Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: aircat on October 13, 1999, 07:07:00 PM
-
well it SEEMS that they once again reduced the power in the stang... it was a long range plane that most often saw time as an escort at high alts. now it can barely climb. it took about 50% longer for me to get to 20k alt then it should. and it lost most of its flight characteristics. and the trim is better but its still 1/2 right rudder apon getting into the plane. climb rate is slower as is the climb speed.
apon reaching 20k I headed to a fight that was about 1k below and 6 k north west of my position... a 109 and another plane was going at it... I got there and the 109 leveled out and headed away ... even with my 1k alt advantige the 109 was losing me in level strait flight. he got back out to 7k away then truned towards me... I hear 3 light pings... not even heavy pings... I was then missing my entire tail section rudder elevator and all! did the leathality go up?
-
My subjective opinion on the P-51 is that it is severely underpowered in this game. I wish I had more technical facts, but this plane should be tearing up around the sky and right now acts like a heavy bomber.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Underpowered is the main problem.
-
Yes the stang seems very unimpressive powerwise. I am thinking they want to avoid B&Z fighters controlling the map. The shockingly slow climb and speed acumulation tells me they tweaked it lower. Also missing is the 51's altitude changes, it was much less effective <13k than in it's "gold" zone 13-5?(Can't remember it's low alt superchargers's kickout) but in AH it seems consistent above 3-4k, no real turn radius change I can note in high alt.
------------------
-
What is the power to weight ratio of P51 ? What is the power to weight ratio of 109 g10 ?
That should give you some clue. If only g10 had better aerodynamics (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Exactly Hristo!
Praise the Lord that the Germans didn't find a decent airframe for that DB605!
The Mustang was a dog as far as climbrate. Contemporary Spitfires, Messerschmitts could outclimb it at all levels, and the Fw 190 and La 5FN could do the same below 15000 ft or so.
For those of you scoring at home,
P-51D 1695hp at takeoff, 10,100 lbs normal loaded
5.96lb/hp
Me 109G-6 1800hp at take off, 6940 normal loaded.
3.86lb/hp
-
Some more stats
1695 hp packard built RR merlin V-1650
empty 7,125 loaded 10,100
max speed
395 at 5k
416 at 10k
424 at 20k
437 at 25k
Cruise speed 275 mph
Initial Climb 3475 ft
altitude of 5k in 1.17 minutes
10k in 3.3 minutes
20k in 7.3 minutes.
As you can see the plane as modeled in aces high is pathetic. I don't expect to be able to out-turn a BF 109 but I can expect to more than cream it's 375 mph top speed in my dust in a long climb. As it is the P51 just isn't climbing fast enough at all, in comparison to the climb of the 109. And yes.. the stang won't out dogfight it, more reason I want the full capability of it's speed. I swear the plane in AH cruises around 190-220 mph level flight. This is incredibly bad for a p51. I don't think they even would think of engaging at that speed.
------------------
//Greycap from red two, 2 109's turning in behind you//
//nothing behind Greycap, your all clear. Whats that now 33? beers on me at st. Croix//
Any guesses who Greycap was? <G>
-
Where did you get the figure 375 max for 109G-10?
Numbers Ive seen are
344mph sealevel
428mph at 24,250
Climb to 20k 6min
Whine all you want but dont bash my ride in the process (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
My ride is the La-5FN and I've come across a few of those 51s in AH. My assessment of them is that they will pull away from me easily, given enough time. It appears to zoom climb quite well. If its sustained climb is bad, that makes sense, because laminar wings make terrible climbing devices. Also, remember that the speeds you are reading are IAS, not TAS.
The 51 was a heavy plane that was designed to go fast and far. It could zoom climb quite well, but it really wasn't an impressive accelerator, and if it has no room to dive will be caught dead to rights in a turn fight.
-
Got some figures. Hard to read gauge, are the ticks roughly 12/13 MPH? Quick test not super accurate. YMMV
Whats the formula for converting IAS to TAS? Cant remember.
-------------------------------------------
109g10
24,250ft
290 300 mph (WEP)
265 275 mph no wep
sealevel
370-375 (WEP)
340-350 no wep
-----------------------------
P51d
24,500ft
290-300 Wep
280-285 no wep
Sealevel
360 365 WEP
355 No wep
BTW P51 accelerates very slowly compared to 109 (hard to get that Freightliner moving (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) )
-
-------------------------------------------
109g10
24,250ft
290 300 mph (WEP)
265 275 mph no wep
sealevel
370-375 (WEP)
340-350 no wep
-----------------------------
Hah, it was 375 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I pulled that off the top of my head as the fastest I have cruised the 109 and could remember. As for bashing the ride.. Pffft.
I use the 109 and La5 usually. P51 is too much of a pain. Unless I feel like 5 minute climbs and rollercoaster dives into a furball. Nothing gives a ruch like sniping with a mustang at 500 mph.
------------------
//Greycap from red two, 2 109's turning in behind you//
//nothing behind Greycap, your all clear. Whats that now 33? beers on me at st. Croix//
Any guesses who Greycap was? <G>
-
I assume everyone here understands that AH gauges display indicatated air speed and not true air speed?
HiTech
-
I,ve been doing somehunting around the net.... found the "Mustang sociaty" to which even Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager is a member of. BTW I was listening while HT told someone that at sea level that the 51 climbed at 3500 FPM well I will cut my own throat here (but only here) that the 51 had a ROC of 3,475 FPM
but when said and done it climbed to 5k in 1.17 minutes 10k in 3.3 min and 20k in 7.3 but enough of this I'll paste some links so that you all can go look for yourself!
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/aircraft/p51d.html (http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/aircraft/p51d.html)
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/p051i.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/p051i.html)
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/us/P51MUSTA.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/us/P51MUSTA.html)
BTW Funked, its not fair compairing the empty wieght of a 109 (not even the same model as the one in AH) to the take off wieght of a 51 thats a big diff considering take off wieght is full fuel and ammo!
Im not going to bash others rides just get things strait on this ride.
-
We understand that HiTech, it's just that we don't have any real way of figuring the actual FM performance than with the guage.
But you have to admit that when the p51 is getting slower in game eprformance than the 109 somethings not quite working right. I expect long climbs to altitude in the mustang, thats not the problem. The problem is when I get down on the deck and watch 109's and spit's keep up with or manage to overtake me in a mustang. Allowing for them getting some good speed trading alt for speed they still shouldn't be able to get within 500 metres after a minute and a half chase. That and when I get pulled into a scrap the one advantage a P51 has is that if I get a 900 metre head start I should be able to run from any fight. As it is it's just not working.
------------------
//Greycap from red two, 2 109's turning in behind you//
//nothing behind Greycap, your all clear. Whats that now 33? beers on me at st. Croix//
Any guesses who Greycap was? <G>
-
Except for 1 incident, I believe that 109 outclimbs p51 and p51 outruns 109 in AH.
Once I caught p51 in 5 minutes canyon chase. How ? He made gentle predictable turns, while I cut into his predicted path and let the geometry do the job. Kind of a large lead turn. When he came into dead end, I knew I will have him. He was still 1.5k away, but he had to climb that canyon wall. I started climbing gently, way before the dead end, while he traveled level, and started climbing steep at the last moment. Pitagora defeated him there. Not to mention he asked me on open channel if I was a warper and how could I accelerate so fast (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Same with dives. Of course p51 dives away from 109. If you don't follow directly, but choose course to meet him when he levels, you can catch up on him too. Thanks Fishu, for teaching me this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Fuel load plays big part in the game. These Spits with 25% fuel can be a real pain in verticals and climb against 109. P51 can do it too.
Hristo,
I/JG 51
(http://www.angelfire.com/ut/jg51/images/j86.gif)
Jagdgeschwader 51 “Mölders” (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/jg51/jg51.html)
-
Aircat:
That weight is a correct takeoff weight for an Me 109G-6 with internal fuel and ammo. Me 109G-10 should be very close. However Pyro says the Aces High plane weighs 7400lb, so use that. It's a far higher weight than I've seen published, but it's his game. Me 109G-10 weighs about 5800lb empty FYI.
The power:weight ratio is still far better than the P-51D and my point stands. Me 109G-10 should outclimb and outaccelerate the P-51D handily.
Sorrow:
Please read up on the aircraft in question!
The G-10 is a late model bird with performance well beyond the G-6 and earlier variants.
Read this:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap14.htm (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap14.htm)
Note that the G-10 is powerful and fast.
Read this thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000005.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000005.html)
Note that the Aces High G-10 uses the DB 605D.
Also note that both aircraft seem to be performing below spec.
I'm still fumbling around for some precise G-10 info, but performance should be similar to the Me 109K-4:
Maximum speed at 6,834 lb:
378 m.p.h. at sea level
452 m.p.h. at 19,685 ft.
435 m.p.h. at 24,610 ft.
Initial climb rate, 4,820 ft./min
Maximum climb rate (at 2,625 ft.) 4,880 ft./min.
Time to 16,400 ft., 3 min.
To 32,810 ft., 6.7 min.
To 39,370 ft., 10.2 min.
If I can get more specific info I will post it ASAP.
My point is that the Me 109G-10 is just as powerful as a P-51D but significantly lighter. Top speed may be slower but not by much. Climb and acceleration should be much better in the Me 109G-10.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-15-1999).]
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-1999).]
-
Today, I dove on a spit from about a 4k alt advantage in my P51. I pinged him a few times, but nothing major. Slowly, I was setting up for my killing shot. A few zoom climbs later I could no longer safely ignore the 109 G coming up from below. I decided to bug out. Although I had a full K on the spit in alt, plus .5 in horizontal distance, and I was at least 1.5 over the 109 G, they both caught up to me within approximately thirty seconds. I was not full speed when I began my extention, but then again, neither was the Spitfire IX. How did he catch up to me, if my plane had its historical superior horsepower?
Even allowing for the fact that the 109 G is a late war model and heavy horsed, the P-51 should be able to go faster than 200-250 in level flight. Shouldn't it?
------------------
Swoosh of the Skeleton Crew
-
I fly the 51..ALOT, and have also noticed that any 109 can catch it, plain and simple.
The other night I was in a 109, chasin a 51.
Was a full 4k behind him and also below.
took bout 3 or 4 minutes but i gained both speed and alt, soon he was dead. This should not happen IMHO. I was doin under 200 when the chase started, he was pulling away.
The 51 does about 305 at 10k, In the 109 i was doin bout 320 or so..climbing at 1000 fpm. Dont see how a 109 can do this..but in this game, it is so.
Granger
-
one thing NO ONE is taken into account.... the wieght to HP ratio means little (unless figuring acceleration and steep climb ability) the THRUST to weight ratio is what counts in long run when figuring top speed.
aero dynamics plays a part too.... in the instances that I have been caught in the 51 by other types of aircraft was not in canyons and not turns involved just a LOOOOOONG shallow dive then leveling out... not enough to give them the ability to cut an angle (if so they are so minute that would not be noticable) Ive had a spit dive steeper then me then come back up and stay on my tail... Ive have a 109 gentle climb then back down to me... and they are catching up from outragous lenths.... one 30 minute run they got clear from 6.3k to 600 (where apon they open fire and totaled me). I had ran from a fur ball due to no more ammo and I left the fight with about 1k advantage over the other planes... the fight was at about 7k I was about 8k...this CANT be cause of plane load... I had 50% fuel and NO ammo. and I have flown all alts and have yet to see 437 mph wether it be IAS or TAS it cant be so far off that the highest Ive seen is ~ 300 with wep..... that and had a strange inceadent when I dove on a plane from an extreme alt ( I was in a dive to get vis of a plane supposedly in area... found him continued to dive) at ALMOST 500 IAS the controls started to lock up.... I put trim full opposet but to no avail... why take a plane that had increadable record (19:1) kill/death ratio and turn it into a flying brick... and I doubt seriously that they will ever implement the special sights that the later war models did (later 51D and thent he 51K series). and yes I agree more then one plane needs work but some need more then others...
