Aircraft speed chart

[gatt]

-ik-,
the C.205 actually WAS "just" a 400mph kite, at 23,000ft. Without WEP. And should climb to 20K in less than 6 minutes. We are really waiting for the FM fine tuning.


Vermillion,

sorry for my rough english, I didnt want to sound harsch, not at all.

All "Series 5" italian fighters, i.e. the C.205 "Veltro" (Greyhound) the Fiat G.55 "Centauro" and the Reggiane 2005 "Sagittario" (Archer), were engined by the license built DB605A1 (sometimes limited in rpm).

Some prototypes of the G.55 (called G.56) were powered by the mighty DB603A (1,750hp) and armed with 3x20mm. Even the Luftwaffe was impressed by the performance. Take a look at this G55, armed with 2x12,7mm and 3x20mm:

     


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 11-29-1999).]

[wells]

Gatt, do you have any published sea level speeds for the MC205?

[gatt]

Wells,

we have a 325mph at sea level.

[Vermillion]

Hristo has it right.

Anyone noticed lately how "uber" the P-51 is here? (It really has no bad characteristics here)

Also notice how we have a F4U-1 instead of the F4U-4, and the Fw190A8 instead of the Fw190D9, both of which would have fit the planeset better? And incidentally been as fast or faster than the Pony?

I smell a "HT loves the Mustang" conspiracy  

Just kidding



------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires "

[leonid]

For all I know, Dale's probably getting his yaya's before relinquishing the P-51D back to the realm of reality - hehe

Hey, it's still just a beta!
 


------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Now that would be funny  

------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.

[fats]

Vermillion:

Dunno, I would rather have the A-8 than D-9 based on WB.


//fats

[Hristo]

After all the stories of WB Dora weight/overweight/CG etc, I was expecting a fresh start of 190 in AH.

We didn't get the Dora, but have to fight P-51D and its AH FM in a bomber killer.

[Minotaur]

Anyone consider that the P-51D might have actually been superior?

It is also be worth considering that the P-51D was late war and it got generous doses of "What was Successful Before" or "This is What is Needed to Compete Against its Advisaries".  The P-51D is competing, with planes currently in the arena, that are earlier WW2 and less advanced.

I think one should back up opinions with data if one is to achieve some sort of foundation to ones claims.  (WTG Verm   )

I might like the P-51 only because a friend of my Dad let me sit in it when I was around 10.  I might like the 190 if I had been born on another continent and had the same repeated in that fine plane.    

I choose my own Hero's!  

Mino

[Hristo]

Not THAT superior, Minotaur.

It has all the best qualities of most planes, except roll rate.

And we get to fight it with planes it outmatches in most important areas. And still it gets more advantages it should not have.

[Minotaur]

Hristo;

cc

Please supply HTC with data you are referencing.  

For myself I would find it interesting as well.  My only foundation is "How it Flies in a Game".

Good Luck!  

Mino

[Hristo]

It flies wonderfully in the game. Like a toy.

It has more down elevator than 109.

It climbs with 109 right now.

And I believe that P 51D wing was no slow speed design. This one does TnB amazingly good. Zooms from the runway if needed.

Fuel modifier helps it, but I won't argue that.

Its guns are devastating. I wish I could have those in 190  

But most important, it is, among these advantages, put to fight planes it historically outmatched. Planes that would compete with it on the same footing are left out.

Instead of 109K-4 we have 109G-10, instead of 190D-9 we have 190A-8.

Don't get me wrong, 190 can hold its own here, but only because P 51D pilots are too sure of themselves. 109G-10 is not even seen in the arena nowadays.

Ever wondered why some die hard 190 pilots did not switch to this 190 we have ? They still fly Pony.

[fats]

Hristo:

Why do you seem to feel that the K-4 is superior to G-10?

