More Ponies !

[Karnak]

What differences? You never answered that question at all, so I'll ask it again: Which handling differences (that are modeled in AH) are not a direct result of engine or armament changes (weight, bulges, torque, CG etc.) in the 109G-2, G-6 and G-14?

This question paraphrases as "Besides all the differences that make different versions of an airframe, different, how are they different?"

It is an impossibly loaded question in the same way that "When did you stop beating your wife?" is an impossibly loaded question.

Even then, it was answered at least once when somebody posted about the different cockpit hoods each of the three have in AH.


You can't just take the engine differences off of the table.  They are huge and are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft.



The P-51s are just as well represented in their service period as the Spitfires are.  Basic coverage is there, but significant holes remain.  I am sure that is true of the Bf109 and Fw190s too, but am not that well versed in those aircraft.

The fact is that the P-51 only came into it after the work had already been done, first by the Spitfire and Hurricane holding the line and then by the P-47 destroying the Luftwaffe.  Yes, P-51s fought, but it was all but over when they showed up in significant numbers.   It had a much shorter combat career as a first line fighter in WWII than did the P-47, F4U, Spitfire, Bf109, Fw190, Yak, Ki-43 or A6M series and thus in AH is represented by a smaller number of versions.

[Steve]

 It had a much shorter combat career as a first line fighter in WWII than did the P-47, F4U, Spitfire, Bf109, Fw190, Yak, Ki-43 or A6M series and thus in AH is represented by a smaller number of versions.

Ya but it's so pretty... does that count?

[Nilsen]

We have several versions of the 109G which differ only in armament and engine performance

You forgot something that is very different and _very_ important for game performance between the versions.... weight.

[Bruv119]

i love the pony ,    maybe the p51A at some point.  there are more obvious planes that need adding first though IMO.

[Guppy35]

We are missing P-51D and B (or K and C if you prefer) running on 150 octane fuel like they did in late 1944 and 1945. We're also missing a B/C with the Packard-Merlin V-1650-7 and a birdcage B/C. We could also use an early Allison powered one as some people have suggested.

As for 150 octane gas: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254161.0.html

So this isn't really about 51s so much as 150 octane fuel?

Which Merlin are you believing our P51B/C has, just out of curiosity and how much of a difference do you think it makes?

Clearly asking for an Allison Mustang isn't a late war issue.  I like 51s but I'm hard pressed to see them as under represented with the B and D that we have.

If you want to argue for higher octane fuel, that's a different issue and the LW guys, RAF guys and everyone else could do the same.  At this point it seems a minor issue when you've got two very good performing Mustangs in the game.  I can't believe you really think the canopy is that much of an issue

[Die Hard]

This question paraphrases as "Besides all the differences that make different versions of an airframe, different, how are they different?"

It is an impossibly loaded question in the same way that "When did you stop beating your wife?" is an impossibly loaded question.

Even then, it was answered at least once when somebody posted about the different cockpit hoods each of the three have in AH.


You can't just take the engine differences off of the table.  They are huge and are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft.

So in other words when I said "we have several versions of the 109G which differ only in armament and engine" I was correct (disregarding the Erla hood obviously) and you now agree that the engine differences are "huge and are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft." So if you still think I was wrong in my initial post I ask you again, what changes other than engine and armament has any relevancy on the performance of the 109G-2, G-6 and G-14 in AH?

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

The P-51s are just as well represented in their service period as the Spitfires are.  Basic coverage is there, but significant holes remain.  I am sure that is true of the Bf109 and Fw190s too, but am not that well versed in those aircraft.

From spring 1944 to fall 1944 the P-51 gained 300 hp, that's almost the same engine power increase that the 109G-14 got over the G-6 ... but for some reason this is not important to you? Even when you've just blatantly stated that engine differences "are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft."

[Die Hard]

You forgot something that is very different and _very_ important for game performance between the versions.... weight.

