back but it might be relevent again...

I have recently been reading the Osprey Aviation Elite series book No.7 "354th Fighter Group" by William N Hess.

Previous to this book I had based my assumptions on the Mustangs prowess in the dogfight arena (in particular its ability to out-turn the LW interceptors) by a lot of the Roger A Freeman material I have read over the years - I'm a big Eighth Air Force nut!

However I'll relate a couple of interesting passages:

(p.27) "One of the victorious...pilots was Albert Redfern... who... ended up in turning fight an Fw190. Redfern stated that he and the Focke-Wulf pilot continued to turn into each other for a full ten-minutes before the American began to drop his flaps - first to ten degrees and finally to twenty, when he was finally able to take a shot... (the FW) went down in an uncontrollable spin."

The combat took place on 21st February 1944 on an escort mission to Brunswick. Redfern would have been flying an early or early-to-mid build P-51B. Altitude of combat is unknown.

This then shows that the Mustang was on a par for turning with a 190 (at least at some altitude - probably mid-to-high; the Fw190As engine power dropping off at hight alt).

However a well flown Mustang v. 109 was not exactly a one-sided arguement either...

p.92 "..Eagleston reported;
'...I sighted the bogies at.. nine o'clock to our group and going in the opposite direction some 2,000ft above us. The bogies made a wide diving turn and came in on us at six o'clock from slightly above. When definite recognition as enemy Me109s had been made, I waited until the enemy gaggle had almost set itself for a bounce and then called for a group turn of 180 degrees to the left to meet the attack head on. I ordered the group to jettison bombs and proceed to attack. E/A formation was well spread out and in semi-line abreast in flights of 4 & 8. Estimated strength 60+.
'... Observing a flight of 4 10s at 11'00ft I bounced these E/A and fired a one-second burst at the number four man, observing a few strikes on his fuselage. The E/A broke into me and started a climbing turn. This pilot was particularly aggresive and showed no desire to run. I was also amazed at the performance of the E/A, which showed climbing and turning ability far above any Me109 that I had ever encountered. I rat-raced this E/A for about 5 minutes without getting into a shooting position. Finally, this E/A pulled straight up and I closed to 100 yards and fired a two-second burst into him, scoring many strikes on the fuselage. The E/A started to smoke badly and pieces came off. I observed the aircraft crash and explode.
<span class="ev_code_RED">'... My wingman Lt Frederick I Crouch had been unable to release his bombs, yet in spite of all this he had stayed in an excellent covering position through severe and violent manoeuvring...</span>
'The enemy pilots varied from aggresive to very aggresive and appeared to be highly experienced. Instead of operating in their usual gaggle formation, they tried at all times to stay in four- or eight-ship flights.'
Eagleston had been accurate in his description of the opposition for the 354th had encountered the Stab. (headquarters flight) as well as II., III. & IV, Gruppen of JG 53. The air battle lasted about 35 minutes (!!!! - tomtheyak) and the results were amazingly close to what was claimed. The mustang pilots were credited with 21 kills , which is exactly the number of Bf109s that JG 53 admitted losing!...compared with four lost by the group (354thFG)."

Eagleston scored three all told.

OK, so we don't know what version of the 109 (G-6/-10/-14??) the 53 flyers were operating or if they were carrying gunpods.

How skilled the pilots actually were is of course a massive conjecture - their losses alone should reflect this, yet by accounts it seems they were at least disciplined and one gave Eagleston a good fight.

I know that without RealLife-trk footage (wouldnt that be too cool?!) we cant really analyse the fighting style Eagleston adopted, but it seems he was confident that the -51 could equal the 109 even in the TnB rat race. Plus the fact his wingman was able to stick with him carrying ordinance as well strikes me as bloody incredible!

VW-IceFire
06-03-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
There is no different between 404 and 405. I think no one fly Mustang as much as I do online, so I think I am qualified to have a opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and Luither confirmed it too.

But either way, the tips JTD gave are all valid.

One thing I want to add is, if you want to aim easily when manouvering, you MUST trim your mustang according to the speed it has. If the ball is not centered, it will yaw badly when you start pushing moderate G.
Sorry I don't believe it. I go between the two and its like night and day. In 4.04 I cannot do anything while in 4.05 I'm scoring one or two kills. You're so good with the plane that you don't notice it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
06-03-2006, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
What is lag and lead pursuit? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
OK...fine...make me describe it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lag Pursuit:

When chasing a fighter you do not attempt to put your gunsight immediately on the target. Instead you attempt to replicate their positioning in their own manuevers. This usually applies when you're coming in on an angle to the target...you break into the path of the plane as it flies past.

Lead Pursuit:

Instead of breaking into the path of the targets flightpath like in lag pursuit, you attempt to point your nose at the target. This usually means that you cut the corners of their manuever bringing you closer to them.

In a P-51 lead pursuit can be dangerous as you end up pulling a higher AoA than your target in some situations and because you're generally faster than the target anyways you end up getting too close too fast. Lag pursuit allows you to conserve your energy and close on the bandit at a slightly slower pace.

tomtheyak
06-03-2006, 05:36 PM
Yeah, Ice is spot on - I like to think of it this way:

Lead Pursuit - collision course intercept; ur aiming point is where he's going to be

Lag Pursuit - formation flying. Fly with him, not at him

lag pursuit is excellent in a number of circumstances; its also great when ur intended victim breaks, but rather than bleed off all ur E trying to put ur guns on him straight away, u sit on the outside of his turn in his blind spot! Really freaks some peeps out!

Bearcat99
06-03-2006, 08:14 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 FatBoyHK:
There is no different between 404 and 405. I think no one fly Mustang as much as I do online, so I think I am qualified to have a opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and Luither confirmed it too.
But either way, the tips JTD gave are all valid.
One thing I want to add is, if you want to aim easily when manouvering, you MUST trim your mustang according to the speed it has. If the ball is not centered, it will yaw badly when you start pushing moderate G.
Sorry I don't believe it. I go between the two and its like night and day. In 4.04 I cannot do anything while in 4.05 I'm scoring one or two kills. You're so good with the plane that you don't notice it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im with Ice Fire.. there is a difference I dont care what anyone says... and I fly the P-51 almost exclusively offline and online.. and it is different. The wings dont fall of as easily..(Well that stopped for the most part in 4.04) It accelerates better... it stalls less... it is an overal better AC in 4.05 than in any previous version IMO... (That is if you want it to perform historically... and pls note that I said better in 4.05 than in any previous version...)

FatBoyHK
06-04-2006, 12:04 AM
it was night and day between 403 and 404 (regarding pitch axis and yaw axis stability), but it is not between 404 and 405.... but why argue??? it is a good plane now again ater several nightmare patches http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
06-04-2006, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

Well already in 42 the 109 could do 685 km/h.

IF that was true, it would apply to the F model. But not to the 1.3ata rated G-6 models that were standard LW equipment in late 43-early 44.


...but not much later it was over-shined by the German fighters in terms of fighting capability....the superior performance of the German fighters...

Which German prop aircraft, apart from the K-4, would go the P-51's speed within one year after it's service introduction (means before Dec. 44)?

JtD
06-04-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:

OK, so we don't know what version of the 109 (G-6/-10/-14??) the 53 flyers were operating or if they were carrying gunpods.

Considering that


the 354th had encountered the Stab. (headquarters flight) as well as II., III. & IV, Gruppen of JG 53.

it must have been sometime late 44 early 45, as IV. Gruppe only existed from Nov 44 until April 45. In Nov/Dec 44 almost the entire JG53 had been equipped with 109 G-14. If you can find out the date of that combat, you got the answer.

JG53 info (http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg53.htm)

Thanks for the read.

---

Also thanks to IceFire for explaining lag/lead pursuit to me. I guess my style of pursuit should be described as lazy lag. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ICDP
06-04-2006, 06:56 AM
Its not the P51 that is modelled wrong. It is the other planes that are overdone IMHO. The energy bleed model in this sim has been wrong since the first IL2 and has never been close to realistic according to historical records and sources. The P51 and P47 should dive away from Bf109's and Fw190's with relative ease. They do but not enough to make it seem real. The Bf109's and Fw190's should outdive Spitfires and they most certainly do not (in fact the Spitfire is one of the joke UFO's in this game). The only way planes outdive other planes is because of a totally joke restriction where the planes break up at set speeds. Zoom climbs are completely wrong and in fact don't exist as zoom climbing away from a Spitfire (we know it is a joke right) is impossible even with superior speed and altitude. How many reports have we read stating the Spitfire was not a good zoom climber compared to its contempories. In fact in PF it is one of the best zoom climbers. I have done many tests and have come to the conclusion that dive and zoom in PF is not modelled well at all. I thought for a while it was pretty good but the more I read and the more I test the more OFF it gets in PF.

With this in mind is it any wonder people complain that the heavy energy fighters are **** in this sim. The only area where they had a marked and TOTALY SUPERIOR ADVANTAGE THAT COULD BE USED TACTICALLY is not there in this simul... I mean game.

Kocur_
06-04-2006, 08:01 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif, sadly...

reverendkrv1972
06-04-2006, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
P51: 104(with WEP ofcourse), PP at 90% = for as long as you have fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Also P51 will accelerate like mad in a very shallow dive, just very shallow is enough(if you barely notice you loose alt, you got it right). BTW every plane(on late WF atleast) has some "magical" power setting on which it can run "forever" except two of them, one is Tempest that unfortunately has no cure, and the other extreme is the SpitfireMk9 which can run at only 85% throtthle with wep and still achieve his max level speed...

I call that the planes 'sweetspot'you find it & the plane won't overheat,will climb steadily at a nice speed & you usually won't need to think about throttle in a 'dance' either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


you regularly fly in WC or WoW now m8?

Dingzoom
06-04-2006, 02:34 PM
I don't do much beyond the QMB myself, and somewhere along the patch scene it was ruined for me.
It really doesn't matter if your flying the P51,or a comparable 109 or do a switch & fly the 109 against the P51...but, The AI one will always be above you and never stall out. the ai will always be faster & climb wings level with the rudder full deflection right or left while I must always be in a 15-25 degree bank to just bearly keep the ai from just swishing around & dive on my tail from 15-2000 meters above me. It is not fun like it use to be.
it just becomes an very time consuming climb to 30000 feet or drop to the ground & do circles bs..
I have done a shallow dive in the P51 until the wings came off & the 109 just followed merrily along shooting now & then. If u do try & pull out easly I still go black & thats when the AI blows be up from 1.o 1.5 ..heck I can't even see an aircraft at that distance...

Just not as much fun as it use to be...

Bellator_1
06-04-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
IF that was true, it would apply to the F model. But not to the 1.3ata rated G-6 models that were standard LW equipment in late 43-early 44.

It is true, its well documented. And by 43 and 44 the LW also had 1.42ata rated 109's.


Originally posted by JtD:
Which German prop aircraft, apart from the K-4, would go the P-51's speed within one year after it's service introduction (means before Dec. 44)?

Well the Dora 9 for one.... (And why leave out the K-4 ??)

Btw I said I was talking the P-51 "D".

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Viper2005_
06-04-2006, 04:09 PM
The P-51 is excellent if flown properly, despite the fact that this sim lacks the features required to really show off its strengths.

I would suggest that in the absence of heavy bombers to defend at 25,000 feet the Mustang III should be the machine of choice, since it gives of its best at lower altitudes.

It is often forgotten that the Mustang is capable of carrying a pair of 1000 lb bombs. Despite the obscene rack drag, it's still somewhat faster than an Fw-190A once the bombs are gone; and of course it carries double the load.

It is the best fighter bomber available to the allies for hitting defended hard targets.

As for air combat, the most important thing I can say is

<gunstat

There is a massive problem with the way in which most people approach air combat. They approach it as some kind of flying contest, the goal of which is to get behind the enemy.

Air combat is about destroying enemy aircraft. Nothing else.

Gunnery is all. Many virtual pilots score hits with less than 10% of the rounds they fire.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Double your accuracy and you double the effectiveness of your weapon.

Victory is to be had in the difficult snapshots refused by your opponent.</span>

If he can't take them, he'll waste energy searching for an easy shot. <span class="ev_code_red">If you can, he's dead.</span>

geetarman
06-04-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Good tips guys, and thanx, gonna get some time in her and see if I can make it work.

On a side note, I posted this info here a while back but it might be relevent again...

I have recently been reading the Osprey Aviation Elite series book No.7 "354th Fighter Group" by William N Hess.

Previous to this book I had based my assumptions on the Mustangs prowess in the dogfight arena (in particular its ability to out-turn the LW interceptors) by a lot of the Roger A Freeman material I have read over the years - I'm a big Eighth Air Force nut!

However I'll relate a couple of interesting passages:

(p.27) "One of the victorious...pilots was Albert Redfern... who... ended up in turning fight an Fw190. Redfern stated that he and the Focke-Wulf pilot continued to turn into each other for a full ten-minutes before the American began to drop his flaps - first to ten degrees and finally to twenty, when he was finally able to take a shot... (the FW) went down in an uncontrollable spin."

