F6F-5 Performance

[Die Hard]

I can't know for sure the motivations, but here is my best guess to what is happening. Once again, I'll use the P-51 as my example. The P-51 is consistently one of the most common if not THE most common aircraft in the LW MAs tour after tour. This is in spite of the fact, that the P-51 is rather mediocre in performance under typical MA conditions compared to many aircraft, including the 109 Kurt. One of the best exponents of the P-51 in the game, Steve, has said as much on many occasions. You can't beat people out of the cockpit of P-51s with a stick apparently.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that the 190 D9 and 109 K-4 are arguably both superior in the MA, they haven't eclipsed the Mustang. What is the purpose of giving rare, high-performing, late-war monsters  like the Dora and Kurt ENYs of 15 and 20 respectively except to get more people flying them?

Imagine the nauseatingly incessant sea of P-51s you would see if they performed even a little better. The situation might reach the point where perking the P-51 was unavoidable. But that is not a great option. What percentage of fresh noobs would let their accounts slide if the first thing that happened when they logged in was try to take the P-51D for a spin and "You don't have enough perks for that model" popped up?

Nice conspiracy theory.

I posted a whole chart showing P-51 performance variants at 67"....

This chart I presume?



Only one of the tests on that chart is relevant, yet you claimed "it appears that a value closer to the lower end of average results has been chosen". How do you even get an average from one data point?

Second, as Anax said "So far as I know, the German aircraft that had MW-50 boost do get C3 fuel in AH simply because that was the only fuel they could use (96 octane I think)."

And since you seem equally unable to read this thread as you do the charts I will repeat: "This is completely wrong. No MW-50 equipped plane (109G-14, K-4, 190D-9 and Ta-152) in AH uses C3 fuel."

Which side do you think was more able to produce large amounts of high-quality fuel in 1945? 

A moot point since German C3 fuel stocks lasted well into 1945.

[Die Hard]

Oh really? Who within the community of aviation historians and writers has made such a statement?

That's a nice leading question. When did reputation become the sole domain of aviation historians and writers?

Mike Williams and "Kurfurst" have been going at each other's throats for ages. Their primary sources are good, but their conclusions and selection of data is suspect at best.

[BnZs]

Nice conspiracy theory.

After the allegations YOU made that you have yet to back up, it is at the very least a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have at least presented a plausible reason for my "conspiracy" theory. What is your reason for Williams conspiring against an air force that hasn't existed for 60+ years?

(Image removed from quote.)

Only one of the tests on that chart is relevant, yet you claimed "it appears that a value closer to the lower end of average results has been chosen". How do you even get an average from one data point?

The point is that a lower performing and common variant is the one modeled, for both the P-51B and D. As opposed to our Kurt, which exceeds the performance numbers for the Kurt I found.  An un-perked, 20 ENY aircraft in game, that is based on a rare late model and apparently modeled to perform better than under typical field conditions. Another point is that the G-2, a mid-war plane, is allowed to run at power settings that are debatable for '42/'43. As I say, if this is the case, why not allow the Jugs to pull the 70" MAP that we have quit a bit of corroboration for?

IMO, all signs point to 3 factors being involved..  

1. "Balance" and a valid concern for plane diversity in the LW MAs.

2. Lobbying, subtle or not so subtle over the years, by a small but vocal percentage of Luftwaffe enthusiasts.

3. Finally, the "fog of war" making  accurate assessment of the LW German aircraft performance difficult at best, and the popular tendency in American since the end of WWII to over-estimate the reach and achievements of late-war Nazi science.

[Die Hard]

After the allegations YOU made that you have yet to back up, it is at the very least a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I have made no allegations except with regard to your ability to read these charts, which needs no proof since you've made it abundantly clear. Mike Williams reputation on WWII forums is a matter of fact, whether this reputation is deserved I have no opinion of.

The point is that a lower performing and common variant is the one modeled, for both the P-51B and D.

Isn't the common version the most correct? The high-altitude -3 engine was the most common engine for the B model. The medium-altitude -7 engine was the most common engine for the D model. HTC has modelled both aircraft with racks since that's how these planes were equipped in the field. Only the British stripped down their Mustangs to intercept the doodlebugs. What is your problem with their choice?

As opposed to our Kurt, which exceeds the performance numbers for the Kurt I found.