Really? The weight increase in the 109G-6 over the G-2 is mostly due to the changes in armament. The weight increase in the 109G-14 is mostly the changes in engine (MW-50 equipment).

[Die Hard]

Which Merlin are you believing our P51B/C has, just out of curiosity and how much of a difference do you think it makes?

The V-1650-3 was a high altitude engine based on the Merlin 63 and is the engine currently powering our Malcolm-hooded P-51B. However later in the P-51B/C production run they switched the engine to the -7, a medium altitude version based on the Merlin 66. Most of the P-51C production run had the -7 engine. The -7 had 100 hp more on WEP and a lower critical altitude. A -7 powered B/C in AH would gain about 10 mph at 25k and be as fast, or probably a little faster than a P-51D on the deck.

I can't believe you really think the canopy is that much of an issue

It's not really an "issue" at all, but it would be the appropriate canopy for an early -3 engined B/C. I bet the guys that run the historical scenarios would appreciate it. The Malcolm hood was initially an improvement of the British Mustang III that was later adopted by the USAAF.

[Xasthur]

I have nothing to offer to this debate about Pony models and their addition, so I will just add this:

[Bruv119]

[Bark0]

If we can have pretty much every spitfire and 109, 190's then why not all the Ponies?

[thrila]

We don't have anywhere near every 109, 190 and spit.

[eddiek]

All aircraft designers/manufacturers during WW2 were constantly refining/tweaking the airframes for more performance and reliability, not just the Messerschmitt or Focke-Wulfe ones.
The knee jerk reaction from the LW section here gets old sometimes, as their way of thinking seems to be that P-51B's were all the same, P-51D's were all the same, when in reality there were probably as many subtle changes and variations during a production run as you'd find in a run of 109G-2's, G-6's, G-10's, and down the line.
So, IMHO, if the P-51's is well represented as is, so are all of the 109 series, 190 series could use an earlier version and perhaps a D-11 or later.  Saying that a generic P-51B or -51D is well and good, then trying to justify another 109G with a specific engine is nonsense.
Perhaps someone with a copy of America's Hundred Thousand could chime in with a list of the changes to each USAAF fighter during their production runs.  Mine won't be here til the 17th so I can't do it myself.
   

[Anaxogoras]

If we can have pretty much every spitfire and 109, 190's then why not all the Ponies?

Thrila is correct, we don't have anything close to every Spit, 109 or 190.

In the case of the 109, there are about as many variants that could be meaningfully added to the game as the number of variants we already have.  In the case of the Spitfire, the number of missing variants is probably greater than the number we have in the game.

[Karnak]

From spring 1944 to fall 1944 the P-51 gained 300 hp, that's almost the same engine power increase that the 109G-14 got over the G-6 ... but for some reason this is not important to you? Even when you've just blatantly stated that engine differences "are usually the single biggest performance indicator of an aircraft."

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

You seem to think that the issue you are talking about is disproportionate to the P-51.  It isn't.

All aircraft designers/manufacturers during WW2 were constantly refining/tweaking the airframes for more performance and reliability, not just the Messerschmitt or Focke-Wulfe ones.
The knee jerk reaction from the LW section here gets old sometimes, as their way of thinking seems to be that P-51B's were all the same, P-51D's were all the same, when in reality there were probably as many subtle changes and variations during a production run as you'd find in a run of 109G-2's, G-6's, G-10's, and down the line.
So, IMHO, if the P-51's is well represented as is, so are all of the 109 series, 190 series could use an earlier version and perhaps a D-11 or later.  Saying that a generic P-51B or -51D is well and good, then trying to justify another 109G with a specific engine is nonsense.
Perhaps someone with a copy of America's Hundred Thousand could chime in with a list of the changes to each USAAF fighter during their production runs.  Mine won't be here til the 17th so I can't do it myself.
   

The P-51 series is, if anything, better covered than the Bf109 and Fw190 series and about the same as the Spitfire series.