-
I posted this earlier, Hitech posted it afterwards, and now I'm going to post it again: Speeds are by Indicated Air Speed (IAS), not True Air Speed (TAS)!
As one increases altitude, the difference between IAS and TAS widens. You could have an IAS of 300mph at 20k+ and have a TAS of 400mph+, okay?! I can't remember the general ratios, but the whole phenomena is due to decreasing air pressure. The higher up you are the less the air pressure there is to determine air speed. Hence, the pitot tube(?) will measure a lower speed than is actually the case when at altitude.
-
Fine. Its IAS not TAS. But you are splitting hairs, dude. IAS, TAS, or ROFLMAOAS it doesn't matter, because we all use the same system. Nobody has proffered an explanation as to how or why, if the flight model is accurate, the 109 and the spit caught up to me. See, I get the impression that the P-51 is undermodeled. Prove me wrong or fix it.
-
Okay, Swoosh, I'm going to get my friend Hristo and we're going to do a test called chase. I'll be in a P-51D and he'll fly the Bf 109G-10. He'll take 75% fuel and I'll take 50%. We'll climb to 15k , then I'll take off in a dive while he tries to follow me. WEP on full.
30 seconds is not that long a time to build up maximum speed, especially with planes that probably have one of the highest acceleration ratings among WWII fighters: Bf 109G-10 and the Spitfire IX. The P-51D was poor in this category.
-
Here’s how I experience p51/109 matchup in Aces High.
109 can’t catch p51 in straight level chase with reasonable fuel loads for both planes ! Period.
BUT !
If p51 and 109 both start from low or medium speed, 109 will outaccelerate p51 and catch it. Try to measure time needed for 109 and p51 to reach top speed from 150 IAS or so.
If p51 goes into even shallow climb, 109 will catch it.
If fleeing p51 deflects control surfaces, forgets about coordinated flight or the plane is out of trim, 109 flying coordinated will catch it.
If 109 lead turns p51 who is stupid enough not to dive away, 109 will catch it.
Usually when p51 realizes 109 is catching up, it does a Split S or, if he is less experienced, starts scissoring or even flat turning. Zooming makes him a sitting duck. Split S is energy wasting maneuver, IMO. Works only if friends or friendly ack is below and pursuing plane disengages. The pursuer did not disengage because of the wonderfully performed Split S, but was not stupid enough to give away his energy in the enemy airspace.
Never have I seen p51 unload in front of me and dive away. Why, I don’t know. That’s what I would do if in p51 and with 109 behind me.
Now that I started this monologue, here is a question I ask myself when flying AH. If I sneak on enemy even from great range (d30 and far more), he almost never turns into me. Instead, 90% of pilots fly level until I get inside d10, and then try to shake me off their 6. Now, isn’t there a smarter tactic than this one ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) This defensive thinking falls into same category as expecting p51 to do miracles.
The incident I mentioned before was when I was winging with Leonid. He headed for home, while I decided to dive on a Spit and rtb too. I got the Spit, just as I noticed p51 closing in from d40. I had some 300 mph of speed, my plane had some 30-40% fuel and I zoomed away, and then started climbing at 165 IAS. Much to my surprise, p51 was catching up still. He probably had accumulated speed and converted it into zoom climb after me. This time I acted like a beginner, and instead of meeting him HO and disengaging, I hoped for climbrate to save me. It did not work !! I was forced to TnB, then others came and you can guess the result.
As for 19:1 ratio….Well, Luftwaffe was heavily outnumbered at the time, they were scrambling while p51s waited high in the air, their primary targets were the bombers, most pilots were very unexperienced, element of surprise was on the side of Allies, plane parts were not always available etc etc.
If Aces High had 109 flying against the odds, like in real life, you could gather same K/D ratio, I am sure. Here you don’t cruise at 30k, waiting above the bomber box for enemy to climb to you, and then pounce him and zoom away.
Hristo,
I/JG 51
(http://www.angelfire.com/ut/jg51/images/j86.gif)
Jagdgeschwader 51 “Mölders” (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/jg51/jg51.html)
-
found myself a IAS to TAS converter
AIRCAT and others;
437mph TAS at 25k is 290 mph indicated. Stang does this at that alt.
Speeds seem pretty close to what Ive seen written.
Edit: oops made a big typo sorry changed 219 to 290.
PS Pyro did you just move this thread to AC and vehicle section??? Trying to make my brain hurt eh? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by chisel (edited 10-16-1999).]
[This message has been edited by chisel (edited 10-16-1999).]
-
I've moved this topic to the appropriate forum.
With MW-50 the 109 has a slight speed advantage up to about 14K where it enjoys a larger speed advantage for the next 10K of altitude. After that the P-51 gets an increasing speed advantage as altitude increases. Without MW-50 and WEP, the P-51 is faster except in the 15-20K or so altitude range.
I'm documenting some of this stuff on the side. Don't hold your breath on it, but we should have plane pages up on our site at some point during the beta.
As to the TAS vs IAS stuff, I've grown pretty weary of it. It's not intuitive for people to know the difference and most people don't keep a whiz wheel handy to make the conversions. So what we've decided to do is add a secondary gauge to the airspeed indicator for TAS. It will show up as a little extra tick mark much like the 10K needle on the altimeter. Hopefully, that will put an end to the "why are the planes 200mph slow" questions for the most part.
As to the "prove it or change it" mentality- sorry it doesn't work that way. I'm not out to prove anything. If you think there's a problem that should be fixed, the way to go about it is to make a quantified observation and describe the problem with the obtained results.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
So, 109g10 IS faster than p51 at low and medium alt ? I guess all those p51 that got away from me were just better in keeping that E cushion (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Nevertheless, I like it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) And thanks, Pyro, for informing us.
As for TAS indicator in plane, please don't do it. If one never bothered to realize the difference, what is his knowledge of airplanes anyway ?
Hristo,
I/JG 51
(http://www.angelfire.com/ut/jg51/images/j86.gif)
Jagdgeschwader 51 “Mölders” (http://www.angelfire.com/ut/jg51/jg51.html)
P.S.
How's the chance of getting the Pfeil ?
-
ok, I can understand that the 109 is as fast if not faster from 15 to 20 k.... but why do they catch me at other alts and the spits catch me aswell? let me guess now your going to say they are faster from 12k to 17k right? for a plane that its main defence (that pilots swore upon) was to nose down slightly and run like a mother ****er.. why else the name "Runstang"? it came from the BF and FW that engaged and go advantage on only to have them duck and run.
ok speed aside... ROC is still very poor... cant take a decient ordinance and get off the ground without minor miracal or 2. I have checked SEVERAL climb speeds... none are close to historical data (3475 FPM at see level, no speed was givin with these tests) or what HT told me (3500 FPM at 175 at sea level) I got other numbers 3250 is the best at 175 at sea level (I even took the light version of 4 guns and just to make sure I expended all my ammo before take off) supposed to climb to 20k in 7.3 minutes but as of yet its closer to 8 minutes.
end conclusion... 51 cant climb cant turn cant out run the enemy... why bother putting it in?
I have flow 51 several time and against it several times... the 51 is truely correct is poor plane... once flying along I found 2 51s buzzing along over the canyons I had alt but I wanted to see something ... I taunted them then dove well below to give them the E advantage still just above the canyons... they were not rookies as they new how to fly formation and section an opponent.. but I found it was simple enough to fight them and type other taunts.. which considering my typing is pretty sad. toward the begging of the engagement I was told I was about to regret the side I was on by another pilot as he knew the 2 in the 51s... while fighting the ponies I had a member from me side spot us I yelled out so both side could here that they was my targets and for him to find his own.. he did.. and La5, which one HO and he was the La5 won... the La5 joined in hmm ok now I might be in trouble.. the fight lasted a long time... the La5 had been able to score to hits on me but no damage. the ponies couldnt get target other then some stray shots. I got both ponies and turned on the La5 where upon shortly after he bailed due to fuel problems. my question is me being a rookie aka DWEEB should I in a spit take the vetern ponies with out realy breaking a sweat? yeah it took time but wasnt a real challange.
-
hmmm... Im not so sure its that the Pony is bad, or even the La5 and 109. Its that the Spit so far excels against everything else it is dominating the arena in proportions that make WB's look like they are having Spit shortages.
For those that don't know, WB's is spit city, and its getting even worse here.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), *MOL*, Men of Leisure, Goldlandia
AW's: (verm) ACCS, Aerial Crowd Control Services, Cland
-
Aircat:
FYI the real flight test climb and speed figures were done with 6 guns and full ammo and internal fuel loads.
Go look at the other thread I gave a link to - both the Me 109G-10 and the P-51D seem to be performing a little worse than flight test data.
Guys like Wells and Hristo, they know what they are talking about. I trust their careful measurements over your heat-of-combat recollections.
When you say things like "P-51 was the fastest prop plane of the war" or when you try to use kill/death ratios to justify flight model changes, or when you show that you don't understand the technical details of the Me 109G-10, it really weakens your credibility.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-1999).]
-
aircat:
Do you 0G when you accelerate? If you don't, then that's certainly part of the problem you seem to have. Both spitfire and 109 will accelerate rather fast especially if 0Ging and compared to a P-51 that is not.
//fats
-
not all accounts are "heat of combat" I have takin them up several times doing various things. testing ROC with varied speeds. level alt speed checks. with full TO wieght. at reduced wieght (expending all ammo and taking 25% fuel). I have flown the 109 and in order to stop the high speed compression at speeds needed to catch or even stay with a pony and keep it controlable you have to apply 1 or 2 notches flaps which SLOW you down! if its not in the FM then you saying we have hackers? SOMETHING aint right. I posted TRUE data (which was not done by me or in the heat of combat and differs from the FM) but no one obviously listens.
-
I'm not going to comment on the speeds (other than to prove Pyro wrong--I have not one, but two whiz wheels sitting on my desk, AND an electronic E-6B!!!).
But as to the rate of climb... From what I've been seeing, the P-51 is just about right. I get around 3,000 fpm pretty easily, and that's about right for a sustained climb. I know this for two reasons. 1)That's roughly what the Stang POH said (it's been a while since I looked at it). 2)The stang is always outclimbed by the T-28. I know the T-28 would be getting 3,900 to 4,000 fpm at sea level...and that's about the difference I've seen between the two in RealLife (even though I've never been in a Trojan near sea level).
Besides, you shouldn't nit pick over climb rate. If it's within 200 fpm, it's plenty close. None of the airplanes I fly will show the same fpm from day to day (even though the density altitude is within 500 feet from day to day, and it's always loaded the same...).
But then, anything more than 1,500 fpm is eating up the sky to me (since in the 150 I might see 300 on a good day, and 950 in the Archer...)
blk (AT)
-
Sorry if I sounded like a meanie Aircat...
Comparing the two planes head-to-head is really hard due to pilots, fuel state, original energy state, etc.
For instance, I can fly the AH Me 109 to top speed without using flaps. So my results would show a lot higher speeds than your results.
BLK: I've been in a Trojan at sea level. I wasn't really climbing, just moving horizontally repeatedly. Ohh doh you mean the T-28, never mind! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Funked: Understood, I had no idea that the 109 in AH was the G10, in which case now the performance is more understandable. However I am a little bewildered why they use the G10? Isn't that kind of giving the 109 the ace card of it's whole development? In any case the performance against the P51 is clearer knowing what model it is.
------------------
//Greycap from red two, 2 109's turning in behind you//
//nothing behind Greycap, your all clear. Whats that now 33? beers on me at st. Croix//
Any guesses who Greycap was? <G>
-
Aircat: I don't seem to see where you posted your "TRUE" data. I've read detailed performance reports from North American and the USAAF, a bunch of comparative trials against other planes both foreign and domestic, pilot reports, pilot manuals and other bits and pieces. However, none of the stuff I've seen was stamped "TRUE". Maybe that's why all of the results varied, often by a lot. I've just never had the benefit of being able to see some "TRUE" data.
Friendly advice (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)- If you want to be taken seriously, make a meaningful post and quit with the whining rants.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
--- Sorrow: ---
I had no idea that the 109 in AH was the G10, in which case now the performance is more understandable. However I am a little bewildered why they use the G10? Isn't that kind of giving the 109 the ace card of it's whole development?
--- End ---
I thought the beta plane set was a late(ish) '44 to begin with, in which case G-10 is just about right. OTOH G-6 wouldn't have been much worse choice since its production wasn't completely stopped until Dec '44, overlapping the production of G-14 and G-10, with 12K+ planes built. How ever the G-6 in '44 is much different from what you are used to seeing in WB.
Now as for personal preference what would be the 'best' Bf 109, I would go with an early Bf 109G-6 or even Bf 109G-2. Both of them are enough of a dogfighters in otherwise '44 plane set to give some serious trouble at least based on observations in WB. In WB you won't get into trouble with P-51s and 190s until you have a Hurricane II or Spitfire V come to the scene as well.
//fats
-
sorry for mentioning that *I* posted tru data... it was misworded I had placed a few links to informations and stats about the P51 A through K series. and as far as whining, Im not trying to sound like a whiner, just making observations and relating what I observed. I will say Im not THE expert. but I knew the 51 has its weaknesses and I just figured its strong point wasnt one of the weaknesses... so I guess this thread is over as being a tech talk... now who ever is filling my gas tanks with low octane and my wings with rocks please stop?!?!
just one question..... sorry.... is it POSSIBLE the loadouts are to heavy..? the biggest problem is not even getting off the ground with ground attack ord.
and a question for the Dev. crew... any plan on putting in the K model or late D with the gyro sights? prolly impossable with the sights being .BMP
-
Aircat
just took a p51 offline and got it off the grnd with no probs carrying 100% fuel,2 1k bombs and 6 rocks. True, climbrate was low, but this sucker was hvy.
Took off from 3 without going off end of rnwy at sea level, no flaps and not using wep.
-
Aircat, I hired some sheep to put lead weights in your plane when you weren't looking. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Sorrow, I think they wanted to make sure that the initial plane set was competitive. But the G-10 is a reasonable choice. If they wanted to be nasty they could have used the K-4. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
end conclusion... 51 cant climb cant turn cant out run the enemy... why bother putting it in?
Because somebody can still fly it effectively and enjoy the challenge it gives.
And i'm pretty sure it can outrun most enemies. Except Fw 190D 'langnase Dora', of course (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Oblt. jochen 'Stern von Afrika' 2./ Jagdgeschwader 27 'Afrika'
-
Who says the P-51 can't turn? The AFDU comparison says it "...had no difficulty in out-turning the Messerschmitt(Bf109G6)."
-
No worries Aircat. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I'm not arguing against your point, just how it's made. I need something more quantitative than who shot down who in what. And asking stuff like why we even bother doing a certain aircraft doesn't come across as constructive.
As for using combat situations to make a real analysis, it can't be done. The only thing a combat situation can do is to warrant further investigation in a controlled test. There's just too many unknown variables otherwise. This is something that anybody can do.
Back in my AW days, I had a certain tactic that I loved to use that would often get people complaining about how screwed up the flight models were or that I was cheating. What I would do is take a F6F(lacking in top end speed but a good dogfighter with a good dive) and position myself at alt around a furball that is being bnz'd by P-51s, FWs, etc. I would position myself far enough away from the furball so that I usually didn't register on anyone's threat-meter. What I would do is watch for the BnZer's try to make easy pickins out of a low-alt stall-fighting furball. I would try to set myself up perpendicular to their run and as they commenced it, I would start a high speed dive to the point where I expected them to come out. They usually would do a quick check and not see anything threatening and then start their run. Once started, their attention shifted to their intended target and my actions went unnoticed. As they made their pass through the furball they would try to extend a bit and then notice that a statistically slower plane is accelerating out of the furball and on to their bellybutton to shoot them down. I've seen people go on tirades about that because they assumed that I came from out of a stall-fighting furball to chase them down.
I used a lot of other tactics as well that were predatory on people making incorrect assessments of situations. Even though everybody knows better, you'd be surprised at how often people equate co-alt with co-E in practice.
Anyway, what this gets at is that I've seen tons of complaints both as a player and as a producer that don't mean anything by themself. Turning up the volume on these types of complaints has the reverse effect, it often drowns out those things that may be valid. If you see something that you think is incorrect, the best way to report it is with documented facts. For example, you could say that a 109 chased down your P-51 at 27K. That by itself doesn't mean a whole lot to me. But if you said that you tested a 109 and a P-51 at a given loadout and throttle setting at that altitude and found something wrong, that would mean a lot.
You ask if it's possible the loadouts are too heavy. It's not just possible that some things are wrong at this stage, it's a given. Once everything gets settled out, we'll publish our figures and then you can criticize my interpretations and how they don't match your data. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'll give my speech about aircraft data one day. My attitude towards it has changed greatly in the last four years. I can even "prove" how a Zero is faster than a Bf 109G. Not that it is or that it will be in AH, but just to prove a point. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Well said Pyro. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(God I'm an ass-kisser)
But seriously, I will summarize everything I have learned about engineering and simulations in my career: The more you learn, the more you find out you don't know or can't predict!
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-21-1999).]
-
LOL,
Does'nt the evolution of most arena type play generally migrate to two major styles or classes of planes. They are TnB or BnZ. Of these two types, usually one plane comes out on top, as being the best in its respective class. These are the planes people can be the most successful in.
The Spit XXX or the 109 XyZ, the best climber and TnB variant. The P51X or the FW109 Xyz the best E fighter and BnZ variant.
I was always saddened to see so many wonderful planes in the arena that just did not get used very much. The top 2 or the top 4 get used the most.
This is true in games, where only pride is at stake, or during wartime when your very life is at stake. You are going to pick the plane that gives you the best odds of winning.
The problem always starts when people fall in love with a certain plane. This plane should be the best, because they like it the most. Realizing the plane they love, just does not make the top 4 list. That is tough.
True excitation is when someone in an inferior plane, consistently wins. Now, that is the supreme in any Multiplayer Sim. It is the trade mark of an exceptional pilot. Skill, experience and tactics make up for alot of airplane.
Mino
-
Along those lines Minotaur...
I enjoy flying the 'unpopular' planes because
the majority of folks become so used to flying with and fighting against the same "arena standards" that they forget what an F4F, P40 or Hurricane can do ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
--Westy
-
The P51 is a superb plane in AH IMHO. That's about all I fly, and I have lots of success with it against all planes. It's like any other plane, you have to use it's strengths and exploit the others weakness. No, I can't out run 109's they always catch me if I don't fly smart, except on the deck, then I can usually keep my distance. Spits, LA's, just leave them in your dust. It amazes me how many people take off from a field to close to the action! Take a little time, grab some alt, the 51 wiil work for you. Keep your speed up and you can always out dive any 109 as long as you have alt, they will compress and break off if they are smart. Then all you do is extend and come back for more, it just takes patience to fly it. Enjoy!
ts
-
Well, I hadn't flown the Pony since the early days of the beta, so I took her out for quite a few spins over the weekend to see if I agreed that she was a broken down nag, or a fine quarterhorse filly.
And before anyone asks, I flew it in a very reserved classical BnZ style, with plenty of patience (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I pretty much only saw one place that I thought the Pony was deficient, and that was in Acceleration. The P-51 was extremely slow in getting up too speed, and I often had to dump much more alt than I would normally expect to get up a full head of steam. This allowed much slower planes to run me down occaisonally, primarily the Spitfire, and not the 109 that the people above had more trouble with.
I did quite a bit of reading on acceleration and drag, primarily in Americans Hundred Thousand. From the data presented there, I feel that the Pony in AH is not quite right, most likely in the acceleration/parasitic drag department.
FYI the P-51 was #3 in acceleration of all American Fighters, behind the P-63 KingCobra and the P-39 AirCobra. So if AH is correct (which is possible) the other American Iron is gonna be in a hell of alot of trouble.
One quote (taken from my memory) that interested me the most, was that in a purely vertical dive (90 degree's) it shouldn't take more than a few thousand feet for most american fighters to reach their posted dive speed limits (500 IAS for the P-51). In some very unscientific testing I performed, I didn't see anywhere close to this kind of acceleration.
Right now I am looking at the data and trying to figure out some more scientific methods to confirm what I am getting at. More on this later.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/emote/Snoopy.gif)
-
I have done a lot of flying in the 51 since reading this thread. The times I had flown it before this thread I had been "caught" by primarily the 109 and to a much lesser degree the Spit and LA-5.
The post by Hristo (a terrific 109 pilot and a gentelman to boot) pointed out to me some of the things I was doing wrong. I was flying it like a WB runstang and it doesn't work that way here.
Since then I have been able to outrun every 109 that chased me except one and a barrel roll saved me on that one. I did manage to survive the encounter. He (don't know who it was) had gone into a a shallow dive to pick up some speed and I was just flying level with wep on. He managed to get close enough to start firing and my barrel roll managed to avoid the bullets. I still had good control at near 400 indicated and he didn't which gave me the opportunity to go into a shallow dive and pull away while he was recovering.
What I have done to insure my ability to leave the area when it got too hot is to start from a field at least 2 sectors from the action and climb to at least 20+k alt. Since I normaly fly for the Knights this is not hard to do :-).
Most of the time I climb to 25k or a bit higher. I will carry drop tanks and cruise an area I feel will give me an opportunity to drop in on an unsuspecting con. I have given myself a hard deck of 10k so that I can maintain enough alt to make a shallow dive when other non friendlies show up.
Flying this way takes a lot of patience and is time consuming and some may call me a bit of a coward when I don't engage more than one at a time, but I have been able to land most of my sorties this way and in time perhaps I can also increase my kill score too. I don't get many this way, normally a single and an assist, but I survive.
You also can't wait too long to start your getaway, if that 109 is within 1k your goose will probably be cooked in short order because he can outaccelerate you. I can get up to 500 indicated pretty quick, but not as quick as the 109 gets to its 400.
Straight and level, on autolevel with WEP on I can maintain what appears to be about 385 to 390 indicated after dropping down to the deck in a high speed shallow dive.
It's interesting when you start pretending you real life is in jepardy, makes for a much more satisfying game for me.
MarkAT
-
Vermillion just remember three things:
1. The AHT acceleration stuff is all calculated - not flight test data.
2. It was calculated at a fairly high speed - 250 IAS. A fast but heavy plane like the P-51 will do better here than at low speed. The power to overcome drag scales with the cube of speed. As you go to lower and lower speeds the ammount of power available to accelerate the plane becomes much larger. So at 150 (for example) the importance of thrust:weight ratio is far higher than the importance of thrust:drag ratio. If the calcs in AHT were done at 150mph instead of 250, the results would be much different.
3. The U.S. fighters do not compare well at all to the Me 109 or the Spitfire in thrust:weight ratio. So even though the P-51 is the 3rd best of the planes in AHT, including the foreign planes in the same analysis would put the P-51 well down the list.
-
I'm sure theres info out there to acceleration rates to the differant speed... like 0 to take off speed then TO speed to 175 0-200 0-225 0-250 ect ect ect. if we can get the data then we can create a performance curve for available power/thrust to drag/wieght ratio.