"I found" being the operative words. You have "found" one data point. ONE. And then you claim HTC is biased and has over-modelled the 109K. You don't know what data HTC has based their model on.

Another point is that the G-2, a mid-war plane, is allowed to run at power settings that are debatable for '42/'43.

The G-2 should be limited to 1.3 ata in my opinion. HTC is also very generous with WEP duration in the non-MW-50 109's. However I don't know what data HTC has on the G-2, so I can't say that they are wrong. And I certainly can't claim they're biased.

IMO, all signs point to 3 factors being involved.. 

1. "Balance" and a valid concern for plane diversity in the LW MAs.

2. Lobbying, subtle or not so subtle over the years, by a small but vocal percentage of Luftwaffe enthusiasts.

3. Finally, the "fog of war" making  accurate assessment of the LW German aircraft performance difficult at best, and the popular tendency in American since the end of WWII to over-estimate the reach and achievements of late-war Nazi science.

Nothing but conjecture.

[BnZs]

Mike Williams reputation on WWII forums is a matter of fact, whether this reputation is deserved I have no opinion of.

Except when trying to dismiss out of hand his data...then you had an opinion.

Isn't the common version the most correct? The high-altitude -3 engine was the most common engine for the B model. The medium-altitude -7 engine was the most common engine for the D model. HTC has modelled both aircraft with racks since that's how these planes were equipped in the field. Only the British stripped down their Mustangs to intercept the doodlebugs. What is your problem with their choice?

I have no problem with their choice except in comparison to certain other, um, choices.

BTW, I CAN read just a bit if you give me time to sound it out...including the performance for the Pee-Fifty-Wun Dee-Fifteen En-Ay at 67" WITH racks, and the fact that it is not specified whether or not the P-51Bs w/ the V-1650-3 had wing racks or not.

"I found" being the operative words. You have "found" one data point. ONE. And then you claim HTC is biased and has over-modelled the 109K. You don't know what data HTC has based their model on.

"Unfortunately, flight trials of Me 109 Ks appear not to exist. The following Me 109 K curves were produced by Messerschmitt's Project Bureau at Oberammergau. While the curves are rather simplistic estimates (the effect of the hydraulic coupled supercharger being absent for example), they should give some idea of potential, however, they should be treated with reserve."



Aircraft manufacturers are of course well known for always UNDERESTIMATING the potential of their plane in their reports.   

And:

"Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, Generalquartiermeister, Chefing.d.Lw on 18 October 1944 summarized the performance of the principle Me 109 variants as follows:"

The G-2 should be limited to 1.3 ata in my opinion. HTC is also very generous with WEP duration in the non-MW-50 109's. However I don't know what data HTC has on the G-2, so I can't say that they are wrong. And I certainly can't claim they're biased.

Well, unless Williams pulled his sources out of thin air, it is alot more than your opinion...letting them pull 1.42 ata at the very least represents something no different from letting P-47 D-11s pull 70" MAP because it was a known practice, if not quite "offical"

And bias is the wrong word...trying to balance things, please the customer base, make it more interesting are all close to what I think.

Nothing but conjecture.

Yeah, like the 109 K's performance!

[Murdr]

That's a nice leading question. When did reputation become the sole domain of aviation historians and writers?

When did it become the sole domain of some knob on a discussion board?

[SgtPappy]

No idea.
I'm still trying to pull out actual information valid to the original discussion from these petty arguments.

On another note, thanks for the info everyone.

[Widewing]

That's a nice leading question. When did reputation become the sole domain of aviation historians and writers?

Mike Williams and "Kurfurst" have been going at each other's throats for ages. Their primary sources are good, but their conclusions and selection of data is suspect at best.

You didn't answer the question, you merely offered your own opinion; which by the way, carries less weight than a gnat's jockstrap.


My regards,

Widewing

[Die Hard]

BTW, I CAN read just a bit if you give me time to sound it out...including the performance for the Pee-Fifty-Wun Dee-Fifteen En-Ay at 67" WITH racks...

That's the ONE data point I was talking about. You have ONE data point and you don't know what data HTC uses, but still you claim they are wrong. Not only do you claim they are wrong, but you claim they have some ulterior motive for short changing the Pony performance wise.

Unfortunately, flight trials of Me 109 Ks appear not to exist...

Yeah, like the 109 K's performance!

Again you don't know what data HTC has. However you still feel qualified to claim they're wrong and biased based on nothing.

Whaaa ... Hitech hates tha Pony!

Yeah I'm sure he does kid. Keep whining.



Btw. That's him in that Pony.

[Die Hard]

When did it become the sole domain of some knob on a discussion board?

It isn't anyone's sole domain.

[Die Hard]

You didn't answer the question, you merely offered your own opinion; which by the way, carries less weight than a gnat's jockstrap.


My regards,

Widewing

Likewise. The feeling is mutual.

[BnZs]

That's the ONE data point I was talking about. You have ONE data point and you don't know what data HTC uses, but still you claim they are wrong. Not only do you claim they are wrong, but you claim they have some ulterior motive for short changing the Pony performance wise.

One claim I have made is that they have selected lower performing P-51 variants for use in game, as opposed to selecting the highest performing variant available in the ETO. The chart bears this out, unless Williams literally pulled the numbers out of thin air, it is not a claim, it is a fact.

Again you don't know what data HTC has. However you still feel qualified to claim they're wrong and biased based on nothing.

What part of "does not exist" don't you understand?

On the murky subject of 109 performance, it appears that HTC has consistently chosen the opposite approach from the one they have chosen in P-51 modeling and been extremely optimistic about 109 performance. How can you say this is not so when the numbers for the 109-K in game exceed Messerschmitt's own estimates?

 And you ADMITTED that the G-2 should be limited to 1.3 ata, and once again, unless Mr. William's data is pulled from thin air, this seems to be proven. It is possible, perhaps probable that 109s were being run at higher ata's in combat before they were cleared to do so officially, but then again it is CERTAIN that P-47s were being modified to pull higher manifold pressures on WEP, so why must they still make do with factory limitations?

Yeah I'm sure he does kid. Keep whining.

(Image removed from quote.)

Btw. That's him in that Pony.

Oh really? That changes everything. 

I have never once said that anyone "hates" the P-51. I have said that there are some understandable reasons of gameplay and "balance" that may explain why the P-51 (and along with it, many American aircraft) and the 109 seem to be modeled according to different philosophies. It appears that the practice is to use the most common variant and conservative numbers for the former and as I have proven, to be extremely optimistic in regards to 109 performance.

[Anaxogoras]

BnZs, the difference in K-4 performance you see depends on what kind of prop it had.  I don't remember their technical names, but with one the K-4 topped out at ~440mph, and with the other it could surpass 450.  HTC gives us the latter.  I agree to a point that the K-4 is generously modeled, but not so much with the rest of the 109 series because we have no AS variant of the 109G, nor do we have any with GM-1 boost for high altitudes.

Just like the USAAF aircraft, the Luftwaffe is not given all the toys it actually had.

[BnZs]

BnZs, the difference in K-4 performance you see depends on what kind of prop it had.  I don't remember their technical names, but with one the K-4 topped out at ~440mph, and with the other it could surpass 450.  HTC gives us the latter.

Well, first off, this only confirms what I have been saying about the higher performing 109 variants being chosen, as compared to the choices made amongst the P-51 variants.

Is there any flight test data for the K-4 at all? I keep hearing "You don't know what data HTC is using for the K-4" but if my source is correct, there is little to be found.

  I agree to a point that the K-4 is generously modeled, but not so much with the rest of the 109 series because we have no AS variant of the 109G, nor do we have any with GM-1 boost for high altitudes.

I think clearance to pull higher ata than was officially allowed is VERY generous. I wish I could do the same thing with the P-47Ds.

You are correct about the lack of special high altitude versions of course, however, in pragmatic gameplay terms, there is little incentive to model one and little advantage to flying one, since no one is up there in the MA.

Just like the USAAF aircraft, the Luftwaffe is not given all the toys it actually had.

Uh, hello, how many Ta-152s and "pocket rockets" were actually produced? 

USN has one "iffy" rare toy, the C-Hog, which I rarely fly and could happily live without, and one LW "monster" contemporary of the K-4/La-7/SpitXVI. A monster justly perked I might add. The USAAF's line up is entirely "plain jane" with no exotic toys or higher performing variants available even for perks.

[Anaxogoras]

You are correct about the lack of special high altitude versions of course, however, in pragmatic gameplay terms, there is little incentive to model one and little advantage to flying one, since no one is up there in the MA.

Yeah, but it always screws us when we run 8th AF scenarios.  What's a pocket rocket?