The combat took place on 21st February 1944 on an escort mission to Brunswick. Redfern would have been flying an early or early-to-mid build P-51B. Altitude of combat is unknown.

This then shows that the Mustang was on a par for turning with a 190 (at least at some altitude - probably mid-to-high; the Fw190As engine power dropping off at hight alt).

However a well flown Mustang v. 109 was not exactly a one-sided arguement either...

p.92 "..Eagleston reported;
'...I sighted the bogies at.. nine o'clock to our group and going in the opposite direction some 2,000ft above us. The bogies made a wide diving turn and came in on us at six o'clock from slightly above. When definite recognition as enemy Me109s had been made, I waited until the enemy gaggle had almost set itself for a bounce and then called for a group turn of 180 degrees to the left to meet the attack head on. I ordered the group to jettison bombs and proceed to attack. E/A formation was well spread out and in semi-line abreast in flights of 4 & 8. Estimated strength 60+.
'... Observing a flight of 4 10s at 11'00ft I bounced these E/A and fired a one-second burst at the number four man, observing a few strikes on his fuselage. The E/A broke into me and started a climbing turn. This pilot was particularly aggresive and showed no desire to run. I was also amazed at the performance of the E/A, which showed climbing and turning ability far above any Me109 that I had ever encountered. I rat-raced this E/A for about 5 minutes without getting into a shooting position. Finally, this E/A pulled straight up and I closed to 100 yards and fired a two-second burst into him, scoring many strikes on the fuselage. The E/A started to smoke badly and pieces came off. I observed the aircraft crash and explode.
<span class="ev_code_RED">'... My wingman Lt Frederick I Crouch had been unable to release his bombs, yet in spite of all this he had stayed in an excellent covering position through severe and violent manoeuvring...</span>
'The enemy pilots varied from aggresive to very aggresive and appeared to be highly experienced. Instead of operating in their usual gaggle formation, they tried at all times to stay in four- or eight-ship flights.'
Eagleston had been accurate in his description of the opposition for the 354th had encountered the Stab. (headquarters flight) as well as II., III. & IV, Gruppen of JG 53. The air battle lasted about 35 minutes (!!!! - tomtheyak) and the results were amazingly close to what was claimed. The mustang pilots were credited with 21 kills , which is exactly the number of Bf109s that JG 53 admitted losing!...compared with four lost by the group (354thFG)."

Eagleston scored three all told.

OK, so we don't know what version of the 109 (G-6/-10/-14??) the 53 flyers were operating or if they were carrying gunpods.

How skilled the pilots actually were is of course a massive conjecture - their losses alone should reflect this, yet by accounts it seems they were at least disciplined and one gave Eagleston a good fight.

I know that without RealLife-trk footage (wouldnt that be too cool?!) we cant really analyse the fighting style Eagleston adopted, but it seems he was confident that the -51 could equal the 109 even in the TnB rat race. Plus the fact his wingman was able to stick with him carrying ordinance as well strikes me as bloody incredible!

Try this scenario in IL2 and see what happens - 21 to 4 in favor of the Mustangs - not a chance. Yeah, Oleg has it right. Obviously, the Mustangs met pros flying their best rides and waxed em good. See also: Bodenplatt

geetarman
06-04-2006, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
IF that was true, it would apply to the F model. But not to the 1.3ata rated G-6 models that were standard LW equipment in late 43-early 44.

It is true, its well documented. And by 43 and 44 the LW also had 1.42ata rated 109's.


Originally posted by JtD:
Which German prop aircraft, apart from the K-4, would go the P-51's speed within one year after it's service introduction (means before Dec. 44)?

Well the Dora 9 for one.... (And why leave out the K-4 ??)

Btw I said I was talking the P-51 "D".

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The typical 8AF P-51D after D-Day was running on 150 Octane fuel and was a better performer all around. 71-72" of MP was available. This was not a rare "hotrod" but your garden-variety P-51.

carguy_
06-04-2006, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:
Try this scenario in IL2 and see what happens - 21 to 4 in favor of the Mustangs - not a chance. Yeah, Oleg has it right. Obviously, the Mustangs met pros flying their best rides and waxed em good. See also: Bodenplatt

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

tomtheyak
06-04-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:

OK, so we don't know what version of the 109 (G-6/-10/-14??) the 53 flyers were operating or if they were carrying gunpods.

Considering that


the 354th had encountered the Stab. (headquarters flight) as well as II., III. & IV, Gruppen of JG 53.

it must have been sometime late 44 early 45, as IV. Gruppe only existed from Nov 44 until April 45. In Nov/Dec 44 almost the entire JG53 had been equipped with 109 G-14. If you can find out the date of that combat, you got the answer.

JG53 info (http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg53.htm)

Thanks for the read.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi JtD - book quotes "..October.. end of the month" so I am assuming the 31st but no exact date is given. Seems kinda close enuff.



Originally posted by geetarman:

Try this scenario in IL2 and see what happens - 21 to 4 in favor of the Mustangs - not a chance. Yeah, Oleg has it right. Obviously, the Mustangs met pros flying their best rides and waxed em good. See also: Bodenplatt



Lol, true, but bear in mind that AI doesn't teamwork with itself as well as trained humans - of course this works both ways but still, you tend to find in Il2FAP that where in reaity a fight may have been more or less inconclusive, AI pilots are to happy to mix it up and thus throw any E advantage away and give ascendancy to the turn and burning suited a/c - tho having said that the vet Fw190 pilots in my offline campaign are really BnZing like pros! very scary!

Bellator_1
06-04-2006, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:
The typical 8AF P-51D after D-Day was running on 150 Octane fuel and was a better performer all around. 71-72" of MP was available. This was not a rare "hotrod" but your garden-variety P-51.

The "Typical P-51 flies on 150 octane", are you sure ?? Cause in that case wouldn't they be marked on the engine with this ? I ask this because on most post-D-Day pics they aren't marked with the 150 octane emblem..

Anyways the P-51 wasn't as fast as the Dora or K-4, and especially not as fast as the Ta-152H !

And about that 71-72" MP Mustang "D", well, did that even see service... AFAIK it didn't.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Brain32
06-04-2006, 06:21 PM
And about that 71-72" MP Mustang "D", well, did that even see service... AFAIK it didn't.
You just opened a Pandora's box m8 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


you regularly fly in WC or WoW now m8?
Yes I am mostly on those two servers, but I drop by on some others occasionally, late war WF is what I really prefer lately...

Bellator_1
06-04-2006, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
You just opened a Pandora's box m8 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Uh ooooh ! Is this when I get swarmed by the "Believer's" ?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Brain32
06-04-2006, 06:51 PM
OK I guess I'll help in opening the box, but there is no doubt they had 150grade fuel available, you can find docs here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html
BUT saying that it was common and in great numbers is IMO overstatement. On the link I posted they mention only 4 fighter groups. If anybody knows more - fine, don't jump on me immidiately.
Personally I think higher boosted P51D wouldn't hurt anyone. I mean Mustang3 we have is already at that rating but people are pi$$ed becasue it only has 4 .50cal's, and let's face it the D looks waaaaaaaaay cooler http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Viper2005_
06-04-2006, 07:06 PM
Just call it a Mustang IV and avoid the debate. That way you'd get +25 psi (~81"Hg) rather than a measly 72"Hg.

It'd still be rather slower than the Mustang III since the bubble canopy is draggy of course, but that's probably a price worth paying for the extra pair of guns.

Papa_K
06-04-2006, 08:39 PM
Just to clarify something posted earlier, below is quoted from MCM 11-F16. (It's an F-16 manual, but the attack geometry, as described, has been around for quite some time.)

begin quote
______________________________

4.6.2. Attack Geometry
There are three available attack pursuit courses: lead, lag, and pure (Figure 4.2). The attacker's nose position or his lift vector will determine the pursuit course being flown.

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1775/fig422ro.jpg

If the attacker is in the defender's plane of turn, the position of the attacker's nose determines the pursuit course. With his nose pointed in front of the defender (such as in the case of a gunshot), he is in lead pursuit. If he points behind the defender, he is in lag pursuit. If he points at his adversary, he is in pure pursuit. Note that an initial lead pursuit attacker could be driven into a lag pursuit course if he has insufficient turn rate available to maintain lead (Figure 4.3).

http://img343.imageshack.us/img343/5395/fig435wl.jpg

When the attacker is out of the defender's plane of turn, his pursuit course is determined by where his present lift vector (the top of his canopy) will position his nose as he enters the defender's plane of turn.

For example, if forced out-of-plane by a defender's hard turn, an attacker may have his nose pointed behind the defender during the reposition. After gaining sufficient turning room, if the attacker pulls far enough in front of the bandit to arrive back in-plane with his nose in front on the defender, then he is in lead pursuit. The same holds true for pure or lag pursuit (Figure 4.4).

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/2310/fig442dq.jpg

Whether to establish a lead, lag, or pure pursuit course will depend on the relative position of the attacker with respect to the defender's turn circle (TC). The key at point C is to be sure you will enter the defender's turn circle aft of his wingline with the ability to establish an in-plane, lead pursuit course at point D.

______________________________
end quote

By the way, the whole manual is available at: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=Downloads&req=viewdo...rderby=dateD&show=10 (http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=Downloads&req=viewdownload&cid=3&min=10&orderby=dateD&show=10)

Papa_K

VW-IceFire
06-04-2006, 08:43 PM
Excellent diagrams and information!

My feeling is that too many virtual pilots want to pull lead or pure pursuit moves when they aren't always able to.

Figure 4.4 shows a great high yo-yo move as well.

luftluuver
06-04-2006, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
The typical 8AF P-51D after D-Day was running on 150 Octane fuel and was a better performer all around. 71-72" of MP was available. This was not a rare "hotrod" but your garden-variety P-51.

The "Typical P-51 flies on 150 octane", are you sure ?? Cause in that case wouldn't they be marked on the engine with this ? I ask this because on most post-D-Day pics they aren't marked with the 150 octane emblem..

Anyways the P-51 wasn't as fast as the Dora or K-4, and especially not as fast as the Ta-152H !

And about that 71-72" MP Mustang "D", well, did that even see service... AFAIK it didn't.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you post a pic of this 150 emblem? I have never seen one. I have it in the stencil data block.

Btw, the K-4(non C3/MW50) did 444mph and that was if it was in good condition and below the rated height of the P-51s max speed.

Unless it was one of the few 'hotrod' Doras, the P-51 was faster.

Viper2005_
06-04-2006, 09:42 PM
Compare the charts posted here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

They seems pretty close in performance to me.

Handling of course is another matter!

JtD
06-04-2006, 11:54 PM
Tom, IV. Gruppe was formed on 20th of October to be precise, so an egagement at the end of October is possible. Therefore I am fairly sure that if he was fighting improved 109s he was fighting G-14s. I strongly doubt, however, that the majority of the pilots was highly skilled - this just wasn't the case in such large units anymore.

Bellator, feel free to pass my a link where I can find info on 1.42 ata clearance in 1943. Also, when the D-9 was introduced, it would not run on the boost setting we currently have in game. Try flying with 100%-110% power (no WEP) to get the speeds it had in it's early service.

8th AF used 150 octane for all it's fighters starting soon after D-Day.

Papa_k, thanks for the diagrams.

mynameisroland
06-05-2006, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by clipped_spit:
I find the P51 (in this game) is pretty much a sitting duck for a skilled Me109 under 2000 meters.

Way too easy to stall and fall off. Is that how they really were?

You could say that the Fw 190 A series gets eaten alive by the Spitfire IX or La5FN low energy and low altitude. Or that the P47 is vulnerable to the Bf 109 or that the P40 hets owned by the Zero below 3000m.

All of the above fall in to the category of the oposing fighter being more manuverable, having a higher climb rate and possesing better acceleration. If you get caught co altitude co energy in any aircraft of the P51s class you get owned its as simple as that.

mortoma1958
06-05-2006, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I know most are skeptical but the P-51 is WAAY better in 4.05 than 4.04. In 4.05 I can fight in it effectively again...it was combat ineffective in 4.04 for me. Uhhhhhhhhh...but wait a minute....There were no FM changes from 4.04 to 4.05!!!!!! None at all, zero, zilch.

carguy_
06-05-2006, 07:59 AM
O RLY?

How about Pe2/3 FM?

Maddox Games did hidden fixes many times before.It`s not unbelievable P51 FM changed this time aswell.

Xiolablu3
06-05-2006, 08:05 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 clipped_spit:
I find the P51 (in this game) is pretty much a sitting duck for a skilled Me109 under 2000 meters.

Way too easy to stall and fall off. Is that how they really were?

You could say that the Fw 190 A series gets eaten alive by the Spitfire IX or La5FN low energy and low altitude. Or that the P47 is vulnerable to the Bf 109 or that the P40 hets owned by the Zero below 3000m.