"Bf 109G-10

Deliveries of the G-10, which was planned as a supplement to the K-series and which represented a connecting link between it and the G-series, began in the autumn of 1944. The G-10, production of which ran from October 1944 until the end of the war, resulted from conversion of older series, like the G-6 and G-14. As a result it was referred to as a 'bastard aircraft' in the Bf 109 type sheet. It was not actually a further development of the G-series, rather it represented an attempt to bring older, repairable machines up to the standard of the K-4, which was being manufactured in parallel, through a conversion process. The object was to supplement production of the new K-4 with the repaired aircraft of almost equal value in the cheapest manner possible."

"Bf 109K-4

While the K-1 to K-3 series, which got no further than the project level, were to retain the DB 605A power plant, the K-4 was conceived around the DB 605D and accordingly differed little from the G-10. In contrast to the G-10, K-series aircraft were not conversions of older machines, and unlike G-10 the vast majority of the aircraft delivered were equiped with the DB 605D engine, although a few exceptions are known among the early series aircraft which retained the DB 605AS engine...

...Thus the deliveries of the K-4 obviously began some time before those of the G-10...

...Like the G-10, MW-50 power boost was standard equipment on the K-4, and as a result the complete engine designation was DB 605DM."

The book; Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G and K series by Prien & Rodeike, goes on to list the differenes between G-10 and K-4 which are largely external differences such as antenna locations, access hatches  and so on. Both aircraft had same engine, almost identical fuselage and identical wing. Where does the marked difference come? Only thing I can think of is if we have DM 605AS equiped G-10, admitedly then the G-10/AS would be not like K-4. If we do have DM 605DM equiped G-10, then I can't see much differences between the two which would be notable in AH.


//fats

[Hristo]

You are right, fats, G-10 and K-4 are almost the same plane.

It is just that I used to shoot P-51D much more easily in WB HTH in my 109K-4, than in this G-10  


But then again, why are we left without the beautiful Dora, that's the real question.

[Lephturn]

First of all, the 6 .50s in the pony are not better than 4x20mm in my experience.  When I get pissed off at dyin in HO's driving the Pony, I switch to the N1k and splode people like hydrogen filled baloons.  Now I am not a great gunner, so others get better use out of the Pony's guns than I can, but they certainly aren't "uber" .50's.  Put 6 of 'em on target at convergence... and yeah toejam blows up good, but it should.  I also don't see 51's shredding B17's in a single pass.  I can't do it, and most others I see trying certainly can't.  Sure, there are a few experten around who shoot 20% gunnery and can do it, but that's because they are abnormally good gunners.  For your average Shmo like me, the .50's in the Pony seem to have their traditional strengths and weaknesses.  They have a high rate of fire, lots of ammo, and good range but with a downside of lower lethality compared to cannons.  Please, what takes me 3 passes to kill in the 51 just freakin' evaporates when I'm flying the C.205 or the N1k in a single burst.

Second, enough about the Pony doing TnB.  That's plain crap, it can TnB compared to a 190 yes, but the A8 is a truck.  What the Pony CAN do is E fight very well.  A good pony driver can maintain E, use the verticle, and "out turn" better turning planes for a short time.  Get it into a pure low E TnB situation however and it's dog meat to the N1k, Spit, La5, Macchi, or even the 109.  Want to prove me wrong?  Do some sustained turn rate tests and post your results, but this anecdotal stuff says nothing.

Gawd, I can just imagine the wailing and crying that's going to go on when a few experten start "out-turning" "better" planes in the F4U.    Lord help us if we ever get a P38!

Their may be some issues with the 109's power, or the Pony's climb rate, I don't know.  The rest of this anecdotal stuff you guys are whining about is just not true in my experience.  Sure there are a few experten who can do amazing things in the plane, but that's because they are really good, not because the plane is too good.

I know it's hard to admit, but when you get your bellybutton handed to you it's likely the PILOT, not the PLANE that's responsible.  Don't confuse uber-pilots with uber-planes.    


------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs