More Ponies !

[Saurdaukar]

If you can't answer that then why did you start this argument in the first place?

Sorry... who started the argumentative portion of this journey, again?

[Die Hard]

So did the Spitfire, and likewise it isn't shown in the game.  Thus, they have equal representation.  The Bf109s we have are unsuited to bomber interception because of the engines they have, until we get to the Bf109K-4 which only arrived for combat in Sept., 1944.

This thread isn't titled "More Spits !" or "More 109's !", but "More Ponies !". Start your own thread on the Spit if you want.

And no, there is no "equal representation"; true, the Merlin Spits also lack 150 octane fuel, but the Spitfire Mk. XIV is modelled, and the BF 109K-4 is modelled. Both are late-1944 birds that the P-51's in the game simply can't compete with, but could historically.

[Karnak]

No, it isn't, but you keep arguing from a standpoint that the P-51 is under represented compared to the Spitfire and Bf109 (your choices of contrast) and thus people who know better and are argumentative picked up their keyboards and responded.

I have no issue with the idea of more P-51s, but I do have an issue with people making claims that are false.

And no, there is no "equal representation"; true, the Merlin Spits also lack 150 octane fuel, but the Spitfire Mk. XIV is modelled, and the BF 109K-4 is modelled. Both are late-1944 birds that the P-51's in the game simply can't compete with, but could historically.

Yes, we have the Mk XIV.  Spitfires were more varied than P-51s, deal with it.  As a percentage representation the late war Spits and P-51s are about equal and if they added an Allison engined P-51A the early war would also be matched up.  Actually, thinking it over, I think the P-51 has a higher percentage representation than late war Spitfires.

FYI, the Spitfire Mk XIV is also running on 100 octane, not the 150 octane that it was quickly rated for.

And no, the P-51 could not compete as a fighter with a Spitfire Mk XIV just as the Spitfire Mk XIV could not compete with the P-51 as an escort.  A Griffon 65 running on 150 octane puts out more power than any WWII Merlin and the Spitfire XIV is significantly lighter than the P-51D.  You do the math.

An example, the RAF used Meteor Mk Is, Tempest Mk Vs, Mosquito Mk VIs, Mustang Mk IIIs (D Ponies), Spitfire LF.Mk IXs and Spitfire F.Mk XIVs to intercept V-1s.  Only three of those could do so without diving to get overtake speed, the Meteor Mk I, Tempest Mk V and Spitfire F.Mk XIV.  All of the piston fighters on that list were running on 150 octane for that role.  This information comes from an RAF Mustang pilot who said he didn't know how fast the +21lbs boost Mk XIV was, just that it was faster than his Mustang.

[5PointOh]

As for the topic of fuel changes and/or the representation of the P-51 series I think the 51 is well represented.  And  I'm a huge 51 fan.   

If the matter of fuel grade and quality is a real issue then perhaps we should add in mechanical failures, and bird strikes perhaps even a hung over ground crew member who forgot to tighten an oil line.   

Yes, I'd like to see an early Allison powered 51, but I'd all like to see the Buea and the 61 A/B. The 51 seems fine the way it is...   

[moot]

So, the missing models are an early Allison 51-A, a late war -D with 150 octane fuel, and a 51H - would that cover it?

[eddiek]

P-51H didn't see combat in WW2, so it's out of the equation.

[moot]

It was in one of the polls HTC put up asking for votes on the planes players would want most.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,26277.0.html
Note that e.g. the 47N only showed up 5 years later.. And they may have changed their plans since that poll was suggested, so take it with a grain of salt.. But the 51H, 47M, and Yak9UT are the only three out of eleven missing.

[AWwrgwy]

P-51H didn't see combat in WW2, so it's out of the equation.

Did the P-51H see combat... anywhere?  Ever?

IIRC Korea was P-51Ds. (With 150 octane gas?)


wrongway

[Ack-Ack]

Did the P-51H see combat... anywhere?  Ever?

IIRC Korea was P-51Ds. (With 150 octane gas?)


wrongway

Nope, never saw any action in any conflict.  They were considered to 'fragile' to be used in combat in Korea so the D model was used instead.


ack-ack

[BnZs]

The two current Mustangs would be quite sufficient thank you, if their odd lack of maneuverability is looked into. Fix that, and the D might already deserve to be a perk plane, with no performance enhancement.

And we could also bring the performance of the D more in line with what the P-51D-15NA could do at 67'' MAP (375 or so on the deck) before we start fooling around 150 octane and even higher MAP settings. That WOULD deserve to be lightly perked. I'd be all for it, but it might be a bad business model for every noob to log in, only to see "you don't have enough points for that model" when they tried to fly THE most famous plane.

The Mustang does fairly okay in the MA anyway, the "Planes of Fame" that really need a looking at and possible revamp for MA competitiveness are the 190A's...

[Motherland]

"Planes of Fame" that really need a looking at and possible revamp for MA competitiveness are the 190A's...

Why is this?
The Fw 190 series does quite well in its role. It is not a 1v1 lone wolf fighter. However, when put in a group on group setting and flown by competent pilots, the Fw 190 is not only competitive but dominant.
The Fw 190 was not a turner. It was well liked by its pilots in many cases because it was more nimble and better built than the Bf 109. In game it is more nimble and more durable than the Bf 109.
The Fw 190 is not a good MA plane, this is true. However I don't understand why it would be revamped simply for MA competitiveness despite having a reasonably accurate FM. I think that would be unfair, really.

[moot]

I think he means the line-up. Adding an early A model, a higher boost A5, and an A9 ought to do it.. An option to have only wingroot guns on the A5 (was a factory option IIRC) would be nice and even better if available with the higher boost option.

[BnZs]

I do not desire a Fw unrealistically modeled to be a "t'n'b" aircraft or what have you.


A-5 with extra boost, A-6, A-9, all would be desirable. BUT, how about simply having an A-5 that performs to specification?



The SLOWEST level deck speed quoted for an A5 from the reports compiled at wwiiaircraftperformance.org is 348mph, the others give 351-352. Our 190A5 tops out at 340mph on the deck, 4mph slower than a SpitXVI *without* a center-line rack. Also, I did a quick comparison at DokGonzo's, and our 190A5 is basically out-accelerated by the P-51D at low alt.

EDIT: Sorry Die Hard, I'll start a new thread for anymore 190 talk.

[Krusty]

Our 190a5 performance closely models some test data from a captured a-5 variant, like (if I recall) a 190G-3. They added ballast to replace the missing cowl guns during testing. The problem is many claim the climb angle, rate, and speeds are all wrong. Might explain why top speed is off as well.

I don't think a 190a9 will be needed if we can bloody fix the magic weight on the a-8.

[Die Hard]

Sorry Die Hard, I'll start a new thread for anymore 190 talk.

No prob. The thread topic is done, and after reading the inane posts of people like 5PointOh I've realized the Pony-dweebs and Spit-dweebs don't deserve to get 150 octane. Next time I see a Pony through my Revi sight I'll just laugh at the stupidity of it all.