All of the above fall in to the category of the oposing fighter being more manuverable, having a higher climb rate and possesing better acceleration. If you get caught co altitude co energy in any aircraft of the P51s class you get owned its as simple as that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, you are better off running to teamates or diving for the deck in this situation in the less manouvrable fighter.

Teamwork or Speed is the best counter to a more manouvrable plane, its knowing hte strengths of your plane and not fighting his fight.

If you engage co alt, co energy with the enemy in a more manouvrable plane, as soon as you feel you are in a disadvantagous position (could be after the first merge) then run for teamates or the deck.

Better to save your plane than push a bad position. (and thats a big gamble with a 20 million dollar plane leutentant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

HayateAce
06-05-2006, 09:36 AM
Probably just as well. If Oleg made the P51 all that is was in RL, the luftweenie howls would be UNbearable. They scream and oleg "fixes" the game for them.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 11:14 AM
Fistly I'd like to say that from talking to other people it seems like Mike Williams is nothing but a measly liar, purposely corrupting stats not in favour of the Allies. (According to other forums he has "miss-quoted" ALOT of German doc's!)

So I personally wouldn't believe much of what is written on that site about German a/c...

He has alot of good info on the Spitfire though, its just a shame he has to be so biased against the Germans.... WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG !


Originally posted by JtD:
Bellator, feel free to pass my a link where I can find info on 1.42 ata clearance in 1943.

I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, but I might be wrong, it could have been 1.32ata.... In that case I stand corrected.


Originally posted by JtD:
Also, when the D-9 was introduced, it would not run on the boost setting we currently have in game. Try flying with 100%-110% power (no WEP) to get the speeds it had in it's early service.

But you said Dec.44, by that time the D-9 was actually flying faster than the P-51.


Originally posted by JtD:8th AF used 150 octane for all it's fighters starting soon after D-Day.


Could you specifically document that for us ?? (I ask this out of sheer interest on the subject)

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

Luftluuver;

I'll see if I can get a picture for you with the 150 octane emblem, but just so you know where it sits - its right between the engine and cockpit on the left side.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
06-05-2006, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Probably just as well. If Oleg made the P51 all that is was in RL, the luftweenie howls would be UNbearable. They scream and oleg "fixes" the game for them.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I still wonder where you are getting your information from?

HIstory channel?

You never seem to tell us how you know all this stuff. You just 'assume'.

JtD
06-05-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

Could you specifically document that for us ?? (I ask this out of sheer interest on the subject)

Even though you just said you wouldn't like that guy, I can only point you to this article on his site atm:
MW on 150 octane (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 11:51 AM
But where does it say that nearly all P-51's were running on 150 octane fuel ? I can't find nothing on that at all... All I found was that 150 octane fuel was actually present at the front first in January 45, but how many units actually using the fuel it says nothing about.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
06-05-2006, 12:13 PM
You need to look closer:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf

It says from June 1st, 1944 150 octane was used with all planes.

Note noone in this topic ever said all Mustangs were run with that fuel, it was just said that all Mustangs used by the 8th air force were converted to 150 octane.

Also, June 1st is a bit optimistic if you ask me, but June is about correct.

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 12:28 PM
Thanks JtD http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Do you know the approximate number of P-51's operational in the Eight AF by June 44 ?

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

lrrp22
06-05-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
But where does it say that nearly all P-51's were running on 150 octane fuel ? I can't find nothing on that at all... All I found was that 150 octane fuel was actually present at the front first in January 45, but how many units actually using the fuel it says nothing about.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


The use of 150 grade fuel/72" Hg by 8th AAF fighters is no longer as debatable matter, period.


http://www.spitfireperformance.com/150grade/8thaf-techops-4april45.pdf


Spin it anyway you'd like, but the fact remains that the P-51 was as fast or faster than anything the Germans flew with a prop right up to VE-Day.

The opinion on these boards that the historical P-51 was a hapless dogfighter simply is not supported by the historical record- technical or operational. The fact that it is virtually helpless in this sim is a reflection of the fidelity of the FM, not the performance of the historical P-51.

Take another look at this oft-posted link:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

Despite what you might think of Mike Williams (I would advise you to consider the agendas of those disparaging him)- the P-51's actual test record describes a far different fighter than the one modeled in Pacific Fighters.



.

lrrp22
06-05-2006, 12:38 PM
double post.

luftluuver
06-05-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
But where does it say that nearly all P-51's were running on 150 octane fuel ? I can't find nothing on that at all... All I found was that 150 octane fuel was actually present at the front first in January 45, but how many units actually using the fuel it says nothing about.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif What happened to the 114,919,000 Impgal produced from Feb 44 to Mar 45?

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 01:01 PM
I sense a good amount of bias from you lrrp22, and I don't care debating with you if thats the case!

JtD seems quite unbiased, and therefore I'll continue this debate with him if he's willing.

All I'm interested in is the truth, something in which bias has no place!

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
What happened to the 114,919,000 Impgal produced from Feb 44 to Mar 45?

I was talking about fuel actually 'present' at the front, not when it was produced.

Anyway there's always the possibility that I've missed something, but then luckily I've got people like you to point it out then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

lrrp22
06-05-2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
I sense a good amount of bias from you lrrp22, and I don't care debating with you if thats the case!

JtD seems quite unbiased, and therefore I'll continue this debate with him if he's willing.

All I'm interested in is the truth, something in which bias has no place!

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Don't debate me Bellator, debate the historical record. It simply doesn't support your assertions with regards to the D-9 and K-4 versus the P-51. If you are in fact interested in the 'truth', then you are going to have to reassess some of your claims.

.

StellarRat
06-05-2006, 01:18 PM
After reading the missive I decided to try the 51 for a full day on Warcouds. I normally fly only the P-47 so I decided to try using the same tactics I would use with that plane.

Flying strict B and Z tactics and maintaining altitude of 3500 to 6000 meters and high speed I was able to do well in the 51 NA. I flew it the same as the P-47. Typically, I lost only in the following circumstances:

Too low and slow
Multiple opponents
Surprised from behind

With a wingman we were moping up.

I did manage to get a bunch of "TARGET DESTROYED" messages after the enemy landed and I sent a couple of 109's down with burning engines. 190's seem nearly impossible to bring down from the the rear with the normal TOT that you get online. However, if you get lucky and hit them when they stalled or before they stall often they will go into a fatal spin. Also, I believe I lost quite a few kills due to other people finishing off planes I shot at high alt and refused to follow down to the deck.
Admittedly, I was never able to get more than about 1/2 second burst on anyone.


Only two complaints:

I was never able to get enough time on target to immediately shoot anyone down.

And, in general the view is good, but you really can't check your blind spot easily. No rear view mirror and no way to move head up or to the side to see directly behind you. The only way is to jink all the time to check your six.

One other thing I have to mention, I got to listen to a certain pilot b____ and moan for hours on comms about how his plane wasn't modeled right because it stalled and how he couldn't shoot anything down because the .50s "were worthless". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Apparently, he didn't even think the P-38 had sufficient firepower! I found this a bit funny because I was shooting planes down with the same equipment and wasn't stalling. I told him to close to less than 200m before firing...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Anyone who gets in a T and B with an US plane other than a P-40 or Hellcat is a fool.

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Don't debate me Bellator, debate the historical record. It simply doesn't support your assertions with regards to the D-9 and K-4 versus the P-51.

Untrue lrrp22, and would you care to point out those assertions you claim I've made ?


Originally posted by lrrp22:
If you are in fact interested in the 'truth', then you are going to have to reassess some of your claims.


Not at all lrrp22, I actually see nothing indicating the P-51 was anything other than relatively fast and good in the dive, other than that it shined nowhere really.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
06-05-2006, 01:29 PM
Do you know the approximate number of P-51's operational in the Eight AF by June 44 ?


No I don't. Guess it was about half the FG of the 8th AF, but no clue what numbers that makes.

luftluuver
06-05-2006, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
What happened to the 114,919,000 Impgal produced from Feb 44 to Mar 45?

I was talking about fuel actually 'present' at the front, not when it was produced.

Anyway there's always the possibility that I've missed something, but then luckily I've got people like you to point it out then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did the Allies have a fuel delivery problem like the Germans?

Why produce that much avgas if it was only to sit around in storage tanks?

The front for the 8th AF was East Anglia, England and it was GB that produced the 150 fuel.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/8th_AF_Operational_Strength.jpg

JtD
06-05-2006, 01:37 PM
Thanks for that chart, much apprechiated. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
06-05-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Don't debate me Bellator, debate the historical record. It simply doesn't support your assertions with regards to the D-9 and K-4 versus the P-51.

Untrue lrrp22, and would you care to point out those assertions you claim I've made ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one, perhaps?



If by contemporary opponents you mean fighter-bombers and ground attack planes, then yeah, but against "fighters", no.

The P-51 was infact slower than most Axis "fighters", and just slightly faster than their fighter-bombers. But with a 10 to 1 numerical advantage that didn't matter squat!


A patently absurd claim. Even at the minimum 67" Hg the P-51 was as fast or faster than the D-9/K-4 at most altitudes.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
If you are in fact interested in the 'truth', then you are going to have to reassess some of your claims.


Not at all lrrp22, I actually see nothing indicating the P-51 was anything other than relatively fast and good in the dive, other than that it shined nowhere really.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not at all suprised that you see things that way. However, the USAAF, RAF and even Luftwaffe saw things quite differently. Then again, I could just as easily say that the K-4 "was relatively fast and good in sustained climb, other than that it shined nowhere really".

Frankly, I think your "measly liar" comment speaks volumes about your approach to this subject.

.

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 01:50 PM
Luftluuver;

Well the fuel would have to be stored if testing was still going on regarding the reliability of the Merlin running on 150 octane fuel. (Sounds like they had some serious spark plug problems)

But like JtD pointed out, it seems like 150 octane WAS cleared for the entire Eitgh AF by sometime in June.

And thanks for the chart btw Luftluuver http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

luftluuver
06-05-2006, 02:07 PM
Before June 44 only 2,394,843 Imp gal had been produced. That gives 112,524,160Impgal from June 44 onwards.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/fuelgallonsconsumed.jpg

The reliability problem was when at cruise speeds. Increasing the engine revs cleared the plugs.

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Don't debate me Bellator, debate the historical record. It simply doesn't support your assertions with regards to the D-9 and K-4 versus the P-51.

Untrue lrrp22, and would you care to point out those assertions you claim I've made ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one, perhaps?



If by contemporary opponents you mean fighter-bombers and ground attack planes, then yeah, but against "fighters", no.

The P-51 was infact slower than most Axis "fighters", and just slightly faster than their fighter-bombers. But with a 10 to 1 numerical advantage that didn't matter squat!


A patently absurd claim. Even at the minimum 67" Hg the P-51 was as fast or faster than the D-9/K-4 at most altitudes.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
If you are in fact interested in the 'truth', then you are going to have to reassess some of your claims.


Not at all lrrp22, I actually see nothing indicating the P-51 was anything other than relatively fast and good in the dive, other than that it shined nowhere really.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not at all suprised that you see things that way. However, the USAAF, RAF and even Luftwaffe saw things quite differently. Then again, I could just as easily say that the K-4 "was relatively fast and good in sustained climb, other than that it shined nowhere really".

Frankly, I think your "measly liar" comment speaks volumes about your approach to this subject.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're a rather uncomfortable person I must say lrrp22, not a happy camper at all. - But then again, when you're biased towards something and someone talks down about your something, you quickly get defensively offensive like that.

And about the P-51D being faster than the Dora-9 and K-4 at most alt's at 67" Hg, nah, you're gonna have to prove that.

And about that second last comment of yours, well does a 10 to 1 advantage in numbers tell you anything ?

Oh and about Mike Williams, just take a look at his 109 charts and compare them to the real thing - speaks volumes about him as a person.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Before June 44 only 2,394,843 Imp gal had been produced. That gives 112,524,160Impgal from June 44 onwards.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/fuelgallonsconsumed.jpg

The reliability problem was when at cruise speeds. Increasing the engine revs cleared the plugs.

Is that a chart for 150 octane gasoline ? Or is it just included somewhere in that figure ?

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

luftluuver
06-05-2006, 02:28 PM
It says gasoline, ie. 130 + 150.

In June 44 some <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">7,605,500</span>Impgal of 150 was produced. American fighters used 17,288,000USgalof fuel (130+150). (1 Impgal = 1.2 USgal, I will let you do the math) P-38s(???) and P-47s(264) were using 130 fuel, so how much was left for the 387 P-51s and ??? Spitfires on 25lb?

correction in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">yellow</span> Used 317,300bbls instead of 217300bbls.

lrrp22
06-05-2006, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

You're a rather uncomfortable person I must say lrrp22, not a happy camper at all. - But then again, when you're biased towards something and someone talks down about your something, you quickly get defensively offensive like that.

And about the P-51D being faster than the Dora-9 and K-4 at most alt's at 67" Hg, nah, you're gonna have to prove that.

And about that second last comment of yours, well does a 10 to 1 advantage in numbers tell you anything ?

Oh and about Mike Williams, just take a look at his 109 charts and compare them to the real thing - speaks volumes about him as a person.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Uncomfortable? Nope, just tired of seeing unsupported and biased opinions such as yours presented as historical fact. Do yourself a favor- read the test reports. They are readily available at the provided links.

Now, since you seem to be uncomfortable with the 109/190 tests posted at spitfireperformance.com, why don't you post the correct test results here for us all to see?

As for the 10:1 advantage, it may have been true in a general sense in the last months of the war but it is hardly representative of the P-51's overrall combat service. Far from it. Doesn't matter anyway- numerical superiority in no way negates performance capabililties.


BTW, all the 100/150 grade consumption data you are looking for is available at the links provided. You would be well served to spend some time perusing the data there.

VW-IceFire
06-05-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by mortoma1958:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I know most are skeptical but the P-51 is WAAY better in 4.05 than 4.04. In 4.05 I can fight in it effectively again...it was combat ineffective in 4.04 for me. Uhhhhhhhhh...but wait a minute....There were no FM changes from 4.04 to 4.05!!!!!! None at all, zero, zilch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure there weren't....

I don't believe it because first hand evidence tells me otherwise. As I am switching between 4.04 and 4.05 on a regular basis I can tell you that when I forget that I've switched to 4.04 and mistakenly take up a P-51 it flies like garbage....but do the same in 4.05 and its way different.

I have no other supporting evidence but I KNOW that its different. Probably had to do with altering some of the FM to accomodate the Pe-2's low drag wing design.

Xiolablu3
06-05-2006, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bellator_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Don't debate me Bellator, debate the historical record. It simply doesn't support your assertions with regards to the D-9 and K-4 versus the P-51.

Untrue lrrp22, and would you care to point out those assertions you claim I've made ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one, perhaps?



If by contemporary opponents you mean fighter-bombers and ground attack planes, then yeah, but against "fighters", no.

The P-51 was infact slower than most Axis "fighters", and just slightly faster than their fighter-bombers. But with a 10 to 1 numerical advantage that didn't matter squat!


A patently absurd claim. Even at the minimum 67" Hg the P-51 was as fast or faster than the D-9/K-4 at most altitudes.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
If you are in fact interested in the 'truth', then you are going to have to reassess some of your claims.


Not at all lrrp22, I actually see nothing indicating the P-51 was anything other than relatively fast and good in the dive, other than that it shined nowhere really.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not at all suprised that you see things that way. However, the USAAF, RAF and even Luftwaffe saw things quite differently. Then again, I could just as easily say that the K-4 "was relatively fast and good in sustained climb, other than that it shined nowhere really".

Frankly, I think your "measly liar" comment speaks volumes about your approach to this subject.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're a rather uncomfortable person I must say lrrp22, not a happy camper at all. - But then again, when you're biased towards something and someone talks down about your something, you quickly get defensively offensive like that.

And about the P-51D being faster than the Dora-9 and K-4 at most alt's at 67" Hg, nah, you're gonna have to prove that.

And about that second last comment of yours, well does a 10 to 1 advantage in numbers tell you anything ?

Oh and about Mike Williams, just take a look at his 109 charts and compare them to the real thing - speaks volumes about him as a person.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you show us the 'real' 109 charts please? You're gonna have to prove that.

I think this is Kurfurst in disguise.

Blutarski2004
06-05-2006, 04:21 PM
Hold on folks ... Here's Bobby Bellator, just up from AAA, stepping up to the plate to pinch-hit for Issy Kurfurst, who was not able to make this road trip .....

Lrrp delivers the pitch ... right down the pipe.

Bellator takes a big swing .....

It's a dribbler back to the mound. Lrrp fields it cleanly and flips to Luftluvver at first base for the out.

Side retired.

Brain32
06-05-2006, 05:21 PM
Mike Wiliams huh? Do you wan't to know why some of us are not too fond of his data? At first I came to his site to search some data about Tempest and it was fine(great actually), I was also interested in Spits, and it was fine, but then I started to look at various comparisions and charts that included German planes. Now on his site, there is the worst data I ever saw anwhere on the Internet and in my private books collection, as if it was handpicked. So basically you have a site where one guy presents the worst data for one side and the best data for other. I still like his site(bookmarked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and I am not denying it usefullness(far from it) but I take what I see there with a huge grain of salt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
06-05-2006, 05:43 PM
Mike Williams is a good guy who has helped me in some of my Fw190 projects. You might disagree with some of comparisons but, I don't see the need to insult him (not talking to you Brain but, to Bellator). He has a great site for Spitfire info. Look for your own LW data and make your own comparisons.

luftluuver
06-05-2006, 06:25 PM
Sure you are not mistaking Mike for Kurfurst, Brain? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bellator_1
06-05-2006, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Mike Williams is a good guy who has helped me in some of my Fw190 projects. You might disagree with some of comparisons but, I don't see the need to insult him (not talking to you Brain but, to Bellator). He has a great site for Spitfire info. Look for your own LW data and make your own comparisons.

Oh no insults intended, its just what I've heard about the guy, and the data seems to depict what I've heard is true.

Just for example take his Spit vs 109 comparisons, I mean they're ridiculous! And its not that I think the Spit data is wrong, just that he(Mike W) tries his hardest to make the German plane look as bad as possible - I can't take such recklessness with history! Manipulating numbers to make one seem better than the other, and all just because you 'like' one of them better... Argh! such weak soul!

And all one has to do to uncover the facts which he has tried to camouflage on his site, is to read about German planes and see the real doc's. - So whats the reason he even cares ? I don't get it, why not just post what is REALLY written on the German docs ? why attempt to disguise it ?

Take his claims about the 109 G-1 for example, according to him the Germans had it climbing at 3650ft/min, but in reality what is written is 4133ft/min. - quite the difference! And don't even get me started on the G-2/10/14 and K-4.

I have no problem what so ever about him uncovering doc's about allied planes flying at high boosts, cause thats just how it was! But why suddenly leave the truth behind when talking about German aircraft ???

Anyway in the end all I'm trying to say is - I don't care wich country had the best fighters, just don't make stuff up !

And finally just so we are clear, my favorite ship is the Spit xiv, and so far with the doc's at hand it seems it was one of the very best - however I am not so ignorant as to believe that it was invincible, and that no axis fighter could match it! The D-9 and Ta-152 were both clearly a match for the Spit xiv, but overall I just like the Spit better.

- Remember there wouldn't be a hero if there wasn't a tough villain as-well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

luftluuver
06-05-2006, 09:19 PM
So MTT data is not good enough for you, Bellator, for that is the info source used for the G-1 climb rate?

mortoma1958
06-05-2006, 10:08 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 mortoma1958:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I know most are skeptical but the P-51 is WAAY better in 4.05 than 4.04. In 4.05 I can fight in it effectively again...it was combat ineffective in 4.04 for me. Uhhhhhhhhh...but wait a minute....There were no FM changes from 4.04 to 4.05!!!!!! None at all, zero, zilch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure there weren't....

I don't believe it because first hand evidence tells me otherwise. As I am switching between 4.04 and 4.05 on a regular basis I can tell you that when I forget that I've switched to 4.04 and mistakenly take up a P-51 it flies like garbage....but do the same in 4.05 and its way different.

I have no other supporting evidence but I KNOW that its different. Probably had to do with altering some of the FM to accomodate the Pe-2's low drag wing design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not impossible or even implausible, but I don't experience the same thing. That kind of difference would affect a lot of the planeset I'd think. I didn't notice any differences in any other planes. And I fly
dozens of campaigns in dozens of aircraft. When I switched I noticed nothing save for the ability to fly the PE-2. I continued on with about 10 offline campaigns in a wide variation of planes.

But I will try to dupilcate your experience with the Pony. I don't believe it, but it's intriquing and makes me curious.

WWMaxGunz
06-06-2006, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
The only reason the P-51 enjoyed succes in real life was because of its superior range and the fact that it out-numbered its enemy's 10 to 1.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Counted by sorties it was more like 20+ to 1. If you imagine that all the planes were with
all the other planes all the time, both sides right there together then 20:1. Which is just
a bit... simple?

Example of LW picks place of attack:
Bomber stream is many miles long. Fighters are spread out in finger 4's roving along the
stream. There may be and has been as few as 4 51's to stand against 40+ LW, but then the
most of them are after the bombers with a hate on.
Find out the numbers of interceptors they'd attack with, I think that the lesson of Mallory
and the effectiveness of the Big Wing were not lost on the LW. With luck the USAAF might
have 12 fighters close to where the stream got hit.
It's a classic tactic of picking the place and attacking in overwhelming concentration.

USAAF did likewise with the Collateral Damage attacks on the way back from escorting.
How many scramble to defend AF missions should be in a good LW campaign? There you get
odds not good for LW.

Allied pilots, how many flew and never saw an an enemy plane? A lot! They still covered
their missions. So counting planes or sorties does not say the odds of the FIGHT.

WWMaxGunz
06-06-2006, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Before June 44 only 2,394,843 Imp gal had been produced. That gives 112,524,160Impgal from June 44 onwards.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/fuelgallonsconsumed.jpg



I dunno if you're reading that chart right. The units are 1000's of gallons. Total Production
there is 1,155,412 thousand gallons -used-, that's over a billion with 44-45 as by far the most.

Find out how many tons, there was 1,000's recorded in England.
Pilots fuel by weight not volume. They want to know how it will do with the plane flying.

Bellator_1
06-06-2006, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
So MTT data is not good enough for you, Bellator, for that is the info source used for the G-1 climb rate?

I know what the source is, its shown quite clearly, however the problem with Mike's presentation is - that's not what the source really says.

Unless Mike ofcourse REALLY mean't 1.15ata, and not 1.3ata http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Allied pilots, how many flew and never saw an an enemy plane? A lot! They still covered
their missions. So counting planes or sorties does not say the odds of the FIGHT.

Ask LW pilots how the odds looked like from the skie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Most of them will tell you they were swarmed by Allied fighters diving in on them from above during the climb to intercept the bombers - The allies can thank god they never had to deploy the P-51 in the same manner and under the same conditions as the LW did with its 109's and 190's, cause that would've resulted in a sheer disaster for the USAAF!

- But had the allied AF been forced to fight on the LW's terms(Somehting that would never happen from 44 and onwards), it would still however have fighters capable in such a situation. (The Corsair and Spitfire for example)

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

luftluuver
06-06-2006, 05:15 AM
So post certified MTT tests for the 109, Bellator.


Max, you made me look at my math. Will redo and edit. It was a long hard day.

But 17,288,<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">000</span> USgal for June 1944 for fighters

geetarman
06-06-2006, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
But where does it say that nearly all P-51's were running on 150 octane fuel ? I can't find nothing on that at all... All I found was that 150 octane fuel was actually present at the front first in January 45, but how many units actually using the fuel it says nothing about.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Well try harder to find it. It's there and a known fact. Talk about biased.

geetarman
06-06-2006, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
I sense a good amount of bias from you lrrp22, and I don't care debating with you if thats the case!

JtD seems quite unbiased, and therefore I'll continue this debate with him if he's willing.

All I'm interested in is the truth, something in which bias has no place!

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif good one!

luftluuver
06-06-2006, 09:36 AM
Break time.

Thought I would see some 109 graphs from Bellator by now.

Xiolablu3
06-06-2006, 09:53 AM
I want to see your 109 data too Bellator pls.

Bellator_1
06-06-2006, 12:22 PM
Hey sorry for the delay guys, I tried to get in ealier today but the forum was undergoing maintenance - I also tried 15 min ago, and it was so slow I had to give up, it kept saying I was logged in, but wouldn't redirect me.. (Too many people trying to log-in at once maybe ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif)

About the 109 data, is it ok if I send it to you in a private message ? I don't wanna violate any copyright laws or anything...

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

Geetarman,

I think you're the one being abit biased about which comments of mine you want to quote, cause had you actually followed this debate abit more closely you would've noticed that JtD was kind enough to link me directly to an original document confirming 150 octane fuel was used. (And I thanked him for it as-well)

So that comment of yours was completely uncalled for!

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

luftluuver
06-06-2006, 03:01 PM
Since posting is 'educational' it is not volating copyright. Just note/credit the source.

lrrp22
06-06-2006, 03:05 PM
FYI...Mike Williams has just updated the Mustang test page at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html.

Lots of new good stuff. For instance, it appears that 8th AAF ran its Mustangs at up to 75" Hg on 150 grade as oppossed to the 72" cited in VIII Fighter Command documents.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...-hinchey-14nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...57-yeager-6nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-yeager-6nov44.jpg)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...9-riddle-24dec44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/479-riddle-24dec44.jpg)

Not too suprising in light of the fact that the USAAF Engineering Division at Wright Field cleared the V-1650-7 for 75" and the RAF for 81" Hg.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang3-clearance-25lbs.jpg

.

HayateAce
06-06-2006, 03:16 PM
.....and still no charts.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BfHeFwMe
06-06-2006, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:

Ask LW pilots how the odds looked like from the skie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Most of them will tell you they were swarmed by Allied fighters diving in on them from above during the climb to intercept the bombers - The allies can thank god they never had to deploy the P-51 in the same manner and under the same conditions as the LW did with its 109's and 190's, cause that would've resulted in a sheer disaster for the USAAF!

- But had the allied AF been forced to fight on the LW's terms(Somehting that would never happen from 44 and onwards), it would still however have fighters capable in such a situation. (The Corsair and Spitfire for example)

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

It's a disadvantage operating over your home turf? Radar, your own bases under you, and the heaviest concentrations of AAA known to man must have really hurt. Not to mention the ability to fight 5 to 1 sortie rates.

Guess your admitting they arrived at those 10 to 1 numbers via allied early c.r.a.p planes totally routing and chewing up the might of the Luftwaffe. Got news for you, the Luftwaffe never dictated the airwar, no air force ever has or can without some sort of stratigic air arm, something they never possesed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

lrrp22
06-06-2006, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Hold on folks ... Here's Bobby Bellator, just up from AAA, stepping up to the plate to pinch-hit for Issy Kurfurst, who was not able to make this road trip .....

Lrrp delivers the pitch ... right down the pipe.

Bellator takes a big swing .....

It's a dribbler back to the mound. Lrrp fields it cleanly and flips to Luftluvver at first base for the out.

Side retired.

Just another routine 1-3 put-out... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

.

Xiolablu3
06-06-2006, 11:32 PM
JUst post the data in this thread, massive amounts of stuff gets posted in here out of magazines and all sorts.

There will be no problem.

WOLFMondo
06-07-2006, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
FYI...Mike Williams has just updated the Mustang test page at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html.

Lots of new good stuff. For instance, it appears that 8th AAF ran its Mustangs at up to 75" Hg on 150 grade as oppossed to the 72" cited in VIII Fighter Command documents.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...-hinchey-14nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...57-yeager-6nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/357-yeager-6nov44.jpg)
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...9-riddle-24dec44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/479-riddle-24dec44.jpg)

Not too suprising in light of the fact that the USAAF Engineering Division at Wright Field cleared the V-1650-7 for 75" and the RAF for 81" Hg.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang3-clearance-25lbs.jpg

.

Did you mail this to Oleg?

Ratsack
06-07-2006, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Got news for you, the Luftwaffe never dictated the airwar, no air force ever has or can without some sort of stratigic air arm, something they never possesed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Got news for yew tew: they did.

Does 1939 ring a bell? What about 1940? 1941 then? No?

What about the USAF in Afghanistan a couple of years ago? They used some formerly-strategic platforms like the B-52 for tactical purposes, but there was no 'strategic' campaign there, because there were no so-called 'strategic' targets. Did the US somehow not dictate the terms of that air war?

Going back to WWII, the argument that the Luftwaffe lost because they didn't have a USAAF / RAF style strategic air force is just one of those myths of military aviation. There are plenty of reasons the Luftwaffe lost, and most of them lie back in 1940. The squandering of resources on a wasteful campaign of 'strategic' bombing is not among them.

And now, back to your usual program...

...I'd like to see those charts, too, Bellator. I've recently seen some Rechlin charts for the Fw190 that show rather different figures to those normally quoted, so I'd be interested to see what you've got.


cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 02:58 AM
Just a question about those USAAF kill reports. Did the USAAF not have to confirm their kills?

Chuck Yeager claims a ME262 destroyed when he was alone, over an enemy airbase, with noone to confrim it.

There will be a gun cam with hits, but he said that the plane crashed afterwards, so that would not be on his guncam.

Were USAAF claims less strict than British or German claims?

Ratsack
06-07-2006, 03:26 AM
Run!

Ratsack

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 03:48 AM
Bellator, were just pumping hot air about those graphs? It has been over 15hrs since your last post and UBI has been operating OK.

X,

110389 - Lt. Spangenburg was attacked by both Captain Chuck Yeager in a 357 FG P-51, and his own flak while attempting to land at Achmer. The aircraft was damaged 50% after hitting a shed at Lahnwerder (Lamwerder?) (Yeager lost it in the haze)

110402 - Damaged by fighters near Ahlhorn, and force landed due to fuel shortage, 30% damage

Both on Nov 6 1944.

carguy_
06-07-2006, 04:25 AM
Hmmm lemme see what do we have here?

A usual squad of red Pony fanbois venting with charts that are no use as long as Oleg does not see any. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hayatace demanding charts even though he NEVER posted any. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

And ofcourse the typical"Yankee pilots were aces outnumbered fighting a very hard airwar over a hostile territory" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif


Why don`t you just face it and learn flying something else than a Spitfire,maybe you can learn a thing or two.By definition of pingu himself the P51 is in five top fighters in this game so it does not need any fixes.

Fact is that Lufwaffe lost the war in 1943 when the last big units were transfered to eastern front and got destroyed.Everything after `43 were just meaningless,hopeless moves that resemble a drunkard trying to get up.

danjama
06-07-2006, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just a question about those USAAF kill reports. Did the USAAF not have to confirm their kills?

Chuck Yeager claims a ME262 destroyed when he was alone, over an enemy airbase, with noone to confrim it.

There will be a gun cam with hits, but he said that the plane crashed afterwards, so that would not be on his guncam.

Were USAAF claims less strict than British or German claims?

I think that it was alot harder for Germans to claim their kills. But then again, even the allies needed a certain amount of proof. I recently read about some kills being made and the entire guncam clip being completely overexposed, meaning no evidence. Those kills were denied to the pilots, however, the records were checked out after the war with Luftwaffe loss records, and if possible, confirmed kills would be varified and added to the pilots totals.

BrewsterPilot
06-07-2006, 04:45 AM
Hey Dan, greetings from LA7_X32Wright!

http://brewsterpilot.googlepages.com/Untitled-1copy.jpg

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:

110389 - Lt. Spangenburg was attacked by both Captain Chuck Yeager in a 357 FG P-51, and his own flak while attempting to land at Achmer. The aircraft was damaged 50% after hitting a shed at Lahnwerder (Lamwerder?) (Yeager lost it in the haze)

110402 - Damaged by fighters near Ahlhorn, and force landed due to fuel shortage, 30% damage

Both on Nov 6 1944.

I dont say that Yaeger was lying LL, just that RAF and LW pilots had to have confirmation from their own side before they could claim a kill.

Many kills will not be counted for RAF and LW because there was noone to confirm them.

I am assuming those records you have come from LW reports after the war?

Blutarski2004
06-07-2006, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Fact is that Lufwaffe lost the war in 1943 when the last big units were transfered to eastern front and got destroyed.Everything after `43 were just meaningless,hopeless moves that resemble a drunkard trying to get up.


..... Not true! Get a copy of "STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945" by Williamson Murray. Go to pages 148-149. Whether you want to evaluate the figures based upon fighters alone or all a/c types, the LW suffered far more losses on the Western and Mediterranean Fronts than on the Eastern front.

LW losses / all types Jan-Nov 1943:

1943----West--East

Jan-----458---482
Feb-----368---318
Mar-----564---314
Apr-----827---238
May-----664---331
Jun-----548---249
Jul----1237---558
Aug-----946---472
Sep----1025---338
Oct-----815---279
Nov-----709---194

Totals-8161--3773

Over twice as many losses were suffered by the LW in the West as in the East in 1943.

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 05:19 AM
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 carguy_:
Fact is that Lufwaffe lost the war in 1943 when the last big units were transfered to eastern front and got destroyed.Everything after `43 were just meaningless,hopeless moves that resemble a drunkard trying to get up.


..... Not true! Get a copy of "STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945" by Williamson Murray. Go to pages 148-149. Whether you want to evaluate the figures based upon fighters alone or all a/c types, the LW suffered far more losses on the Western and Mediterranean Fronts than on the Eastern front.

LW losses / all types Jan-Nov 1943:

1943----West--East

Jan-----458---482
Feb-----368---318
Mar-----564---314
Apr-----827---238
May-----664---331
Jun-----548---249
Jul----1237---558
Aug-----946---472
Sep----1025---338
Oct-----815---279
Nov-----709---194

Totals-8161--3773

Over twice as many losses were suffered by the LW in the West as in the East in 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, is this based on LuftWaffe losses or Allied claims please?

Blutarski2004
06-07-2006, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 carguy_:
Fact is that Lufwaffe lost the war in 1943 when the last big units were transfered to eastern front and got destroyed.Everything after `43 were just meaningless,hopeless moves that resemble a drunkard trying to get up.


..... Not true! Get a copy of "STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945" by Williamson Murray. Go to pages 148-149. Whether you want to evaluate the figures based upon fighters alone or all a/c types, the LW suffered far more losses on the Western and Mediterranean Fronts than on the Eastern front.

LW losses / all types Jan-Nov 1943:

1943----West--East

Jan-----458---482
Feb-----368---318
Mar-----564---314
Apr-----827---238
May-----664---331
Jun-----548---249
Jul----1237---558
Aug-----946---472
Sep----1025---338
Oct-----815---279
Nov-----709---194

Totals-8161--3773

Over twice as many losses were suffered by the LW in the West as in the East in 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, is this based on LuftWaffe losses or Allied claims please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Murray provides the following source citation for the above-mentioned figures:

BA/MA, RL 2 III/1185-1195, Genst. Gen. Qu. (6.Abt), Flugzeugunfalle und Verluste bei den fliegenden Verbanden.

Kurfurst__
06-07-2006, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
IF that was true, it would apply to the F model. But not to the 1.3ata rated G-6 models that were standard LW equipment in late 43-early 44.

685 kph is what the G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 was good for after clearanace of 1.42ata, which occured in October 1943, not 1944 as you suggest. By the start of 1944 (April the first confirmed date), the standard model would run at 1.42ata, MW50 field modded ones at 1.7ata, and some with improved superchargers.

Of course in sense you are right that the mainstay model would be the G-6 at 1.42, but the same is true for the Mustang which wasn't the mainstay fighter overnight - which was the P-47D at the start of 1944.




Which German prop aircraft, apart from the K-4, would go the P-51's speed within one year after it's service introduction (means before Dec. 44)?

G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10, D-9.

The Bf 109G-1 and F-4/Z does not count with 700kph+, because they are 1942 aircraft, thus does not satisfy the within one year criteria. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
06-07-2006, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Not true!

Uuuum what is not true?

Kurfurst__
06-07-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Murray provides the following source citation for the above-mentioned figures:

BA/MA, RL 2 III/1185-1195, Genst. Gen. Qu. (6.Abt), Flugzeugunfalle und Verluste bei den fliegenden Verbanden.

From the title it seems Murray does include accidents as well, I wonder if how he defines loss - both operational, non operational, damaged, destroyed, aged, enemy/non-enemy related etc.

I find it somehow hard to believe that with so few LW aircraft on the West and so many on the East, where the airwar was on a completely different scale, losses would be that much different.

Brain32
06-07-2006, 05:38 AM
Over twice as many losses were suffered by the LW in the West as in the East in 1943.
Those vulchers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif They get bored when teams are not even so they go vulch instead eavening teams http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

whiteladder
06-07-2006, 05:39 AM
From the title it seems Murray does include accidents as well, I wonder if how he defines loss - both operational, non operational, damaged, destroyed, aged, enemy/non-enemy related etc.


I have that book as well, but I`m at work at the moment and I`m not sure what that particular statistic refers to.

Having said that if those figure are including operational/non operational accident etc you would expect that accidents would account for a higher percentage of the losses in the east as compared to the western losses, just from the conditions they were operating under.

Kurfurst__
06-07-2006, 06:00 AM
Is Murray's book worth buying btw? What does it have in it - the title sounds a bit conceptional though, which gave me concerns about wheter it's worth getting it..

Megile_
06-07-2006, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Is Murray's book worth buying btw? What does it have in it - the title sounds a bit conceptional though

What, you don't like the "Defeat" part?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

joeap
06-07-2006, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Not true!

Uuuum what is not true? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he means not true that the LW was defeated on the Eastern Front, Wehrmacht yes.

blackpulpit1970
06-07-2006, 06:28 AM
....and still no charts.

Sounds familiar huh Hayateace.

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 06:31 AM
Gr¶hler has 5133 lost in the West to 1736 lost in the East from Sept to Dec 1943. This is 74.4% West and 25.2% East.

Strengths were 3732 (West) to 2888 (East).

Blutarski2004
06-07-2006, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Is Murray's book worth buying btw? What does it have in it - the title sounds a bit conceptional though, which gave me concerns about wheter it's worth getting it..


..... STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT is an historical analysis of LW strategy, planning, and operations from its inception through 1945. As such, Murray deploys a fair amount of statistical data to illustrate what the LW was facing from year to year. However, it remains a readable book. Murray does not lose dight of the fact that he is writing history and not just performing statistical exercises.

Murray holds a PhD in history from Yale, is an ex-USAF officer, and teaches at Ohio State University. According to the introductory bio, he is considered a leading U.S. authority on the German LW.

Complete citation as follows -

STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945,
by Williamson Murray
Air Power Research Institute, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.
1983.

It might still be available through the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC 20402.


IMO, it's worth a place in my bookcase.

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 06:59 AM
This site is an interesting read, http://www.tsj.net/avstats/Introduction.html

Kurfurst__
06-07-2006, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by Megile_:

What, you don't like the "Defeat" part?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nope, it just sounds as if the whole book would be about 'how stupid the enemy was, and how they scr.ed up all and everything'.

I'd be much happier to read something that would rationally analyse the reasons for the decisions under the given circumstances instead of an armchair historian 'proving' the real decisionmakers his intellectual inferiors again and again - books like such usually just depict lack of research, but I'd be happy if that's not the case and it's a valuable source.

A good test of his credibility would be wheter he still claims the 'LW being a tactical force'. Is he?

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 07:17 AM
From 4.40 you can get it from http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574881256/203-9654319-3900737

They have 18 new and used.

Bellator_1
06-07-2006, 07:21 AM
Geeez luftluuver, give me a break ! Its not like I haven't got other things in life to do besides writing on this forum! I thought you were smart enough to realise that, but frankly you're beginning to sound like some demanding 5 year old schoolboy.

Here it is: (Don't ask me how old it is!)
http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/466/9759610me109g1climbcurve2rj.jpg

whiteladder
06-07-2006, 07:29 AM
STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945,
by Williamson Murray.

The book has a definite acedemic feel about, if you want something that is a riveting read I would look else where. Murrays approach is extremely even handed and is quite critical of the allied strategic bombing campaign( Target selection, command structure, employment).

The statistics used in the book come from a number of sources, pretty much all of them primary. Of course there will alway be disputes about this or that individual stat, but given the vaguries of collating figures in war and subsequent destruction of some of the primary source(German)it is as good a book as any. The comparisons towards the end of the book about number of hours training given to the respective air arms is very interesting.

Don`t be put off by the title, it is an unavoidable fact that the Luftwaffe were a spent force well before the end of the war. All the book does is explore the reasons for this and follows its decline.

Kurfurst__
06-07-2006, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
From 4.40 you can get it from http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574881256/203-9654319-3900737

They have 18 new and used.

Hell at this prize... plus, I found a preview and it seems loaded with stats, so I guess its just a stupid sounding title.

TriFire420
06-07-2006, 09:00 AM
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 mortoma1958:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I know most are skeptical but the P-51 is WAAY better in 4.05 than 4.04. In 4.05 I can fight in it effectively again...it was combat ineffective in 4.04 for me. Uhhhhhhhhh...but wait a minute....There were no FM changes from 4.04 to 4.05!!!!!! None at all, zero, zilch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure there weren't....

I don't believe it because first hand evidence tells me otherwise. As I am switching between 4.04 and 4.05 on a regular basis I can tell you that when I forget that I've switched to 4.04 and mistakenly take up a P-51 it flies like garbage....but do the same in 4.05 and its way different.

I have no other supporting evidence but I KNOW that its different. Probably had to do with altering some of the FM to accomodate the Pe-2's low drag wing design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

________________________________________________

IceFire, stop lying and trying to make a advertisement for 4.05, i have them both, there all the same, your gona get some serious flak if you keep saying things like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

WOLFMondo
06-07-2006, 09:11 AM
Icefire is the last guy here I'd ever accuse of lying about anything.

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Icefire is the last guy here I'd ever accuse of lying about anything.

Agreed 100%.

How do you get off making such accusations? You obviously know nothing about Icefire, so keep your mouth shut.

Noone is going to get flak here but you if you keep that up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

hop2002
06-07-2006, 11:37 AM
If you want a paper copy, less than 5 sounds like a pretty good deal.

However, Strategy for Defeat can be downloaded from http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Murray_B12.htm

for free. (and perfectly legally too, it's made available for download by the publishers)

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 12:04 PM
Knew I had seen it on the net but do you think I could find my bookmark. Thanks Hop.

Monty_Thrud
06-07-2006, 12:17 PM
Splendid, thanks... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 02:44 PM
Bellator, the board is functioning very well now, so where are these graphs you claim to have?

While reading some old old posts, there was another who said he would post docs/graphs but somehow never did. His nick here was Huckebien_FW. Are you him?

Brain32
06-07-2006, 04:54 PM
Bellator, the board is functioning very well now, so where are these graphs you claim to have?
*khm* page 8, last post *khm*

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Bellator, the board is functioning very well now, so where are these graphs you claim to have?

While reading some old old posts, there was another who said he would post docs/graphs but somehow never did. His nick here was Huckebien_FW. Are you him?

There is a dodgy looking graph at the bottom of page 8.

Sorry for being cynical, but where is it from and who wrote it? It kinda looks 'homemade', but I guess it could have been drawn quickly by some guy in the LW.

Which plane is it for again? How can you be sure that these are the 'real thing' as you say and Mike Williams charts are not?

I really want to get to the truth about this, purely becasue I want to know myself. But to do that you will have to tell us a bit more about that document, we cant even see the writing on it which tells us which plane it is for.

tigertalon
06-07-2006, 05:35 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif right click -> properties

luftluuver
06-07-2006, 05:40 PM
Sorry Bellator missed the post on pg 8. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-07-2006, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Ask LW pilots how the odds looked like from the skie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Most of them will tell you they were swarmed by Allied fighters diving in on them from above during the climb to intercept the bombers - The allies can thank god they never had to deploy the P-51 in the same manner and under the same conditions as the LW did with its 109's and 190's, cause that would've resulted in a sheer disaster for the USAAF!

- But had the allied AF been forced to fight on the LW's terms(Somehting that would never happen from 44 and onwards), it would still however have fighters capable in such a situation. (The Corsair and Spitfire for example)

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

You DO wear bent-cross blinders! Big ones!

P-51's were many-many times outnumbered by LW intercepting bombers and attacking escorts as
well. It matters not how many times Allied swarmed LW as to the fact of LW swarming Allieds,
both happened often. P-51's heavily outnumbered and still made score and came home, not
something you do with heavy damage from a long way, no way to glide or parachute home.

Of course when it was RAF being forced to face LW there is a different reason why LW losses
were so high, I am sure.

Bud Anderson has a chapter of his bio on the web and you can see what happened when his 4
P-51's were jumped from above and greater speed by 4 109's with one a very good pilot.
Hmmm, 3 109's downed for no P-51's downed. P-51 being such a mediocre fighter, those
USAAF pilots must have been extremely better to out-turn, catch and kill, and in the last
outmaneuver and kill the 109 leader. Certainly if the planes were so-so then the pilots
must have been all over superior. Oh yes, that's right, all LW pilots in late war were
barely trained kids. Yes, that's it.
And they always faced 10:1 or worse. Repeat until "true".

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif right click -> properties

I know you can do this but I want to see it written on the chart really, not in the name of the file.

I know some people on this forum wouldnt think twice about making up stuff and posting it. ALso those who would believe anything which 'looked' the part, with no evidence that its real or not. Not saying Bellator is doing that but I just want to be sure.

Isnt there something different about some Finnish 109G1s which were faster than the originals??

From that document as we see it we cant see what its for. It could be estimated values, it could be with a experimental MW50 attached, how do we know? Mike Williams gives all the info about his docs for the reader to see. (Gunpods,WEP,NO emergency power used,UNarmed Prototype etc) I just want to see the details about this graph before I believe it.

All I can see here, so far, is a graph for a 1.3 ATA Airplane. Forgive mre if I still believe Mike Williams detailed analysis with all the planes information and data rather than some random graph with no information.

VW-IceFire
06-07-2006, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by TriFire420:
<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 mortoma1958:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I know most are skeptical but the P-51 is WAAY better in 4.05 than 4.04. In 4.05 I can fight in it effectively again...it was combat ineffective in 4.04 for me. Uhhhhhhhhh...but wait a minute....There were no FM changes from 4.04 to 4.05!!!!!! None at all, zero, zilch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure there weren't....

I don't believe it because first hand evidence tells me otherwise. As I am switching between 4.04 and 4.05 on a regular basis I can tell you that when I forget that I've switched to 4.04 and mistakenly take up a P-51 it flies like garbage....but do the same in 4.05 and its way different.

I have no other supporting evidence but I KNOW that its different. Probably had to do with altering some of the FM to accomodate the Pe-2's low drag wing design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

________________________________________________

IceFire, stop lying and trying to make a advertisement for 4.05, i have them both, there all the same, your gona get some serious flak if you keep saying things like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Certainly not lying about anything here. I like it more in 4.05 than when I'm flying 4.04...seeing as I fly both regularly I feel that the normal placebo effect is not presently taking hold (I usually forget which version I'm in most of the time) so I feel there is a difference. It actually doesn't matter what the rest of you think...I think its better in 4.05 and if I'm having more fun with 4.05 than with 4.04 in regards to this plane than all the power to me. Right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What may be true is that input settings have once again been modified, even when the flight model may not have specifically changed, for whatever reason and depending on your settings you may feel it more or less. Pure conjecture of course...but its different for me.

Ratsack
06-08-2006, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif right click -> properties

I know you can do this but I want to see it written on the chart really, not in the name of the file.

I know some people on this forum wouldnt think twice about making up stuff and posting it. ALso those who would believe anything which 'looked' the part, with no evidence that its real or not. Not saying Bellator is doing that but I just want to be sure.

Isnt there something different about some Finnish 109G1s which were faster than the originals??

From that document as we see it we cant see what its for. It could be estimated values, it could be with a experimental MW50 attached, how do we know? Mike Williams gives all the info about his docs for the reader to see. (Gunpods,WEP,NO emergency power used,UNarmed Prototype etc) I just want to see the details about this graph before I believe it.

All I can see here, so far, is a graph for a 1.3 ATA Airplane. Forgive mre if I still believe Mike Williams detailed analysis with all the planes information and data rather than some random graph with no information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It€s a normal chart, and it€s not €˜dodgy€. In fact, it looks a lot like the hand-drawn Allied charts of the same type. Strange to say, that€s a feature of charts before the days of desktop computers: they€re hand-drawn!

[puts on voice of old fogey] €˜I remember when I was a lad, they used to teach us to draw graphs like this at school€¦€

Sarcasm aside (sorry, it€s been one of those days), the chart is the same as the allied ones and it looks genuine. The layout is the same, too. In the right €"hand margin you can just barely, nearly make out the name of the 109G-1.

In the main part it gives the time-to-climb-to-altitude and speed-at-altitude curves (left and right curves respectively). The title says the data are taken at Steig und Kampfleistung, which is climb and war power. It further specifies climb and war power as 1.3 ATA. You can read the data for yourself.

The three small graphs at the bottom are, from left to right, the take off run at 1.3 ATA, the same with a 250 kg bomb, and the landing run.

What we don€t know about this graph is where it came from. It may be from Messerschmitt, or it may be from the RLM. I don€t know what manufacturing tolerances Messerschmitt AG used, but according to Crump, Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau used a tolerance of plus or minus 3%. This means that when FW documents give a performance figure, it is an average and you could expect any particular example to perform within 3% of that figure.

In contrast, Rechlin charts give the performance of a particular plane. For example, there is a Rechlin chart showing a standard, four-cannon Focke-Wulf Fw190A-3 with a top speed of 680 km/h at 6,700 m, running C3 fuel in a BMW 801D-2 motor at 1.42 ATA, dated November 1942. This was obviously a fast example and probably not typical, but it€s well within FW€s 3% margin, though.

With that in mind, I€d like to know where this chart came from, and if it€s a Messerschmitt AG document, I€d like to know what their performance tolerances were.

Thanks for posting it, Bellator.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
06-08-2006, 01:32 AM
The chart is the curve part of a Rechlin tests (on the table one can make out the Erprobungsnummer). Rechlin E'Stelle Erprobungsnr. 1586, G.Kdos. of Flugzeugmuster Bf 109 G-1 mit Motor DB 605A, Early 1943. Show the results of flight tests of a G-1 in the Rechlin test centre. The results are corrected for CINA standards, and are given in both table and grahpical form.

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5288901

The results were taken appearantly as the official, as they were repeated exactly in the 8 March 1943 issued G-1 Kennblatt, which points to the plane having the late non-retractable tailwheel, so it's some 12-16 kph slower than the previous versions of G-1/G-2.