-
Funked, Aircat:
Check in the different sections of AHT, the initial sections on acceleration & drag, and then the later chapters on the P-51 itself, and the last one on performance. Its in different tables, graphs, and bits and pieces, but I think the data is all there (at least for the P-51).
And according to the references AHT sites, its actual NACA flight test performance data, not calculated data.
Thrust is fairly easy to calculate as a function of horsepower and propellor efficency (AHT assume's 80% in example calculations, but Wells tells me that its a function of IAS).
Parasitic drag or zero-lift drag can be calculated with the the drag coefficent Cdo (constant listed in AHT and other sources), total wing area (constant), and the drag coefficent correction factor (function of %mach limit vs alt, which is given in AHT as a graph). FYI the only drag correction factor charts I have ever seen are for the P-51 and the P-38 in AHT, while drag coefficents themselves are somewhat easier to come by, but not easy.
However I haven't figured out how to calculate induced drag. AHT gives an example calculation of the relationship between parasitic drag/induced in relation to speed. BUT they don't give the equation used to calculate (or the variables, ie data, needed) the induced drag itself.
If someone can give me that equation, it would be quite simple to do a graph like aircat mentions in a spreadsheet, and then do controlled tests in the game to see if it is close.
Still looking for the induced drag calculations (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/emote/Snoopy.gif)
-
I'll check the AHT accel. table again, but as I recall it's all calculated. And that prop efficiency is a pretty large question mark.
I agree that you can do some good calculations though. I spent some time working up a spreadsheet to explain how a Yak-3 could easily stay with a P-51D for several miles after a dogfight. I didn't take induced drag into account, but it won't matter much unless the planes have a drastically different wingloading or lift coefficients. And I fudged the prop efficiency.
To do it right, you need the drag (both flavors) and lift coefficients.
And the variation in propeller efficiency with airspeed is not negligible. I'm not sure how WB or AH treats this.
If you want to do a spreadsheet, contact Wells for help. I know he has already worked out lift and drag for WB planes c. version 2.01.
Once you get it set up, run it at 250 IAS and you'll see the P-51D getting edged by most of the axis planes from the same period of the war.
But a real eye opener is to run it at 150 IAS. At that speed the drag is not nearly as important as the weight, and the light planes really scoot away. Often they can gain enough advantage between 150 and 250 IAS to stay ahead for quite a long while.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-26-1999).]
-
P.S. Alternately you can kinda do what Aircat said. Collect Speed vs. Time data for the AH planes and check for power/weight and power/drag ratios. But again you have the unknown prop efficiency and two drag coefficients to deal with. If you are serious about it, talk to Wells, he's the masta. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Verm:
Check the numbers themselves, not the rank. Dean lists the acceleration under the stated criteria at 3.85 Ft/Sec/Sec. Try that against the AH P-51 and I'm sure you'll find a similar result. Keep in mind that as your velocity increases, your acceleration decreases due to thrust decreasing and drag increasing.
BTW, if that figure was your car's acceleration rate at 0-60, it'd take you 23 seconds to get to 60mph. It's not exactly the kind of acceleration that pins you back in your seat.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
.........
[This message has been edited by aircat (edited 10-26-1999).]
-
Aircat: Why are you posting this all over? A single post would suffice, even better just a single link to Elevon. Pasting huge amounts of text into a thread is not very nice to those who are reading it. Doing it in multiple threads is downright rude.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
sorry didnt notice it was in multipul threads. I open up to 6 threads at once so one Im reading and the others are loading. and I minimzed one window after hitting submit and brought up a different one and thought I hit the close like I often do. so copied and pasted into wrong room. as for not just giving the link few ever go and read something at another sight.
(now why is I get yelled at for multipule threads when Ive seen other POST multiple threads and also there are others that write 10 times this much, not trying to start arguement but why yell at one and let others pass?)
-
scratch last post I'll just edit the posts.
-
Aircat you're askin' for it... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW the 4-gun P-51D loadout is mentioned in America's Hundred Thousand and some other sources as well. Even if it wasn't "official" it was the kind of thing your crew chief could do for you.
-
Thanks for all the answers and help guys. I am just an engineer (who sometimes gets obsessed on a technical issue) that is trying to find out and learn all he can, sorry its in the blood (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Pyro: I appreciate the equations and info (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I wasn't trying to imply you were wrong, merely looking for data that would support or disprove, my opinon and feelings on the FM's. You always ask for hard data don't you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Funked: In AHT, check out pages 112-113, specifically Graph 12 - "Drag Coefficent Correction with Mach Number for P-51D" and Table 6 "Fighter Drag Data". These are referenced to North American Report NA-46-130, 2/6/46. See also page 377, under References, several listed are pertinent to drag coefficents and acceleration, and are NACA and North American reports. Also see pages 592-593, on Profile Drag Coefficent Summary and Drag Coefficent Rise with Mach Numbers (referenced at end of chapter). And lastly pages 603-604, concerning Comparison of Level Flight Acceleration Capability (and see end of chapter for references)
Now to just track down some of these reports on the NACA Technical Reports Server http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/ (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/)
Or maybe we could just convince Francis Dean to write the equivalent of AHT for the British, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians, and if he has a little spare time the Italians and French (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/emote/Snoopy.gif)
-
Hehe!!! Many a newbie has come to grief, me included, by thinking the Pony was a super kite. In the hands of an experten it's deadly but in newbies', powder puff. My first, & still, flights/combats are "experiences" with grave outcomes for me mit this Allied Iron. It has a lot of good stuff but on AH or WBs, it doesn't have numerical superiorty & I "think" there in lies "some" of the mystery when comparing to actual real life data.
FWIW,
Good Hunting!
-
Thanks Vermillion.
Yes I wish there was something out there like AHT for foreign planes. Who knows, with all the info we are finding, maybe we should write it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
As for 19:1 ratio….Well, Luftwaffe was heavily outnumbered at the time, they were scrambling while p51s waited high in the air, their primary targets were the bombers, most pilots were very unexperienced, element of surprise was on the side of Allies, plane parts were not always available etc etc.
Well, I don't know about all this physics BS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif), but I do know that Hristo suffers from the common misconception about the 8th AF P-51s only doing well when the Luftwaffe was "outnumbered." The 4th Fighter Group scored about 400 kills in a 4-5 month period (February to June 1944) at a time when most of the 8th AF was NOT able to accompany the B-17s all the way to Berlin.
In my not-totally-educated opinion, the difference in "simulated" performance vs. RL performance comes down to: a) the relatively low altitude of most Sim combat; b) Icons and lack of atmospheric phenonmena (e.g. - clouds); c) the inability of sims to fully simulate the impact of things like the 109's cramped cockpit; d) the existence of Netlag, which often enables people to get off what seems like an impossible shot, but isn't... from their perspective; and e) the fact that AH is in its "Warbirds 1.11" stage with regard to being able to do things like dropping flaps & gear at any speed.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
"On 27th November, we tried some new tactics, it was technically speaking a strafing raid. But we used that as a ruse, hoping to draw out their fighters. The Mustangs of the 353rd Group arranged themselves in a bomber formation and our planes flew the standard zig-zag escort pattern above them. The idea was to fool the German radar and scramble the interceptors. It worked almost too well. They threw themselves at us 100 miles southwest of berlin, north of Leipzig. The enemy pilots must have had coronaries when they discovered what they were attacking -- not B17s, but more than 100 fighters spoiling for trouble. Out pulses jumped, too, when we saw the hornet's nest we'd stirred up, for they came, not by the dozens or scores, but like insect like clouds we called "gaggles". For whatever reason, they decided to hit this raid with everything they had.
"It was the biggest concentration of enemy airplanes I had ever seen! They came in two clusters of 80 to 100 planes each. I'd seen 100 all together before, but here were two groups that big, mostly Fock-Wulfs.
They were coming at us almost head-on, at 11 o'clock; we turned into them as they passsed and all hell broke loose.
"I fell on a straggler who broke smartly and ran for the deck. Letting him go, I turned and went back where the fighting was, with wingman Ray Wolf close beside me. I picked out a 190 ahead at about 31,000 feet, closed to within 250 yards before he knew what was happening, and hammered him with a burst that made flashes all over the fuselage. When he didn't do anything, I followed up with another, and he rolled over slowly, too slowly, and fell into a spin. The pilot must have been dead. I turned away looking for targets. There were airplanes darting all over the sky."
'Bud' Anderson, and the rest of the 357th FG's pilots, had a field day. 'Kit Carson got five, Chuck Yeager claimed four and Anderson three -- these later went into the records as two and a probable'. The group had put up 49 P51s and came home with a score of 31 enemy fighters destroyed, which at that time was a record, for the loss of a single P51'.
(Osprey Aircraft of the Aces, Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force)
It wasn't always 5 to 1 against the Germans, this is just one of the many cases where Allied fighters were outnumbered and won, allied fighter pilots weren't unexperienced, untrained and stoopid, compared to the Germans, as you imply, Hristo. Some of the top scoring U.S. Aces also had a successfull career in the Pac before moving to the ETO. One of them being Col John landers who was an ace in the Pac then shot down 14.4 German planes in the ETO.
------------------
1./Jagdgeshwader 51 "Mölders"
-
My ten pennies worth
Historical data and kill ratio:
Kill ratio is very often really unreliable. You would have to cross check each victory claim with enemy losses.
And claim is the hurting bit
The German claims process was one of the most reliable and they still over claimed...
(They are the most easy to cross check and it still is very difficult)...
The US and Uk were not as rigorous and the more difficult to estimate. It is acknowledged that they overclaimed even more.
Flight model:
It is really really difficult to find accurate and relevant data for a given aircraft especially if it’s from the axis forces.
The worst bit is that it can be misleading.
i will give you two examples.
There was test conducted by the Uk and US to compare the fw 190 and the allied machines
So you say fine that will give us something to compare.
in 42 the UK used a A3 (with a de-rated engine) and in winter 43/44 they used a 109 f (the NSAM one). It was believed to be a A8 at the time.
I have seen those two tests in the UK archive
They both quote the speed of the Fw190 A at 390 @ 21 k and it is true for a A3 with a de-rated engine and for a F8 that not the case for a real A3 to A5 (420 mph @ 22 k).
For the A8, I am not sure yet i have weight and engine problems...
Anyway back to the P51D
in the UK archive they claim that the Max speed was 420 mph
I always believed that it was 437. If you read the test it says that the plane was in fully operational mode without external tank. I guess it means that the plane tanks were full, it had guns and ammo and the tanks attach points (it did not have the tanks). May be it had the Packard engine I do not know why there I such discrepancies in the speed. I can not tell because I do not have enough info….
My point being that it is really easy to find official data that contradict common knowledge or other official data and unless you have proof that the research has been thorough. The information may not be the one you actually want or need.
As for the game result of the plane compared to its real life.
It very difficult to simulate the spotting and plane recognition, That would limit the type of plane per country and add a recognition process (which will be dependant of your video…) you would need condensation trail, sun reflection.
As well, you would need campaign type setting and some sort of evolved supply structure (marine warfare, land warfare, other front’s etc in order to uses the aircraft in close to life situation.
-
To SnakeEyes & Nath,
By 1944, the average Luftwaffe pilot was lucky to get 60 hours of flying time in their primary aircraft before participating in combat. For the USAAF and RAF it was in the hundreds.
If you want to recreate similar conditions in AH, get nine new guys who have flown the 109 and 190(okay, and maybe played M$ Flight Sim) for no more than six days, and one guy who's been flying either for a year, then pit them against ten new guys in P-51Ds who've been flying for a month, or two.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Nath, what is your explanation for 31:1 K/D ratio, in that battle against the odds...Allies were outnumbered, there, right ?
------------------
Hristo,
I/JG 51
Jagdgeschwader 51 Mölders (http://jg51.cjb.net)
-
Superior Plane and experienced pilots.
------------------
1./Jagdgeshwader 51 "Mölders"
-
The experience level of a LW pilot was substantially less in August 1944 than it was in March 1944. And, still, a relatively small number of P-51 Fighter Groups cleaned the Luftwaffe's clock in February, March, April and May 1944. By June/July, the Luftwaffe was avoiding encounters with Allied fighters at virtually all costs, because they had lost so many planes and pilots.
PS - When the 4th FG flew their first P-51 sorties, they hadn't even been fully familiarized with the aircraft (and I believe the first mission was to Berlin). Blakeslee's comment was that they could "learn on the way."
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-12-1999).]
-
those saying that the allied forces had the prior training: heres a little tid bit. I can not remember the pilots name but will look it up if need be.
this pilot hade a few hours in a piper craft his father bought after anouther pilot had crash landed it in his fathers tree. he paid 50 bucks for it at that time. his son flew it after getting BASIC instructions. he put in very few hours in it before the war started. when he got to the service his training consisted of about 20 - 30 hours in a class room. then they was ushered out to some planes (P-40s) and they said get in and get used to your new plane. they hadn't even went over handling characteristics of the war machine. he was like any other teen ager at the time and buzzed the local cattle farms. his flight lasted only a few hours. he was then sent to the front lines in his P40 he also flew it to the field he was stationed at. a few days later he had his first combat mission with only somewhere in his teens of hours in the craft. later they was switched to the P51D fresh off the line..... again they basicaly said heres the keys go for a spin. a few hours later he returned after buzzing Europian farmer fields this time. and had his first mission in the craft the next day (he was still a teen at this time).
So I guess the 60 hours in their craft to get familur in thier craft was alot considering.
something else strikes me odd... in another post about the FW 190 it is supposed to have a climb time to 20k a little over 9 minutes but in AH its 7 minutes 15 seconds the P51D is supposed to have a climb to 20k in 7 minutes 18 seconds but has a climb time over 8 minutes........... the P51D also is supposed to have a sealevel climb rate of 3,475 FPM with standard load and wep. I have tried it and even with only 25% fuel all ammo expended and the 4 gun version used the closest I have came was ~3,275 FPM. also the FW 190 has a fake high 6 view (yes I know and I am not trying to start a FW consiracy here as in Brand W) the top canopy bar does not extend clear to the rear.
-
Aircat - The bar did not extend all the way to the rear on the early-style Fw 190 canopy depicted in AH.
Later on when the blown bubble canopy was introduced, some of them had a brace going all the way back, some had the brace going half-way, and some had none. This hood was used on the Fw 190A-8, F-8, G-8, and D-9.
But the early-style hoods (by far the most common) had the bar only going half-way back.
Also I've been studying a lot of Fw 190A test results, and the climb numbers are highly variable.
I've got some as low as 2100 fpm and some as high as 3800 fpm. I'm guessing the variation is due to state of tune, external stores, internal weight variations, fuel type, power setting, MW-50, something like that.
-
Superior Plane and experienced pilots.
More likely inferior plane and unexperienced pilots on the enemy side.
I wonder what would happen if they met experienced 109 pilots from JG 1, for example.
Still, there is Hartmann's story of shooting 4 Mustangs in one sortie in his 109G. Later he had to bail when he was outnumbered by 8:1 or something like that. Good for our JG morale, don't you think, Nath ?
------------------
Hristo,
I/JG 51
Jagdgeschwader 51 Mölders (http://jg51.cjb.net)
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 11-12-1999).]
-
And what if JG1 ran into the pilots of the 4th FG in March 1944, when many of them had 2 years experience under their belts?
Here's a quote from American Eagles, by Thomas McKelvey Cleaver:
"During March and April, 1944, German pilot losses exceeded total combat losses for the previous two years. These were the 'old hares,' the experienced pilots without whom an air force is a mere shell. Their replacements, undertrained youngsters barely able to fly their FW-190s and Bf-109s straight and level were only barely better than no replacements at all."
The P-51B pilots from groups like the 4th FG took a very heavy toll on the Luftwaffe's core of experienced pilots... and they did it without a numerical advantage over the Luftwaffe (it wasn't until June or so that the 8th AF's order of battle shows the majority of its FG flying 51s).
In other words, this stuff you're spouting about the Luftwaffe's pilots being inexperienced and outnumbered really only applies to the Luftwaffe after the early P-51B flying Fighter Groups wiped them out.
Does that mean that AH's P-51 isn't modeled properly... not necessarily. It just means that your statements are substantially flawed with regard to the historical record.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Ok, looks like we could do this forever. Thread started with doubts in proper P-51D modeling, which was cleared, it seems. And then, after replying to 19:1 kill ratio, I was drawn into the type of discussion I dislike, away from pure plane performance and numbers.
Here's my last try:
To me, Luftwaffe had great individuals. Pilots who started from glider training in 30s (some said it was the best E training they could get), gathered experience in Spain, developed new tactics and formations, then fought for almost 5 years of in just about every European front. They flew mostly 1 plane type, not an unimportant factor. Real aces, with scores way beyond 100 and 200, some even 300. And their kills were never like Allied "decimal" scores etc. Sure the best scorers fought on Eastern front, but some of these individuals shot significant number of Western flown aircraft. And now you say there comes P-51B, outnumbered, and shoots down most of those aces in 2 months period of 1944, just to leave Luftwaffe with newbies only ? Remarkable achievement, but I can hardly believe it.
P-51B was better in many important aspects than LW planes of the time: speed, dive and range. I'll leave guns discussion to someone else, and turn performance was not that important, IMO.
Pilot experience ? How could anyone know who shot who ? And even best pilots can lose against newbies if put in bad situation. Who was an ace there, and who was a newbie, we can never know.
But I won't argue anymore, since there were many other factors than plane performance and pilot experience. Mission objectives, elements of surprise, intial advantage, formation setups, plane condition, supplies...most of these come to mind.
But I would like to go back to the subject of this thread.
I consider P-51D the best streak machine in AH. Just like it was in real life. Also, 190A-8 is no match for P-51D IMO. 109G-10 can give it a run for its money, and rightly so. Still when I fly 109G-10, I consider P-51D the most dangerous opponent, besides other 109G-10.
Quantity or pilot experience can't be modeled, and luckily late war reliability or fuel quality on LW side is not modeled.
So, I will stick to flying now (after I get new pots (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)). And yes, I like to shoot down P-51s, even more after this thread.
------------------
Hristo,
I/JG 51
Jagdgeschwader 51 Mölders (http://jg51.cjb.net)
-
Well... believe it or not, the statistics are available. Statistics from both sides confirm that the Luftwaffe lost an incredible number of planes and pilots in March and April 1944. And data is also available showing which groups were equipped with the P-51B at that time. The idea that the USAAF fighters outnumbered the Luftwaffe in early 1944 is a complete myth.
As for knowing which pilots fought whom, it is uncommon to know, but there are a few situations where it is pretty much known. For example, many researchers agree that Don Gentile shot down one of the LW's leading aces in 1 on 1 combat during April 1944 (I'd have to look up the guy's name). Don wasn't some rife newbie, neither was the Luftwaffe ace, and the battle is estimated to have lasted several minutes... at which point Don finally got the best of him. The point being, given relatively equal pilot skill, the 51 could definitely hold its own.
Atmospheric conditions affect both sides. That's really pretty much moot IMO.
In any case, you're saying that you don't believe the data, and that the discussion is now over... sorry, that don't wash in my book, pal. This 'historical data' is nearly as verifiable as NACA test data... it just doesn't have a direct link to aircraft performance (although it obviously implies a few things). You can chose to believe whatever you'd like... but the fact of the matter is that a handful of P-51B FGs (along with one or two P38 groups) from the 8th AF decimated the Luftwaffe in March and April 1944.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Heres an encounter between John Godfrey of the 4th FG flying a P-51B against 190D, perhaps it will change your opinion on Allied pilot's skill.
"A plane was approaching and because of its long nose I thought it was a Mustang. Turning into it I received a shock, it was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109, but a new Focke-Wulf, its long nose was the latest improvement of the famed FW. These planes with the longer noses were rumored to have more horsepower than their predecessors, and were capable of giving Mustang a rough time. We met practically head-on and both of us banked our planes in preparation for a dogfight.
Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire, but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, and gaining aspeed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail. Time was in his favor, he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land anywhere below him. I still had 400 miles of enemy territory to fly over before I could land. Something had to be done. Throwing caution to the wind I lifted a flap, dove and pulled up in a steep turn, at the same time dropping a little flap. The G was terrific, but it worked, and I had the Jerry nailed for sure. Pressing the tit I waited, but nothing happened, not a damned thing. My guns weren't firing.
By taking this last gamble I had lost altitude but had been able to bring my guns to bear while flying below the FW. With his advantage of height he came down, pulled up sharp, and was smack-dab on my tail again. The 20 mm. cannons belched and I could see what looked like golf balls streaming by me. A little less deflection and those seemingly harmless golf balls would have exploded instantly lupon contact with my plane. "Never turn your back on an enemy" was a byword with us, but I had no choice. Turning the plane over on its back I yanked the stick to my but. My throttle was wide open and I left it there as I dove. The needle stopped at 600 miles per -- that was as far as it could go on the dial. Pulling out I expected at any minute to have the wings rip off, the plane was bucking so much. The last part of the pull-up brought me up into clouds. I was thankful to have evaded the long-nosed FW, for that pilot was undoubtedly the best that I had ever met."
(Exerpt from FIGHTER COMBAT, Shaw, Naval Institute press)
Unfortunatly, Godfreys guns had jammed or suffered damage from the high altitude escort due to the cold weather.
------------------
1./Jagdgeshwader 51 "Mölders"
-
Hey hristo i see you arguing alot on this board which you are certainly adept at but you should really do what your best at 1v1 duels and challenge these american P51 punks to duel. Teach them some respect (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
P.S. - you know me from the h2h ladder under a different handle (clue - i'm the spit dweeb you so enjoy shooting down)
To the rest don't get to het up i'm not being serious.
-
Or, better yet, he could actually investigate what we're saying. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Nath, that's my favourite story from Shaw's book.
Too bad that Jagdflieger missed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Hristo,
I/JG 51
Jagdgeschwader 51 Mölders (http://jg51.cjb.net)
-
Actually, not long after that, John Godfrey lost an engine strafing an airfield, bailed, and was captured. Once many of the LW Experten were lost during the early months of 1944, low level AA fire was a much bigger threat than the typical LW pilot.
Unfortunately, John Godfrey's biggest battle was one that he couldn't win... ALS caught up with John in 1957
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-13-1999).]
-
John Godfrey is not the issue.
Dora is just a beautiful plane, and should kick that P-51.
When I asked for Dora, I was inspired by the mentioned fight. 190A-8 can't really give much trouble to smart flown P-51.
------------------
Hristo,
I/JG 51
Jagdgeschwader 51 Mölders (http://jg51.cjb.net)
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 11-13-1999).]
-
Too bad Godfrey's guns jammed.
(http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/images3/8thAF/29.jpg)
(http://www.erinet.com/zkais/jaegers/fw190d9.jpg)
------------------
1./Jagdgeshwader 51 "Mölders"
-
Not realy, I would say the P51 and Dora are even, the 51 is faster and has 4lb/sq ft less wing loading compared to the Dora, but it can climb faster.
------------------
1./Jagdgeshwader 51 "Mölders"
-
SnakeEyes :
I will have no part in promoting any sort of intelligent, civil debate on this or any other flight sim related UBB board. Frankly you sicken me.
If you would excuse me i'm off to bait some badgers.
-
Which Dora are we speaking about? The 700 that rolled off the assembly lines? The 500 that actually made it to frontline units? The 400 that were actually flown in combat? The 300 that survived more than a mission or two? The.... well.... you get my point. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
To be honest, I'm for modeling the Dora, as well as a slew of other late war aircraft... some of which a Dora pilot wouldn't be too pleased to encounter (like the P-47M, which did see combat with the 56th FG in Europe).
I think its max speed was something like 470 IAS at 30K. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
--------
"SnakeEyes"
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-14-1999).]
-
Which Dora are we speaking about? The 700 that rolled off the assembly lines? The 500 that actually made it to frontline units? The 400 that were actually flown in combat? The 300 that survived more than a mission or two? The.... well.... you get my point.
Good thing you stopped there. You would enter negative numbers if you went into how many Doras were even refueled.
To be honest, I'm for modeling the Dora, as well as a slew of other late war aircraft...
So, you have been dishonest before ?
Concerning Dora modeling, don't get me wrong. I am not asking for Dora because it would be uber to P-51D. It won't. In fact, I believe that would be the most balanced matchup in AH, and thus very interesting. Number of Doras available should be still be significant to the number of fighter planes LW could put up in early 45 (just my opinion, I am out of history books (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
IMHO, P-51D would have turn advantage, and speed at some alts. Those advantages would be even better the higher the fight. Also, I think it would accelerate better in dives (but only marginally, I think). Of course, there would be fuel advantage too, very important in AH.
Dora, on the other hand, would have better E income. Climb, but also acceleration, pretty important thing (109G-10 acceleretion started this thread, I believe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) And maybe it would be faster on the deck, but I don't know that for sure.
As for P-47M, think about it. It might be 'anything goes' approach, and then LW pilots would have every right to ask for Me 262 and Me 163 (just look at that tail to the left on that Dora picture Nath posted). But, please don't get into the uber planes debate, seen in other thread.
------------------
Hristo,
I/JG 51
Jagdgeschwader 51 Mölders (http://jg51.cjb.net)
BTW, Snake Eyes, what is your handle in AH ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 11-14-1999).]
-
Only 674 Doras were manufactured (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
1./Jagdgeshwader 51 "Mölders"
(http://www.qt.org/worldwar/luftwaffe/decal.gif)
-
Number of Doras available should be still be significant to the number of fighter planes LW could put up in early 45
I couldn't tell you for certain... however, it is known that the Luftwaffe actually increased fighter production during late 1944 (if not early 1945), so it's entirely possible that those @700 planes weren't that significant of a percentage of total production.
As for P-47M, think about it. It might be 'anything goes' approach, and then LW pilots would have every right to ask for Me 262 and Me 163.
I agree, we don't want to make that the focus of the thread... but the @200 P-47Ms manufactured did see a reasonable amount of combat in the European Theatre with the 56th FG. Not quite as much as the 190D, I suspect, but the 56th FG was the 2nd highest scoring USAAF fighter group of WW2, so they certainly saw plenty of action.
As for the Me262 & Me163, I'm frankly not a fan of adding jets to any WW2 sim outside of the context of a Scenario (regardless of how much combat they might have seen). In Warbirds, for instance, I think that the time spent modeling these aircraft (they never finished the 163, but did work on it) could have been MUCH better spent elsewhere.
Now, if you're talking about Ta152s, Do335s, and that sort of thing, I'm all for it. I would love to see how the 47M would match up against these sorts of planes (or how the F8F would match up against the N1K2, Ki84, or Ki100, for example). Frankly, I think that these aircraft would attract MUCH more attention and PR for Aces High than stuff like the Brewster Buffalo, I-16, etc. Of course, I don't expect anyone to listen to lil' ol' me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
PS - My handle is ooo, but don't expect too much of a challenge from me... I haven't flown AH enough yet to grasp the nuances of its Flight Models.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-14-1999).]
-
Thanks, Snake Eyes, for bringing this thread to meaningful conclusion.
And ooo, I hope we continue our argument in the skies of AH (damn pots should be here any day now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
------------------
Hristo,
I/JG 51
Jagdgeschwader 51 Mölders (http://jg51.cjb.net)
-
--- SnakeEyes: ---
In Warbirds, for instance, I think that the time spent modeling these aircraft (they never finished the 163, but did work on it) could have been MUCH better spent elsewhere.
--- end ---
I belive the Me 262 and the Me 163 were ( initially ) done on FT's/Pyro's _freetime_ over a weekend. Someone then did the 2D cockpit art for the 262 later on.
//fats
-
Yes, that's what I heard also, Fats... but, freetime or not, it was still a waste IMO.
Granted, it's easy to second-guess in retrospect...
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
IF they did the Me163 with some of its faults, it would be damn hard to get kills in anyway in AH - can't push negative G unless you wanna go glider, 4 mins powered flying time, goes too damn fast for effective gunnery, and you would probably get vulched on landing all the time.
The only thing it would be good for is it's historical role, intercepting high flying bombers and reconnaissance planes.
Maybe they should have pre-war, early war, mid war, late war, post war(uberplanes) and jet arenas in AH? That way everyones happy (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
> As for P-47M, think about it. It might be
> 'anything goes' approach, and then LW
> pilots would have every right to ask for
> Me 262 and Me 163
Well. I am thinking about it. When someone mentions the TA-152 or the D9 I like to wish for other late war Uber planes too.
The P47M saw more combat than the TA-152 but not as much as the D9. Probably saw as much and had better success than the ME163.
"After that, the 56th's only real challengers in the air were the new
Messerschmitt Me-262 jet fighters. The Wolfpack had downed jets before with lucky passing shots or by catching them over their runways. They had stuck with the Jug when all other groups went to P-51s, and were the sole recipients of the P-47M--upengined to produce 465 mph (more speed than a Mustang)--with which they could handle combat on the jets'
terms. On April 5, 1945, a Wolfpack pilot actually ran down a 262 in a shallow dive.
Attempting to outturn the P-47, the German pilot was cut off and shot down."
The difference between many Japanese and German Uber planes and American or even English super planes was that when the German and Japanese planes were pushed out the hangar or factory door it was by definition 'in combat' even if the thing never got off the ground. Amercian and British planes did not have fighters straffing fields and factories like they Axis countries did.
Americans could train in their new planes un hammpered where as German trainees often found a flight Mustangs or Tempests flying thru and chomping thier flights to pieces.
So in my eyes if the F8F, F7F. P51H, P82 or the P47M were either on station in small numbers or even on their way by ship it still counts.
They were ALL produced in numbers before the end of the war - having done ariel combat is a stance that favours (too much) the late war
German and Japanese rides.
-Westy
-
Dang... you must be my long-lost sibling or something, Westy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
One thing you missed... the fact that the US actually familiarized pilots with new aircraft.
For example, only two Staffel (sp?) were ever officially converted over to the 190D. The rest just received deliveries of the Dora and learned the aircraft on the job.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-15-1999).]
-
Since I was quoted, I have to proceed with this argument (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Again, D-9 is not an uberplane. It is the match for P-51D. Period.
I am against Ta-152, because it will be flown in greater numbers in AH, than it was its whole production.
Westy, are you some kind of a lawyer or something ?
If you want to ruin the sim, just bring in all the planes that ever saw combat on Allied side, even by your standards, Westy. They won't ruin the sim. It is the Luftwaffe answer that will ruin it.
------------------
Hristo
-
I dunno... I've run into people who consider the 51 to be an uberplane.
Personally, I like to look at them as "late war" planes. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) From my perspective, the German response isn't really all that significant because I don't particularly want to include Jets in the mix.
The why to that is quite simple... the movement from the Se5a -> Gloster Gladiator -> bf109 -> Spitfire V -> FW190 -> P-51 -> Sea Fury is merely evolutionary in nature.
However the jump from Piston to Jet powered aircraft is revolutionary and, IMO, doesn't make for good gameplay (unless you want to fly jets). Every prop uberplane has its match... but no prop can match an intelligently flown jet (short of vulching fields).
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Why are the jets a waste of time? They fought in WW2, and they fought well.
-
FWIW the RAE tests of the Fw 190D-9 showed 435mph at 25k (dry WEP) and 440 mph at 16k (MW50).
The P-51D was probably faster above 25k (two stage supercharger vs. single stage in the Jumo 213A-1), but below that altitude, the D-9 would be tough to catch.
Also there is apparently some new research indicating that 1200 or so Doras were built. I don't have the source, so take it with a grain of salt.
They were definitely a significant part of Luftwaffe fighter strength over the last 9 months of the war. Don't forget they were fighting the USSR as well as the USA/UK.
-
FWIW
From J.F. Baugher history on P47
The first P-47M was delivered in December 1944, and they were rushed to the 56th Fighter Group in Europe. However, engine problems delayed their use until the last few weeks of the war in Europe.
Me163B flew its first combat mission 13 May 1944.
Every prop uberplane has its match... but no prop can match an intelligently flown jet (short of vulching fields).
Make that - intelligently flown German jet - Allied jets sucked, and you know it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Jets are a waste for two reasons IMO:
Only other jets can compete with jets. If someone wants to make a "early jets" game, my recommendation would be to start in 1946 and run through 1953 or so. For gameplay, jets simply stink...
Jets might be workable if they were placed under the same constraints as WW2 - _constant_ threat of vulching, severely limited numbers, and a wide range of engine problems (modeling jets "ideally" simply leads to greater play balance problems IMO). Having to land your jet at a specific "jet field" not to lose your limited "jet count" and so on.
Unfortunately, there isn't even a Sim with a decent CM tool yet, so I wouldn't hold my breath for all the aforementioned stuff. And, IMO without that "stuff", jets are basically unworkable with respect to good game balance.
Note: The Dora didn't equip its first squad until October 1944, and other squads didn't equip until late December. Based on that, I'd say that the Dora played a "minor" role for about 3 months, followed by a "significant" role for about 4 months.
And, like I said elsewhere, I could really care less... model the Dora, model the Tempest, model the Sea Fury and the Douglas Skyraider for all I care. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) If its got a prop, model it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Well this is just so I clarify what my perspective is in regard to late war Uber-planes.
I'll fly anything from WWII. Even experimentals. Just because I love those planes - and from any and all sides. I'd really love to fly an Australian Boomerrang in a scenario against Zekes to be honest.
But an open arena with all of Aces High aircraft enabled along with the many late war uber planes would suck in my opinion.
I've always enjoyed bringing up ALL the uber planes that were ready for action in April 1945 whenever someone starts slobbering for the Ta-152 or spouting off about how much of an uber fighter the D9 was (in thier opinion). Most of the time folks toss out these plane ID's like trump cards. I enjoy trying to go one better or at a minimum I at least bring the conversation back to reality and back down from 'worshiping the almighty Teutonic stallion' that many do, as if these planes were the embodiment of Thors hammer.
I actually think the D9 and TA-152 are beautiful aircraft. I'd love to fly one in a sim. Same with the ME262. Me-163? I'm not too eager to blow up unexpectedly 50% of the time.
In the end. It will ALWAYS boil down to the pilot of the aircraft.
Always.
--Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 11-16-1999).]
-
Referring back to an earlier portion of this conversation, here are the "conversion" dates regarding when the various 8th AF Fighter Groups converted over to Mustangs:
354th FG - 1 Dec 43 -51B (1st -51 group in the ETO, however technically part of the 9th AF)
357th FG - 11 Feb 44 -51B (1st 8th AF -51 group)
4th FG - 25 Feb 44 -51B
355th FG - 9 Mar 44 -51B
352nd FG - 8 Apr 44 -51B
339th FG - 30 Apr 44 -51D (only flew -51's)
359th FG - 5 May 44 -51B
361st FG - 12 May 44 -51B
55th FG - 19 Jul 44 -51D
20th FG - 20 Jul 44 -51B
364th FG - 28 Jul 44 -51D
479th FG - 13 Sep 44 -51D
353rd FG - 2 Oct 44 -51D
356th FG - 20 Nov 44 -51D
78th FG - 29 Dec 44 -51D
56th FG - Didn't
As you can see... as of April 29th, 1944 only 5 Eighth AF groups were equipped with P-51s. The idea that the Luftwaffe was decimated by the overwhelming numbers during early 1944 (when they had some of their heaviest losses) is completely and utterly untrue.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
That theory only holds if you assume only 8th AF FG's with P-51's were shooting down Luftwaffe fighters.
Do you see a flaw there?
I'm sure the P-51's did great, but to say the Luftwaffe was not vastly outnumbered over Europe during all of 1944 and 1945 is just plain silly, not to mention false.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-16-1999).]
-
But ya GOTTA give Walther Dhal credit for shooting down __36__ four engined bombers.
(http://www.qt.org/worldwar/luftwaffe/decal.gif)
------------------
1./Jagdgeschwader 51 "Mölders"
-
Yoooo-hooooo... Fuuuuunkkked....
I SPECIFICALLY said "early 1944"... and that's when many of the veterans were still alive.
In March & April (when, per the earlier quote, "German pilot losses exceeded total combat losses for the previous two years") the Luftwaffe was not outnumbered. Perhaps their strength was approximately equaled, but the real difference is the the US had long range escorts that had far better performance than the Luftwaffe aircraft at 20K+ (which, unlike AH & WB, is where "shit" happened in the Western ETO).
In short, the point I'm making is that a particular portion of the 8th AF (the early "converters" to 51s) are exactly what, in large part, robbed the Luftwaffe of many of its Experten... and that this happened when the Luftwaffe wasn't at a substantial numerical disadvantage (such as was the case in later months).
Furthermore, the vast majority of P-51s went to the 8th AF during this period of time (hence, the 4th FG being the first FG to escort buffs over Berlin).
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-16-1999).]
-
Tell me - if the Me163 blows up unexpectedly 50% of the time, how could several (test) pilots survive flying the thing from 1941 to 1945 then?
-
I still don't get it. If you count 8th, 9th, 12th, 15th AF, RAF, RCAF, there were way more Allied planes flying over Europe than Kraut planes.
I'm well aware that the early users of Merlin P-51's kicked ass, but they were hardly the only units shooting down Luftwaffles.
Another thing - the 8th AF might have stayed up high (alt monkeys (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ), but there was a lot of Allied ground pounding going on in the spring. The Jagdwaffe was quite busy down low as well!
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-17-1999).]
-
Juzz. Because test flights were held under unbelievably stingent conditions. The aircraft had all been assemebled with the utmost in care. the preflight and fueling were done with extreme attention to detail.
And yet not all test pilots escaped unharmed now did they?
Then when the plane got into the field with the hectic combat conditions combined with the typical drop in quality control due to mass productions the accidents occured at a phenomenal rate.
Everything from a drop in quality control,
fuels being mixed accidently during refuleing, mechanical error causing fuel to mix accidently on the flight line at launch or in flight, to the not uncommon pilot error in dropping the undercarriage too soon causing it to bounce up and rupture the craft.
It was a flying butane lighter that was not a very safe plane to fly. But in war what is one to do???
(side note: Last night there was a lecture at the New England Air Museum in Hartford, Connecticut that would have been a good place to have been able to have a coffee and discuss all of this face to face at. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
"Advanced, Unusual, Experimental & Conceptual German Aircraft, 1936-1945 by Bruno L. Cavallo")
http://www.neam.org/eventcon.htm#lecture (http://www.neam.org/eventcon.htm#lecture)
-Westy
-
SnakeEyes:
By your theory the only planes facing LW were the P-51s, and that the P-38/P-47 squads not yet converted were totally _not_ flying and hence not enounctering and shooting down any LW planes.
Oh and that the LW also ignored the Russians and Brittish. Here're the strengths of serviceable planes in the Jagdgeschwader in Luftflotten 3 and Luftflotten Reich as of 31 May 1944, the two Luftflotten mainly responsible for intercepting bomber formations coming from North Sea at that time. Luftflotten 3 consists of the whole of France and the lower countries ( hmm not sure about the english term, the ones partially below sea level Holland and such ) and Luftflotten Reich was Germany, Denmark and parts of Germany's eastern neighbours.
Luftflotten 3
Jagdgeschwader 2 Fw 190 44
Jagdgeschwader 26 Fw 190 50
Jagdgeschwader 26 Bf 109 21
Luftflotten Reich
Jagdgeschwader 1 Fw 190 37
Jagdgeschwader 1 Bf 109 21
Jagdgeschwader 3 Bf 109 43
Jagdgeschwader 3 Fw 190 1
Jagdgeschwader 5 Bf 109 72
Jagdgeschwader 11 Bf 109 20
Jagdgeschwader 11 Fw 190 35
Jagdgeschwader 27 Bf 109 86
Jagdgeschwader 53 Bf 109 14
Jagdgeschwader 54 Fw 190 8
Jagdgeschwader 300 Bf 109 44
Jagdgeschwader 300 Fw 190 24
Jagdgeschwader 301 <edit>Bf 109</edit> 21
Jagdgeschwader 302 <edit>Bf 109</edit> 27<edit> 11 is the correct figure</edit>
Jagdgeschwader 400 Me 163 0
----------------------------
total 667
At this point the Luftwaffe had more ( ? ) day fighters than ever before, albeit not all fell into the areas of these Luftflotten, nor were all of the day fighters of these Luftflotten available to intercept every raid because the area was rather large. Luftwaffe had more fighters available less than month before the end of the war. If you are interested in actual numbers of the Luftwaffe, there're 10-day reports available from museums. The above is grabbed quickly from 'Luftwaffe Data Book' which uses such reports.
<edit>
Yes I left out Nacht-, Kampf-, Schlacht-, Schnellkampf- and Zerstorergeschwader operating such planes like Bf 110, Me 410, Ju 88 and so on. Hmm perhaps I should have included the Zerstorergeschwader.
</edit>
//fats
[This message has been edited by fats (edited 11-17-1999).]
[This message has been edited by fats (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
It is my impression that the lions share of Axis aircraft shot down went to the Allied bomber gunners. Sure the buffs took horrendous losses but they also exacted a heavy HEAVY toll on the intercepting enemy fighters.
Add in all the aircraft shot down by the long range escorts and therein lies the reason for the LW was damaged beyond almost all repair.
--Westy
-
Remember, the P38s were called ineffective by Galland. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) And only 2 groups were "armed" with them. With regard to the P47s, you also have to remember that they couldn't transit to Berlin, or deep into Germany for that matter.
The maximum complement of an 8th AF Fighter Group was 36 aircraft. Assuming 75% strength for any given mission, that's 27 aircraft. If all 5 FGs equipped with Stangs were sent on a given mission, that's 135 aircraft.
The difference isn't the number of aircraft available... the difference is that, unlike 1943 where the Luftwaffe could attack the buffs for hours uncontested, now they had to contend with escort that could reach Berlin and back in an aircraft that had better performance at alt than either the 109 or the 190. The 4th Fighter Group alone scored about 350+ kills from January to May.
Finally, yes, definitely include the 110s... there were plenty of those downed in early 1944... and even targets take an expenditure in time and alt.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
hello
I think this is an interesting thread.
I would like to add few things.
the P51 B,C or D was a great air plane.
Most of the figthers at that times were good planes with their strength and their weaknesses.
as an example, If you read the result of test (from the UK) to compare a P51 B with a FW 190 (a F from italy mistakenly identified as A8)
i quote.
speed the P51is a lot faster that the german aircraft around 50 mph at all level and 70 above 28 k.
(390 mph + 50 = 440 all is fine)
climb: "there is little to chose between the 2 aircrafts.
dive: mustang can outdive fw190
roll rate= not even a mustang can approach the fw190
turning circle : there is not much to chose.
the mustang being sligtly better.
conclusion:
dogfigthing is not recomended altogether. in attack high speed should be maintained. in defense a steep turn followed by a full throttle dive should increase range before regaining heght.
end of quote
Note that a A5 for example (or a A7 or early A8 ) would have compared much better than the plane tested and a A8 R8 (sturm) would have compared much worse.
Anyway that shows the qualities of the plane.
It is true that by jully 44 the allied had the control of the skies, the mustang being instrumental to that.
As it is true that the luftwaffe produced the most prolifics and efficient pilots.
Heinz bar shoot down p 51 in is Me 262 (and in fw 190 A7)
Hartman (as far as i know )scored a triple and a double against P51. All that in late 44
You could go on for a life time but at the end of the day, but in an online game plane are not used as they were in real life.
Most of the time, we end up dogfigthing (or b7zuming) close to the sheeps either at full speed or full flaps.
In ETO that meant death, plain and simple
That behing said it would mean like spending 11 minutes climbing to 25 k with my A4 (17 minutes in a A8 r8.) then dive on the bomber stream and reclimb and do that again.
or if you are allied 2 to 3 hours of flying around 25 k @ 300 mph and protect the bomber or fend the high cover to tackle the sturmbocks.
-
From Fats information then we can conclude that in the first 5 months of 1944 there were no more than 667 day fighters facing the 8th and 9th AF as well as the RAF.
Hell the 8th AF alone put up more planes that that on a single mission!
OK SnakeEyes you weaselly seal-clubber, Eat Them Words!!!
"The idea that the Luftwaffe was decimated by the overwhelming numbers during early 1944 (when they had some of their heaviest losses) is completely and utterly untrue. "
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) <S>
-
You guys ain't gettin' off that easy... y'all are quite aware that the Luftwaffe didn't press the Buffs much until they were outside the range of the allied aircraft... except now the 5 P-51 groups (with some help from the two underperforming P38 groups) could escort all the way to and back from the target.
Again, the point is quite simple... the Luftwaffe lost more pilots in March and April 1944 than they had lost in the two previous years (emphasis added for Luftwaffe sympathizers (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ).
The primary variable that changed the situation was the addition of 5 P-51B Fighter Groups. The Germans had been fighting bombers throughout 1943, had been fighting the Soviets and everyone else for the preceding two years, and probably fielded a similar number of aircraft in the over the prior two years. Dislike it as you might, the P-51B (with particular emphasis on the 4th FG's very aggressive approach, combined with the fact that many of their pilots were quite experienced, due to their time in the Eagle Squads) is the main factor that changed the situation and deprived the Luftwaffe of many of its experienced pilots.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-18-1999).]
-
This is a reply to the middle of this thread about calculating Induced Drag.
Induced Drag is the drag due to lift. The reason this develops, is that awing must have an `angle of attack' represented by `alpha' as we know, to generate lift. Now, lift is not the Force vector generated by the wing, merely a large a component of it at low alpha. The force generated by a wing (based on memory) is roughly perpendicular to alpha. Now picture in your head. a force vetor sticking up from the wing, perpendicular to alpha. It would point up and slightly rearward in level flight. Now, as you turn or perform any maneuver which increases alpha, the vector points back further. Of course, up to the point where the wing stalls, the total force generated by the wing also increases (Which makes sense, since if you are executing a 4g turn in a 10,000 LB airplane, you must now develop 40,000 of force).
My point is, lift is only the `vertical' component of the force vector generated by the wing. The rearward component of the force vector is the `induced' drag component. If you are able to measure your `alpha' and know the `force' generated be your wing throughout the envelope, you can set-up your triangle and solve for the induced drag component.
Good luck!
