More Ponies !

[Motherland]

How so? It had the same advantages over it's contemporaries as the Pony when it was introduced, except for much more pronounced.
The only 'junky' thing about the Me 262 was the reliability of it's engines (or lack thereof).

[moot]

You're a funny guy. Instead of your lame one-liners how about explaining why you think I'm wrong?

The planes are different.  They're not redundant.

[Motherland]

Ok, which handling differences (that are modeled in AH) are not a direct result of engine or armament changes (weight, bulges, torque, CG etc.) ?

If you're talking about going from the G-2 to the -6, there are none. The G-6 is a G-4 with MG131 cowl guns, the G-4 being an improved version of the -2 (bigger landing gear etc.). They both use the DB 605A engine in, from what I understand, the exact same configuration. However the difference that this causes between the G-2 and the -6 is significant. The G-2 is faster, climbs better, and turns better. The G-6 has a noticeably heavier armament, is more docile, and the version we have in game has the Gallandpanzer head armor which provides a significant improvement in visibility (more than the Erla Haube canopy IMO).

The differences between the G-6 and the -14 are even more pronounced, with the G-14's MW-50 boost system providing superb performance on WEP (though the added weight makes it the slowest Gustav on MIL). The G-14 also incorporates the Erla Haube canopy which again improves visibility.


You can't really sub one in for another, and all of them represent an aircraft that played a significant role in significant numbers.

[Die Hard]

The planes are different.  They're not redundant.

When did I say they were redundant?

[Die Hard]

If you're talking about going from the G-2 to the -6, there are none. The G-6 is a G-4 with MG131 cowl guns, the G-4 being an improved version of the -2 (bigger landing gear etc.). They both use the DB 605A engine in, from what I understand, the exact same configuration. However the difference that this causes between the G-2 and the -6 is significant. The G-2 is faster, climbs better, and turns better. The G-6 has a noticeably heavier armament, is more docile, and the version we have in game has the Gallandpanzer head armor which provides a significant improvement in visibility (more than the Erla Haube canopy IMO).

The differences between the G-6 and the -14 are even more pronounced, with the G-14's MW-50 boost system providing superb performance on WEP (though the added weight makes it the slowest Gustav on MIL). The G-14 also incorporates the Erla Haube canopy which again improves visibility.


You can't really sub one in for another, and all of them represent an aircraft that played a significant role in significant numbers.

So all handling changes (that are modeled in AH) from the G-2 to the G-6 and to the G-14 are direct results of changes in engine or armament, just like I said. Thank you. And the only change I'm proposing for the Pony is a 300 hp increase in WEP engine power in a late-1944 model.

[Motherland]

The G-14 also has redesigned wing bulges from the 4/6 (cut down on drag I imagine) and a taller v-stab and rudder. But yes all of the changes are the result of changes on the demands on the airframe, just like differences between the variants of every aircraft that ever flew.

[Die Hard]

The G-14 also has redesigned wing bulges from the 4/6 (cut down on drag I imagine) and a taller v-stab and rudder. But yes all of the changes are the result of changes on the demands on the airframe, just like differences between the variants of every aircraft that ever flew.

Exactly. Strange that some people find such a simple concept so difficult to understand.

[Karnak]

So all handling changes (that are modeled in AH) from the G-2 to the G-6 and to the G-14 are direct results of changes in engine or armament, just like I said. Thank you. And the only change I'm proposing for the Pony is a 300 hp increase in WEP engine power in a late-1944 model.

If there were a later P-51D block that HTC could model and give it performance based on 150 octane fuel, sure, add it and perk it.  Add the 150 octane fuel to the Spitfire Mk XIV while they're at it too.

[moot]

When did I say they were redundant?

You didn't because you're after splitting hairs, not the big picture.  The 109 was the workhorse of the luftwaffe.  You can't have Aces High without an at least semi-fleshed out 109 family.  Germany was pretty much the lead actor in WWII.  It wasn't a sidekick actor in the air war of WWII.  
The G6AS is a big hole in the luftwaffe planeset, and so would the G14 or K4, or any other single 109 we have now, the same way a 150 octane P51 would be, if what we have really are only pre-'45 ponies.  HTC putting the P51H in the (very) old "next aircraft" poll alongside the P47N/M, Ta152, etc, is a clue that there is a gap to fill.

If there were a later P-51D block that HTC could model and give it performance based on 150 octane fuel, sure, add it and perk it.  Add the 150 octane fuel to the Spitfire Mk XIV while they're at it too.

Not without a higher boost 190A-5, an A-9, and a D-11.. And a 152H with the GM1 ballast removed

[Karnak]

Not without a higher boost 190A-5, an A-9, and a D-11.. And a 152H with the GM1 ballast removed

Sure, so long as they get perked.

[Die Hard]

You didn't because you're after splitting hairs, not the big picture.  The 109 was the workhorse of the luftwaffe.  You can't have Aces High without an at least semi-fleshed out 109 family.  Germany was pretty much the lead actor in WWII.  It wasn't a sidekick actor in the air war of WWII.  
The G6AS is a big hole in the luftwaffe planeset, and so would the G14 or K4, or any other single 109 we have now, the same way a 150 octane P51 would be, if what we have really are only pre-'45 ponies.  HTC putting the P51H in the (very) old "next aircraft" poll alongside the P47N/M, Ta152, etc, is a clue that there is a gap to fill.

The USAAF and the P-51 were not "sidekick actors" in the air war either. This thread is specifically about the P-51 plane set, not the 109; if you what to advocate the addition of the 109G-6/AS then start your own thread. The fact remains that in the game there are four 109's and four Spits covering 1943 to 1945, but only two P-51's. And the two we have really only cover 1943 and early 1944 in terms of performance.

[Anaxogoras]

Hardly. The 262 was a piece of junk.

Sour grapes.

[Karnak]

The USAAF and the P-51 were not "sidekick actors" in the air war either. This thread is specifically about the P-51 plane set, not the 109; if you what to advocate the addition of the 109G-6/AS then start your own thread. The fact remains that in the game there are four 109's and four Spits covering 1943 to 1945, but only two P-51's. And the two we have really only cover 1943 and early 1944 in terms of performance.

Three Spits, Mk VIII is 1943, Mk XIV is 1944 and Mk XVI is 1944, but there are reasons to have all three.  The Mk IX is from mid 1942.

[Die Hard]

The Mk IX is from mid 1942.

...and was still a front line fighter in 1943+

...but there are reasons to have all three.

Is there really no reason to have 2,000 hp late-1944 P-51's that historically match up to the 109K-4 and Spit XIV?

[Motherland]

Calling the G-2 a 1943 aircraft is a bit of a stretch as well, it was being replaced by the -6 by February of that year.