Moreover Mtt reports from June 1943 refer to this report, and note the good agreement between the Rechlin measurements and that of 13 testflight done at the Regensburg and WNF factories, which gave higher rated alt vs. the Rechlin figures; the good agreement between these led the guys at Mtt to conclude one of their earlier tests on WNr 14 026 was an underperforming example.

Da nach Rechliner Messungen die bei Mtt.AG. vermessene 109 als zu langsam ist, wurde auch diese hinzugefügt. Ergebnisse aus Regensburg under Wiener-Neustadt (ca. 13 Messungen) erh¤rten die Rechliner Werte, sodaß diese als maßgebend anzusehen sind. Lediglich weicht die VDH (Mittelwert 6700m) der 13 Messungen von dem Rechliner Wert ab.

Sidenote on Mike Williams credibilty... if you read his 109G 'article', you will notice he actually qoutes the above Rechlin tests about the standing limitations of 1.3ata - somehow missing the performance figures given in the same doc, but curiously, he does not miss to present the results of the abovementioned WNr 14 026, which was considered too slow (' bei Mtt.AG. vermessene 109 als zu langsam ist'). Another sidenote, the results of the Rechlin climb measurements agree awfully well with those measured by the Finns and the Soviets - which results he 'dismisses as abberant'. The only examples of 109s you'd find there is the most badly performing ones.

The K-4 speed figures are actually for the K-6 heavy fighter, not the K4. The G-14 figures are with gunpods. The funniest is the 109E figures, he qouetes the Kennblatt which is for the 30-min rating only, and what really shows his lack of moral reservations is a test about the 109E prototype. He claims the plane was running 'above the actual limits a 1.33ata' - when the report itself actually notes the opposite, the engine was bench tested and was found somewhat developing somewhat under the guaranteed specs, so there was a graph attached which showed the results corrected for the guaranteed engine output. Little surprise, those latter graphs are not qouted. Generally speaking, just about everything he claims about LW engine ratings is pure BS and aims to that he'd never have to show an 'enemy' plane on it's full power - or in clean condition.


Mike Williams gives all the info about his docs for the reader to see.

Uhum, like about the 'Spitfire in .89Mach dive' (put next to after listing half a dozen, though fairly standard limiations on the fighter 109F) - what Spitfire is that can you tell?

Not by accident Martindale's unarmed photo recce Spit XI (I have that report, the XI not having gun stubs or bulges above the wing, shallower radiator as well if I recall Hop correctly, in brief aerodynamically its quite different from the fighter versions), which sheared off the propellor gear in dive...?

Or how about the IX MA 648 tests he qoutes, doesnt it refer to an experimental fuel pump installation? Or how about BS 543, which served as the proto for the IXLF, and had (apart from the 2000 feet higher FTH, which points to that the early engine had probably a different supercharger gearing than the final version) a propellor that was never introduced in service - Mike Williams is so keen noting such tiddy-biddy details for 109s, why not for the his own love?

Or the '+25lbs XIV' results he had up on the site for years. Why he only qouted the results part of report, which tells the +25 trials could not be completed because of imminent engine failure and the curves were extrapolated from what little was available?

Or what about the 109F-MkV graph? What MkV and 109F is that? Why is it missed to be told the MkV figures are one of the protos (the test is there on the site, but only from the results it can be identified), and the 109F-2 is one that belly landed in Britain, the British reports noting the trouble with it's engine, and that only brief trials were performed before they crashed the aircraft?

Or can you tell me what the XIV speed/climb curves refer to - are they official specs, calculations, flight tests, manufacturer's projected performance, what are the conditions of the aircraft? Only being half sarcastic here, I'd like to know, but generally the experience is that what MW doesn't want to tell is usually counter-productive to his agenda.

I'd agree with 100% what iirc Brain32 said; the site is undeniably valuable as far as the reproduced original tests go; read those and make your own conclusions, but what Williams writes in addition is best to be ignored - it's a mix of wishful thinking and cherry picking, and sometimes even manipulation with no moral constraints.

As for Mtt AG tolerances, I suppose they were the same a FW (it would be curious if the state who bought their things would accept greater variation of quality from another manufacturer with the same product). An early 109E export datasheet gives +-5% for speed and 8% for climb, but I suppose the tolerances were higher only because the speed range was less as well on those early planes.

Ratsack
06-08-2006, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The chart is the curve part of a Rechlin tests (on the table one can make out the Erprobungsnummer). Rechlin E'Stelle Erprobungsnr. 1586, G.Kdos. of Flugzeugmuster Bf 109 G-1 mit Motor DB 605A, Early 1943. Show the results of flight tests of a G-1 in the Rechlin test centre. The results are corrected for CINA standards, and are given in both table and grahpical form.

http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/image/5288901

The results were taken appearantly as the official, as they were repeated exactly in the 8 March 1943 issued G-1 Kennblatt, which points to the plane having the late non-retractable tailwheel, so it's some 12-16 kph slower than the previous versions of G-1/G-2.

Moreover Mtt reports from June 1943 refer to this report, and note the good agreement between the Rechlin measurements and that of 13 testflight done at the Regensburg and WNF factories, which gave higher rated alt vs. the Rechlin figures; the good agreement between these led the guys at Mtt to conclude one of their earlier tests on WNr 14 026 was an underperforming example.

Da nach Rechliner Messungen die bei Mtt.AG. vermessene 109 als zu langsam ist, wurde auch diese hinzugefügt. Ergebnisse aus Regensburg under Wiener-Neustadt (ca. 13 Messungen) erh¤rten die Rechliner Werte, sodaß diese als maßgebend anzusehen sind. Lediglich weicht die VDH (Mittelwert 6700m) der 13 Messungen von dem Rechliner Wert ab.

...blah de blah de blah de blah...blah...

As for Mtt AG tolerances, I suppose they were the same a FW (it would be curious if the state who bought their things would accept greater variation of quality from another manufacturer with the same product). An early 109E export datasheet gives +-5% for speed and 8% for climb, but I suppose the tolerances were higher only because the speed range was less as well on those early planes.

If this is a Rechlin test, then the data is for one plane: a particular example. It may or may not be representative of G-1s, but it does tell us that at least this example could make about 650 km/h at 1.3 ATA. It does not tell us:

1. what representative performance would be. We would need to see Messerschmitt rather than Rechlin data for that, assuming Messerschmitt€s methods were similar to FW€s.

2. what we might expect from a G-1/2 running at 1.42 ATA;

3. whether this plane was rated for 1.42 ATA; or

4. what state this plane was in (Kurfurst€s educated guess about the tail wheel is nice, but in the absence of some contemporary commentary, it€s just a guess).

It€s a very interesting set of data for all of that. It gives us some idea of what a 1.30 ATA Gustav could do.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
06-08-2006, 03:35 AM
As I noted the results of this very Rechlin test were issued in the official Kennblatt for G-1, as of 8 March 1943; as for how representative, as noted in the June 1943 Mtt report, it's in good agreement with 13 flight tests done with serial production planes from MttReg and WNF (109 factories; the former is Mtt own, the latter is a state erected one - think like Castle B.).

As for the condition of the Kennblatt/Rechlin G-1, yes it's kind of a good educated guess, since the Rechlin conditions of airframe are missing - butch probably has them - BUT, the Kennblatt which itself is dated March43, notes that the enlarged tailwheel, ('ab Januar 1943 350 x 135') which resulted it being no longer reractable, so.. plus the results jibe well with other non-retr. tailwheel tests (see russkie G4)

A Mtt doc (calculation of serial prod plane) gives 535 kph at SL, and 660kph at 7000m the following for G-1 at 1.3ata. Obviously the t/w was retractable back then (may42).

Bf 109G-2, WNr. 14 513 in clean config and retractable tailwheel did 524 kph at SL, 666 kph at 7000m, in Soviet test; the plane was captured early 1943 at around Stalingrad; similiary,
Bf 109G-2 WNr. 13 903 tested by the Soviets (with gunpods) did 505kph/650kph@7000m.
Bf 109G-4 WNr. 19 968 was also tested by the NII VVS in October 1943 - this aircraft was noted with a non-retracable tailwheel - did 650 kph at 7000m (it is said it also had bombrack but i couldnt confirm that). All Soviet tests were at 1.3ata.

Finnish Air Force performance trials with Bf 109 G-2 WNr. 14 783, 'MT-215' 5 April 1943. MT 215 was tested in 5 April 1943 at Malmi while being flown Kapt. Pekka Kokko, speed trials were done between 12:15 and 13:05 on that day. The then authorized maximum output of 100%, ie. Steig- und Kampfleistung, 2580/min and 1,3ata, were used through the tests. The results are known to be corrected to CINA and for compressibility effects.

Maximum speed achieved at SL was 522 km/h, and 636 km/h at 6300m altitude.
Initial climb rates measured were 20.6 m/sec at SL, increasing to 24.8 m/sec at 1700m altitude. Climb to 5000m in ca. 4 min 10 secs (taken from graph).

As for the effect of the various drag-intense items on 109G, Leistungzusammenstellung 109G from Jan 1944 gives the following at SL :

Gunpods : - 8 kph
13 HMG : - 9 kph
N-ret.TW: -12 kph
The effect is. ca50% more pronounced at rated alt.

Hope this helps.

As for the 1.42ata performance of the G-2, I've seen a fraction of a datesheet, which probably refers to that, giving 550 kph at SL, and 685 kph at 7000m; which is fairly good given the ~10% power increase.

The real killer at altitude are the G-1s and G-3s, and some modded subtypes of the rest of the Gustav; these had GM-1 boost which added 300HP from 1.5km above rated alt..suffice to say, the aircraft had more power than the 109K at altitude. I reckon 710-730 kph at 8500m...

Ratsack
06-08-2006, 05:48 AM
I€m skeptical of that 8 km/h figure for the gunpods, Kurfurst. Manfred Griehl quotes the report from Luftflotte 3 on the experimental installation of the fuselage MG151 gondola on a G-4/R3 (WkNr 14136). The report compares the performance of the aircraft clean, with fuselage gondola, and with all three gondolas:

€˜(a) Loss of speed with fuselage gondola alone 8 kph and with all three gondolas 28 kph, measured over a closed course with the same throttle setting.€

This is in Manfred Greihl, Bf109 G/K, (Schiffer, 1995), p. 10. This was originally published in German by Flugzeug Publikations, so it shouldn€t be too hard to track down the original documents if you€re interested (you€re in Europe, aren€t you?).


I'd like to continue the discussion of Gustav performance, the G-6s in particular, but in another thread because it's basically OT in this one.

cheers,
Ratsack

Bearcat99
06-08-2006, 06:45 AM
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 TriFire420:
<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 mortoma1958:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I know most are skeptical but the P-51 is WAAY better in 4.05 than 4.04. In 4.05 I can fight in it effectively again...it was combat ineffective in 4.04 for me. Uhhhhhhhhh...but wait a minute....There were no FM changes from 4.04 to 4.05!!!!!! None at all, zero, zilch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure there weren't....

I don't believe it because first hand evidence tells me otherwise. As I am switching between 4.04 and 4.05 on a regular basis I can tell you that when I forget that I've switched to 4.04 and mistakenly take up a P-51 it flies like garbage....but do the same in 4.05 and its way different.

I have no other supporting evidence but I KNOW that its different. Probably had to do with altering some of the FM to accomodate the Pe-2's low drag wing design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

________________________________________________

IceFire, stop lying and trying to make a advertisement for 4.05, i have them both, there all the same, your gona get some serious flak if you keep saying things like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Certainly not lying about anything here. I like it more in 4.05 than when I'm flying 4.04...seeing as I fly both regularly I feel that the normal placebo effect is not presently taking hold (I usually forget which version I'm in most of the time) so I feel there is a difference. It actually doesn't matter what the rest of you think...I think its better in 4.05 and if I'm having more fun with 4.05 than with 4.04 in regards to this plane than all the power to me. Right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What may be true is that input settings have once again been modified, even when the flight model may not have specifically changed, for whatever reason and depending on your settings you may feel it more or less. Pure conjecture of course...but its different for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rarely go back when upgrades come up so I dont fly 4.04 anymore.... but as I stated earlier.. I totally agree with Ice on this one... I dont need to go back and forth and compare. I fly the Mustang 80% of the time online and off.... and the 4.03 Pony was so bad Ray Charles could see it... and not only was he blind.. but he is dead. I cant speak for too many other planes.. but ti me they all fly better.... there was a change... maybe it was unintentional... but there was a change. This Mustang handles like the one in the leaked Beta before 4.04 was finallized... that beta did not have the Mossie in it.... perhaps the addition of the Pe-2.. another twin engine plane balanced out the glkobal FM or something.. I dont know.. but it is definitely a lot better.... I dont care what anyone says.... and it isnt in my head either.