-
This is a reply to the middle of this thread about calculating Induced Drag.
Induced Drag is the drag due to lift. The reason this develops, is that a wing must have an `angle of attack' represented by `alpha' as we know, to generate lift. Now, lift is not the Force vector generated by the wing, merely a large a component of it at low alpha. The force generated by a wing (based on memory) is roughly perpendicular to alpha. Now picture in your head. a force vetor sticking up from the wing, perpendicular to alpha. It would point up and slightly rearward in level flight. Now, as you turn or perform any maneuver which increases alpha, the vector points back further. Of course, up to the point where the wing stalls, the total force generated by the wing also increases (Which makes sense, since if you are executing a 4g turn in a 10,000 LB airplane, you must now develop 40,000 of force).
My point is, lift is only the `vertical' component of the force vector generated by the wing. The rearward component of the force vector is the `induced' drag component. If you are able to measure your `alpha' and know the `force' generated be your wing throughout the envelope, you can set-up your triangle and solve for the induced drag component.
Good luck!
-
It was a very sad fact, that indeed often the bombers were used as "bait". So the LW would come to the bait, and the allied fighters could shoot them down. It was a race to see who could maintain the highest rate of mortalilty, the longest. True of any war.
Just remember, we are talking about "Human Lifes" and not just numbers out a history book.
I perfer to keep my attitude fantasy, the real life re-inactments tend to bug me.
Mino
-
Well. this thread is too good to let it fade away. Here is one story from a P51 pilot in early 1944. Supposedly when the cream of the LW was still in the air..... --Westy
"Beating Four Aces "
Lt. Henry Brown pulled off one of the most amazing bluffs of the war.
Lt. Henry Brown was on his second tour in fighters, based at Steeple
Morden, UK, with the 355th Fighter Group. On the morning of April 11,
1944, in his Hun Hunter From Texas, he was number four in the 354th
Fighter Squadron's Blue Flight, escorting bombers to their target on the
outskirts of Berlin.
After the bombers unloaded and headed for home, the 355th turned its
escort duty over to another group and prepared to strafe targets of
opportunity, the most dangerous of fighter tactics. The four squadrons
fanned out, each to find its own targets. Blue Leader picked the
Luftwaffe airfield at Strausberg to the east of Berlin. The four P-51s
went down in a screaming 400-mph dive, their props cutting weeds as they
came in over the field.
On the first pass, Lieutenant Brown burned a Ju-52, then riddled a Ju-88
bomber on his second pass. Spotting an FW-190 fighter taking off, he
performed a chandelle to the left, pulling up behind the German fighter
and shooting it down just as he ran out of ammunition. While Brown was
busy reducing the Luftwaffe's inventory, the other three members of his
flight had formed up and were on their way home.
Climbing to 15,000 feet, Lieutenant Brown saw four fighters in the
distance, heading west. Maybe they were members of his group. As he
closed on them, he discovered that they were Bf-109s--difficult to tell
from P-51s at a distance. In perfect firing position but out of
ammunition, he reduced power and slid into their blind spot at six
o'clock low. Why had they not seen him? Then he spotted two Mustangs
ahead and below. The -109s were so intent on hunting the Mustangs that
they had not seen him.
Brown called a warning to the Mustangs, which broke sharply to the left
with the -109s now almost in firing range. He told the Mustang pilots he
would try to disrupt the enemy formation. At that moment, the Luftwaffe
pilots picked up on Brown as he closed on their tails, not knowing he
was out of ammunition. Henry Brown didn't pause to calculate his chance
of survival. He saw what needed to be done, and he did it.
There followed a 20-minute engagement in which Brown outturned his four
adversaries, who held all the aces, forcing them one by one to roll out
of a Lufbery circle and dive for the ground. While Lieutenant Brown
hovered constantly on the verge of a high-G blackout, the two Mustangs
he had saved disappeared to the west, leaving him alone in an unfriendly
sky.
Having won the Lufbery fight against incalculable odds, Henry Brown
throttled back and turned for home. In that moment of relaxation, one of
the -109s climbed back up and got on his tail. Suddenly, Hun Hunter was
taking hits. Fortunately, the Luftwaffe pilot overshot, giving Brown
time to split-S to the treetops. His sigh of relief was short-lived.
There were holes in his left wing, but more serious, his compass had
been shot out. With no friendly aircraft around, he could only guess at
the correct heading for England.
Brown called in the blind, giving his approximate position and asking
someone to tell him the sun position on his canopy for a rough heading
to the UK. At length, a voice came back, telling him to put the sun on
the second screw from the top of his left canopy railing. Correcting his
course, he realized he soon was going to be above solid-to-broken
clouds. No more ground checks. At last, through a small break in the
clouds, he saw the coast of Holland.
A call to Air-Sea Rescue got him a rough heading to Steeple Morden. From
there, he got a home steer from Steeple Morden tower. Six hours and 15
minutes after takeoff, Henry Brown touched down at home plate. He found
out later that the two Mustang pilots he had saved, and who apparently
had deserted him, also had been out of ammunition.
For a day marked by superior skill and unsurpassed valor, Henry Brown
was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross to go with his Silver Star,
multiple Distinguished Flying Crosses and Air Medals, and a Purple
Heart. He tallied 11 more air-to-air victories, ending the war with 14.2
(17.2?), plus more than 14 planes destroyed on the ground. What his
score might have been had he not been downed by flak while strafing an
airfield on Oct. 3, 1944, is only conjecture.
On the day he bellied in, his squadron operations officer, Maj. Chuck
Lenfest, landed to rescue him, but Lenfest's P-51 became stuck in soft
ground. Lt. Alvin White also landed in an attempted rescue. The downed
men were escaping and did not see him. White was able to take off and
returned home alone. Brown and Lenfest ended the war as guests of the
Luftwaffe.
Henry Brown remained in the Air Force, serving among other assignments
as test pilot, combat pilot in Vietnam, wing commander, and deputy
director of Operations, 7th Air Force. He retired as a colonel in 1974,
one of the most decorated Air Force officers, and now lives in Sumter,
S.C.
-
3/4ths of the 8th Air Force's fighter aircraft losses were due to Ack. That's one of the reasons that I've always been impressed with the fact that the 4th FG far outscored the 56th FG in A2G kills (you'd think that the 56th would have been better able to do it in the more rugged Jug).
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
SnakeEyes,
I absolutely agree with you wrt the P-51's effect on the air war in western Europe. If not for the arrival of the Mustang as bomber escort, the daylight strategic bombing campaign would have invariably undergone some serious reassessment, probably resulting in a more restrictive and shorter-ranged campaign, or even a discontinuation of the daylight bombing campaign altogether. The results of the P-51's influence in the bombing campaign were nothing short of miraculous.
Also, when the LW was unable to make any serious strategic effects in the Russian front, Hitler decided to shift its priorites over to Home defence against the Allied bombers. This effectively deprived the Wehrmacht of a major portion of its air support in Russia, and allowed the Soviets to make good on its air losses after a time, something many VVS pilots were openly thankful for(at least the USAAF and RAF were really trying to help the Soviets beat the Germans). In winning the bombing campaign over western Europe, the Allies fatally weakened the long arm of the German military machine, the Luftwaffe. Hence, though over 60% of LW air losses occurred in Russia, it was in western Europe that the LW was defeated, because it was here that the jagdfliegen were whittled to almost nothing. Sure, there were overwhelming numbers of Allied fighters in ever increasing amounts as time passed, but if not for the P-51 such numbers would have mattered for little.
And don't worry, SnakeEyes, I won't ask you which nation defeated the Germans on the ground. You can save face. This one's on me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Actually, my honest opinion is that it was necessary for "all of us" to be involved in order for the Allies to win the war.
Without the Brits, the US wouldn't have had a base to stage attacks on Western Europe. Without the Soviets, the Brits would have been overwhelmed most likely, Without the US, the Brits wouldn't have been able to mount a credible threat to the Germans, forcing them to hold back aircraft and men from the Eastern Front. Without the Soviets, the panzer force in Western Europe would have been much larger. It's also likely that that without the US, the Japanese would have created a Western Front on the Soviets, as they were interested in getting access to that oil (as well as the oil in South East Asia).
Without the Western Front, the Eastern Front would have been much different... and without the Eastern Front, the Western Front would have been a profoundly tougher battle. They are all part of a larger intertwined whole.
The Soviets definitely broke the Wehrmacht's back on the ground (which is a tad different than winning the ground war), and the USAAF did the same to the Luftwaffe (which is a bit different from winning the air war).
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-19-1999).]
-
I agree. IMHO the biggest success of the strategic bombing campaign was not the bombing results but the pulverization of the Luftwaffe. If the Luftwaffe had been able to deploy a full-strength close air support effort against the Normandy invasion, it would have been nasty. Likewise if the USSR had not hammered the bulk of the Wehrmacht for three years, I don't think the invasion would have even been attempted.
-
SnakeEyes,
I agree with you - 100% (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
whoa, this thread is 8 years old!!!!
-
Holy piss, you just actived the Skuzzy "Dont punt old threads" signal
One question - Why on earth would you punt an 8 year old thread just to say "Whoa, this thread is 8 years old!"
-
Dunno, actualy read through this thread, pretty intresting how these planes have changed in 8 years. Pretty interesting stuff in here to...
No intent on the punt. Sorry Skuzzy
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I've moved this topic to the appropriate forum.
As to the TAS vs IAS stuff, I've grown pretty weary of it. It's not intuitive for people to know the difference and most people don't keep a whiz wheel handy to make the conversions. So what we've decided to do is add a secondary gauge to the airspeed indicator for TAS. It will show up as a little extra tick mark much like the 10K needle on the altimeter. Hopefully, that will put an end to the "why are the planes 200mph slow" questions for the most part.
Pyro,
I haven't played since AH1 (when the 38J and G were introduced) and recently im seeing the game again with the 2 week trial.
Are the speed gauges now any different from AH1? Jus' wondering.
-
Originally posted by SuBWaYCH
whoa, this thread is 8 years old!!!!
(http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/necromancer.jpg)
Necormancer has a supernatural ability to bring long-dead forum discussion threads back to life. After having been flogged to death the thread may have been deceased for many years, and bringing it back may have scant relevance to the current topic, yet Necromancer will unexpectedly exhume the thread’s rotting corpse, and strike horror in the forum as its grotesque form lurches into the discussion. The monster, instantly recognized by all who knew it in life, seems at first to breathe and have a pulse, but, alas, it is beyond Necromancer’s skill to fully restore the thread’s original vitality. The hideous apparition may frighten away some of the weaker Warriors or Warriors badly wounded in former battles, but the thread is only a shadow of its former self and very quickly expires.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
At least you picked the right time of year to bring this one back.
-
I worked in a veterans hospital for years.. This is not a popular point of veiw but, it is one that was shared with me MANY times by men who flew the plane.. Most of them I would gestimate 85% felt the P-51 was exceptional as a long range escort plane but, in the overall grand scheme of things was CRAP. Ive heard multiple stories of its inability too withstand any kind of damage and return home and also the danger of the fragile liquid cooled engine.. Most of the guys would have rather been back in their thunderbolts over the poney.. One guy even called it and I quote "the brits attempt too get back at us for F***king their girls."
Enjoy your plane at least you didnt have too risk your neck in one over the skies of germany during wwII.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Holy piss, you just actived the Skuzzy "Dont punt old threads" signal
One question - Why on earth would you punt an 8 year old thread just to say "Whoa, this thread is 8 years old!"
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/dichotomy/skuzzysignal.gif)
This thing is great.:)
Bronk
-
Really sad thing is that people will reply to it not looking at the date :rofl
-
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/acfireguy26/bilde1.jpg)
-
Holy zombies Batman!
-
See Rule #13