Spitfire vs Mustang vs Bf-109 vs Fw-190

[Yeager]

In game there are guys who specialize in the 51 who can shoot down (aka defeat) just about anything most of the time.  Same can be said for everyone else in game who specializes in a single aircraft type be it 109s, Yaks, Zekes, 38s.... 

If this game and the historical record ever come together it is on this point:  The guy flying the plane (or as it would be in the case of AH, playing) tends to be the deciding factor most of the time.

Luck comes into the equation pretty much as it always does.

[Guppy35]

Another obvious benefit to LW fighters at least attempting to engage the escorts was the escorts dropping their DTs which would then limit their time in combat.  Sooner the DTs are gone, the faster they have to turn for home.

[BaldEagl]

     I have done some recent research on each of these four aircraft and the way some perform in AH has, at least to me, come under question. This is due to the numbers and facts, as well as pilot opinions. First off is the wing loadings of each aircraft:

Spitfire(early versions):27Lbs per sq-ft
P-51D:39Lbs per sq-ft
Bf-109:40Lbs per sq-ft
Fw-190:48Lbs per sq-ft

     Other factors include center of gravity, which is another critical factor in maneuverability. The further forward the better the stability,but lower the maneuverability,and vice verse.

Spitfire:at least when the fuel tanks are full,it is tail heavy,especially in earlier versions
P-51:due to the placement of the fuel tank,and radio,as well as indicating flight characteristics,show it is tail heavy
Bf 109:is a forgiving fighter and as far as i know no heavy equipment was behind the pilot,it is also light and had a big meaty engine hung ont the front.This suggests in level flight it may have been nose heavy.
Fw190D:According to the information i have found,the 190 was a little unstable and had a fuel tank in the rear,suggesting it may have been tail heavy.

    If the pilot accounts i have heard are true, in a dogfight from best to worst are:

#1:spitfire
#2:P-51
#3:190
#4:109

     Of course the 190 vs 109 is controversial, as the 109 was probably better at low speeds,especially early versions.

Now for my list,at high speeds or speeds above 300mph I would vote:

#1;P-51 and 190 as they were easier on the pilot.
#2:spitfire only because the controls seemed slightly slower at these speeds.
#3:Bf 109 as its controls were very difficult at high speeds.

     At low speeds the spitfire comes up on top followed by the P-51,109, and last is the 190.Of course earlier 109s were lighter and probably could beat a Mustang at low speeds.
     The bottom line is that the modeling on each aircraft is questionable,except perhaps the pony as AHes creator flew it,and this is also confirmed by a earlier post.HTC may also want to look into other aircraft as well as their modeling is also questionable,but i haven't done enough research to confirm this.So at least for now spitfire pilots rejoice.



       -WING47

   That was some of the shallowest research, selective misunderstanding of aerodynamics and unsupported anecdotal eveidence I think I may have ever seen posted in this forum.  And to make it worse I'm not even sure what he's advocating as a change other than to tell HT he doesn't have a clue as to how to correctly model flight charachteristics.

From everything I've read all the flight models in AW seem pretty much correct.  Go HT!

[THRASH99]

Wing47,
here is an account of a pilot who has flown both the p51 and the 109 and he stats the 109 turns much tighter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

P-51 with flaps down will make pony manuver better, without it though it's a heavy bird that will stall.

[bozon]

Go easy on the OP. He must be young and at least shows some historical interest.

WING47,
You must understand that many of the forum dwellers here have a huge amount of knowledge of WWII aircrafts and very little good manners. Most will be more than happy to discuss your findings, answer your questions and point you to more material to read, but you must make your posts in an appropriate fashion. Always expect the few rude replies and just live with them. When you are discussing some "facts", a source must be provided. There is a huge amount of wrong or just misleading information on the Internet and books and a lot of has been discussed on these forums before.

[WING47]

 I really don't think any of you know the key factors in determining a aircrafts performance.This is only a fraction of what I've got on all these aircraft.I was hoping you people would know what at least wing loading is.
   
                  -apparently not

[WING47]

Go easy on the OP. He must be young and at least shows some historical interest.

WING47,
You must understand that many of the forum dwellers here have a huge amount of knowledge of WWII aircrafts and very little good manners. Most will be more than happy to discuss your findings, answer your questions and point you to more material to read, but you must make your posts in an appropriate fashion. Always expect the few rude replies and just live with them. When you are discussing some "facts", a source must be provided. There is a huge amount of wrong or just misleading information on the Internet and books and a lot of has been discussed on these forums before.

      Im not saying HTC is wrong, the information i found just brought question to his modeling.

[WING47]

Wing47,
here is an account of a pilot who has flown both the p51 and the 109 and he stats the 109 turns much tighter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

     Good info just one question, i heard G and F, if were talking about a 109F than of course it could out turn the 51,possibly the early G models as well. We have to remember that the 109 continued to gain weight throughout its service career.