Xiolablu3
06-08-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As I noted the results of this very Rechlin test were issued in the official Kennblatt for G-1, as of 8 March 1943; as for how representative, as noted in the June 1943 Mtt report, it's in good agreement with 13 flight tests done with serial production planes from MttReg and WNF (109 factories; the former is Mtt own, the latter is a state erected one - think like Castle B.).

As for the condition of the Kennblatt/Rechlin G-1, yes it's kind of a good educated guess, since the Rechlin conditions of airframe are missing - butch probably has them - BUT, the Kennblatt which itself is dated March43, notes that the enlarged tailwheel, ('ab Januar 1943 350 x 135') which resulted it being no longer reractable, so.. plus the results jibe well with other non-retr. tailwheel tests (see russkie G4)

A Mtt doc (calculation of serial prod plane) gives 535 kph at SL, and 660kph at 7000m the following for G-1 at 1.3ata. Obviously the t/w was retractable back then (may42).

Bf 109G-2, WNr. 14 513 in clean config and retractable tailwheel did 524 kph at SL, 666 kph at 7000m, in Soviet test; the plane was captured early 1943 at around Stalingrad; similiary,
Bf 109G-2 WNr. 13 903 tested by the Soviets (with gunpods) did 505kph/650kph@7000m.
Bf 109G-4 WNr. 19 968 was also tested by the NII VVS in October 1943 - this aircraft was noted with a non-retracable tailwheel - did 650 kph at 7000m (it is said it also had bombrack but i couldnt confirm that). All Soviet tests were at 1.3ata.

Finnish Air Force performance trials with Bf 109 G-2 WNr. 14 783, 'MT-215' 5 April 1943. MT 215 was tested in 5 April 1943 at Malmi while being flown Kapt. Pekka Kokko, speed trials were done between 12:15 and 13:05 on that day. The then authorized maximum output of 100%, ie. Steig- und Kampfleistung, 2580/min and 1,3ata, were used through the tests. The results are known to be corrected to CINA and for compressibility effects.

Maximum speed achieved at SL was 522 km/h, and 636 km/h at 6300m altitude.
Initial climb rates measured were 20.6 m/sec at SL, increasing to 24.8 m/sec at 1700m altitude. Climb to 5000m in ca. 4 min 10 secs (taken from graph).

As for the effect of the various drag-intense items on 109G, Leistungzusammenstellung 109G from Jan 1944 gives the following at SL :

Gunpods : - 8 kph
13 HMG : - 9 kph
N-ret.TW: -12 kph
The effect is. ca50% more pronounced at rated alt.

Hope this helps.

As for the 1.42ata performance of the G-2, I've seen a fraction of a datesheet, which probably refers to that, giving 550 kph at SL, and 685 kph at 7000m; which is fairly good given the ~10% power increase.

The real killer at altitude are the G-1s and G-3s, and some modded subtypes of the rest of the Gustav; these had GM-1 boost which added 300HP from 1.5km above rated alt..suffice to say, the aircraft had more power than the 109K at altitude. I reckon 710-730 kph at 8500m...

Kurfurst you obviously pick the very best possible tests for your data, everyone here knows that.

Now how about you post your very worst test data?

I think then we can judge somewhere in the middle is the truth, I know some people who have some tests which are far far below those and will probably represent much more the standard of Aircraft in the field.

Can I trust you to post your worst 109 tests?


I can see tha Mike Williams only uses data from real LW flight tests of standard models, not what could have been , should have been or what certain people want it to be.

Brain32
06-08-2006, 10:42 AM
...worst 109 tests?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
06-08-2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ...worst 109 tests?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are certainly worse than this around. Mike Williams had many choices of where to get the data on the site from, Russian tests, UK tests, US tests (which are terrible and trash the 109G6 for eg. btw), Finnish tests.

He chose only flight tests from Messerschmitt AG where possible because he feels its the correct choice. I have to say I agree. The SPitfire Data is from real flight tests by the UK Air Ministry, is there any better place to get the data than the manufactorers own tests?

faustnik
06-08-2006, 11:00 AM
Xiolablu3,

I would use the rule of "the truth is in the middle" here. Kurfurst presents the 109 in the best light, but, the reverse holds true on the Spit Performance site. Things there are done very selectively and deliberately.

Brain32
06-08-2006, 11:09 AM
Couldn't agree more, that's only one reason I consider Kurfurst very valuable, he provides a contrast. I really and honestly believe the truth about average example is somewhere in the middle.

VW-IceFire
06-08-2006, 03:57 PM
Yep...some good wisdom there. Take the one extreme, the other extreme, mix em in a blender and you get something close to the truth. Works for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Bearcat: Absolutely...worst case scenario is that we're both crazy and at least we're having fun with the fixed P-51! Time for a P-51 campaign in the future I think.

Texan...
06-08-2006, 04:24 PM
Bearcat and Ice, try this and report back:

Fire up 4.04, and before you fly a QMB go to hardware setup. Move your stick around its entire movement band and click the pull-down menu to change from rudder to pitch (or whatever). The goal is to monkey around and mouse click a few things in there but DONT change any settings.

Now go fly the 4.04 P51 in a QMB and report back. Did that make any difference as to how it flies?

joeap
06-08-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Yep...some good wisdom there. Take the one extreme, the other extreme, mix em in a blender and you get something close to the truth. Works for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Bearcat: Absolutely...worst case scenario is that we're both crazy and at least we're having fun with the fixed P-51! Time for a P-51 campaign in the future I think.

Glad to hear it, just got 4.05 myself.

Kurfurst__
06-09-2006, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfurst you obviously pick the very best possible tests for your data, everyone here knows that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now how about you post your very worst test data?

What Brain32 said. You can find the worst possible 109 tests of the worst performing examples, not by once running on maximum power (Es on 30min rating only, no 601N powered versions, Gs on 30min rating only, late Gs with gunpods and K-6s at 1.8ata, and even that with excuses). The pinnacle being the G-6/tp, running at just 1.3ata, with a tropical filter and gondolas. It sure looks an awful sucker compared to the Spit9 prototypes and experimental machines drawn next to it.

The best joke is the XII article. He kinda goes, 'oh well, even if I show a G-6, at 1.3ata only the Spitty still gets the lower stick in climb, so I guess I won't be showing any climb graphs at all.' Oh, and that damned FW 190 is also a hairsplit faster at some altitude, no matter, I've got tons of excuses like if we hang a bombrack on it won't be faster anymore'. Oh, and there were 3% variation between production planes, curious, I forgot to mention that until I was able pick better graphs for the Spits.'

You know what... if you want to believe the guy, why not, you deserve to be fooled.


I think then we can judge somewhere in the middle is the truth, I know some people who have some tests which are far far below those and will probably represent much more the standard of Aircraft in the field.

I know one for certain, Mike Williams. You say you are on similiar agenda as him, searching for the poorest performing examples, dismissing the rest.

Show me those tests yet unknown for us. Currently I am doing an article on the subject, and I will list all tests in detail, unlike the cherrypicking and outright lying Williams grown infamous for.

Besides - all the planes I listed are for what was service standard. If I would want to list non-standard planes, there are Mtt data around which shows the 109G at 737 kph top, at 1.42ata.


Can I trust you to post your worst 109 tests?

I can see tha Mike Williams only uses data from real LW flight tests of standard models, not what could have been , should have been or what certain people want it to be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recall there are test of a IXLF on Mike Williams site, that of JL 165, in fact the only plane of this Mark that is certainly from serial production and not some factory prototype; if MW only uses standard models, why is that the results of it's test are, somehow, nowhere to be seen in his comparisons of standard IXs and Gustavs - can you tell me why? It's well within the 3% tolerance he is so keen noting lately.

Also, please tell me what was 'non standard, what could have been' about this plane - a G-2 captured on the front by the Soviets, and tested for 666 kph?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/g2wnr14513.jpg

Perhaps the Soviets boosted the captured plane with superior Soviet technology? I mean we can all see the careful polish on it and the rocket boosters. Perhaps they could get better results from it than it's original operators. Perhaps they were interested in reporting better data they got from it. BTW if you are so fond of Mtt data, you were already given what Mtt rated it's plane, 660kph at 7000m at 1.3ata, in 1942.

Anyway, it's a bit of an offtopic, so I guess we should discuss it in a seperate thread (if one seeks such info, I'd happily participate as my time permits), hopefully without having to discuss the loads of BS on the spitliar site - I wasted more than enough breath on that already than it deserves. As far as the articles go, they are merely the 'from a RAF zealot to RAF fans' category.

Xiolablu3
06-09-2006, 02:55 AM
Kurfurst - I am not an any 'agenda', I simply trust Mike Williams site more than you at the moment. I am simply not as interested as you in 109's so I will never be able to counter all your data, even if it was wrong, so I am not even going to try. From what you post here its obvious to see that you will do anything to show the 109 in its very best light.

Mike Williams uses data from 1 source where possible, Messerschmitt AG. Thats why you dont find Soviet test data on his site.

I ask you again to post your worst 109 tests rather than your best so that we can see the other side for once.

All I can see is someone slating Mike Williams for cherry picking data when you do exactly the same. Maybe show you are better and post some very poor 109 tests for us all to see?

WOLFMondo
06-09-2006, 03:50 AM
I'd really like to see a website which has ALL data and no personal interpritations of that data, just raw data of all aircraft available and let people draw there own conclusions from it.

Getting people do belive data is all in the presentation. At the moment both Kurfy and MW show the best data and unobjective views and forget the negative data that will show there planes in a bad light. Just stating fact and allowing people to use that to make objective assessment would give you both allot more respect on topics you both know allot about.

Xiolablu3
06-09-2006, 04:29 AM
I agree WOLF.

What I would like Kurfurst to do is to decide on one source of where to get 109 data.

Rather than picking all these different tests where would YOU get the 109 data from Kurfurst?

You must choose one source, Russian tests, British tests, Rechlin Tests, Messerchmitt tests, US tests. Which source do you choose?

I may be able to show you guys a US Material COmmand test of a 109G6 which really trashes the aircraft badly, much worse than any graphs on Mike Williams site. I'll see if I can get it.

I would choose Messerschmitt as a source, and according to his site, that is what Mike Williams has done. Is there some reason why that choice is wrong? Can you show us a normal production 109G graph from Messerchmitt please?

Kurfurst__
06-09-2006, 05:06 AM
*sigh*

I'd like to know why would want to pick one source of tests and ignore the rest - even if I had to, I'd pick the ones at Rechlin. Rechlin was the state test center in Germany, and was interested in evaluating service aircraft, with no interest showing them better.

As for the Finnish data, it's for an aircraft the Finns bought, flew from Vienna to Finnland fresh from the factory, and tested right away. What's the problem with that?

Even less can I understand the problem with captured Soviet tests. True, sometimes captured planes are in bad shape, but if they show good performance, what is more representative as this one, a frontline aircraft tested 'as is'?

As for those Mtt tests. Williams shows WNr 14 026 tested in August 42, and reached 507kph at SL. The same aircraft did 523 kph on 26 May 1942, and 522kph on 19 Sept 1942 - I suspect the engine was worn in the 2nd test. Williams picked the worst one from these tests. Serial aircraft, no, a test hack that the factory used for a dozen test (one can see some 'good old' planes the factories used for all sorts of tests - financials!), the report notes it had an enlarged tail installed, the slats were 'non-standard', one of the rads was 'heavy alloy' (copper?) the other 'light alloy' (dural?) - presumably it was also used for coolant tests.

From report:
Zustand der Maschine : Entspricht der Serie 109 G-1 mit einigen Anderungen : Vergr¶ßertes Seitenleitwerk und automatische Flettner. Vorflügeinstellung nicht serienm¤ßig. Kühleranzeigestabe Flügelthermometer. Ab 1.8.42 Doppellogkabel.

So much about Willam's and his standard Mtt aircraft... oh did he tell the results are not corrected to standrads, and the radiators were wide open on the low level speed tests, I think not. The report does, however.

As for the worst example, it's an unknown 109G shown in a Daimler Benz paper - Williams claims it's a G-1, and happily shows the graph (by far the worst performing example, doing 620 kph only, and nothing is known about the coniditons, basically), but the greater weight of 3070-3100kg disproves that. So much again for picking just one source. The only criteria on William's site is wheter the plane is performing poor enough to be shown as a sucker. As for the 'official Mtt' graph, you were already given the one for serial production a/c that gave 660 kph at 7000m. There are a dozen of others, pardon me but you will have to wait for my article where I will list these ALL, with all background information.

US Material COmmand test of a 109G6 seems interesting, could you post that, I didn't see this one yet.

Xiolablu3
06-09-2006, 05:14 AM
I have emailed the guy to ask him for the US test. All he said to me was that he had a US MAterial Command test of a 109G6 which was much worse than any on Mike WIlliams site and it really trashed the aircraft badly.

I am not sure if he will let me post it but I have asked him anyway, I will just wait for a reply.

Sorry for taking this thread OT guys, I will shut up now, but will post the US test if I get it.