need help with twin engine fighters

[icepac]

Listen for the slats.

Avoid the slats if you're trying to preserve energy.

If you want to turn hard, the slats are your friend but will sap energy............it's a tradeoff.

Also.....don't forget that the TU2 is a pretty capable "fighter".

[bozon]

TU2 is one of a few planes that exploit the modeling, mechanics and concessions of AH. First, it comes in threes. Second, it has F3 views, otherwise views towards the rear would be a real challenge. Third, somehow rearward firing turrets are that much more deadly that the fixed guns of a chasing plane, which makes a rear approach, as one would against a real fighter extremely dangerous.

Otherwise, it can pull some moves, but is in the league of the 410 - without the super scary mk103s.

If you include the TU2, the A20 is another plane that exploits the heck out of the game mechanics as a fighter.

[WaffenVW]

Performance charts lie. It is as simple as that - read them, enjoy them, then throw them out. They measure performance in a part of the envelope which is rarely relevant. Planes do not fights with full flaps out, nor do they go round in flat circles at the minimum speed possible. If you enter a sustained turn with a twin Fighter, you are doing it wrong.

The practical reality is that the 109G6 is the worst of the 109s except the Emil. Even in the mossie I do not consider it a major threat and will enter a knife fight without hesitation. At speeds above 150 mph the mossie is able to hang on to the G6 and even cut inside it by blowing a lot of E for a one shot opportunity - and given what the mossie spews out of its nose, that is all it takes. I have much less experience with the 38, but by relative comparison I assume it can do the same.

Are we playing the same game? lol. 109s and P-38s knife-fighting without using flaps? In the video I posted the 109G-6 pilot had full flaps out many times and they weren't flat turning. In a knife-fight the ability to dump E quickly is just as important as being able to regain that E. The 109 is blessed with both. The P-38 too for that matter.

Yes, after the Emil the G-6 is the worst 109, and compared to the rest of the plane set it is truly mediocre. Which is why I use it as a yardstick to measure other planes against. And to be frank all the twins in the game are worse 'pure' fighters than the G-6. The only exceptions to that 'rule' are the P-38J/L which is a good energy fighter at high altitudes (as long as you're careful and don't let compressibility bite your behind), and of course the 262 which is in a league of its own.

At low altitude the Mosquito VI is better than the P-38J/L at turning, and with similar top speed. However it climbs and accelerates much worse. Against a 109G-6 (assuming equal and competent pilot skills) the 109G-6 should win a large majority of duels against a Mosquito VI. As altitude increases so does the 109s advantage against a Mosquito, so in that respect the P-38 is much better.

[DmonSlyr]

The G-6 is a better defensive fighter. but overall the P38 is a better fighter all the way around. The styles to use the G-6 are different than the P38 and thus you see much more successful pilot victories in the P38 than the g6. I think the G6 is a harder plane to fly and be successful in compared to the P38 simply because of the styles used. The BnZ method of the P38 is much easier to be successful in compared to the slash attack method that the G6 uses best. The G6 just doesnt quite have a powerful enough engine, which is why the plane is harder to fly vs planes that hold E better. A P38 with alt that uses E is much more deadlier than the g6 with alt that uses E. The P38 does climb better and has a better lift vector in the spiral and rope climbs. It doesnt matter what alt the planes are at. My perspective and judgment in being efficient in both planes are what gives me this reasoning. After using the G6 Vs the Pj in the FSO, you can really see the strengths and weaknesses in both planes and the P38j just has a better overall advantage than the G6.

[WaffenVW]

The P-38J/L is a much better fighter than the G-6 in FSO and any other form of organized squad based mission or scenario setup. This is not a 109 vs. ??? thread, I use the 109G-6 as a yardstick and I specified LOW ALT in my comparison. Why can't you just stick to the same premise if you don't agree with it? Why do you need to turn this discussion into something it is not?

P-38: High altitude B&Z fighter. Pretty good at that. Terrible low and slow. Can't turn much.
Mosquito VI: Good low-medium alt fighter-bomber. Decent turner, but sluggish and slow climb/accelleration. Awesome firepower.
110G: Same as Mosquito except slower, but turns a little better. Excellent cockpit views.
110C: Turns very good, but slow. Not much firepower.
410: The best firepower in the game, but also the worst turner in the game. Slow climb. Medium speed (not enough to get you out of trouble). The Hornisse is a death bringer to bomber formations, but without little friends to keep the escorts away it's also a death bringer to its own crew.

Ok, what is it you disagree with specifically?  I tend to use the 109G-6 as a yardstick since it is quite possibly the most...

mediocre

...fighter of WWII. A P-38J/L will defeat a 109G-6 up high, but down low the 109 is superior. The 109 turns much better and climbs better, and is about as fast down low.

In the two decades I've played this game the only situations where I've lost a 109 to a P-38 has been the 38 B&Zing from superior altitude. That's the only thing a 38 is good at. When I think about it that's the only situation I remember losing any fighter to a 38. There's a reason Ack-Ack and the other 38 drivers are notorious alt-monkeys. 

[DmonSlyr]

Because, I don't think the G-6 is a better low alt plane 1v1,  the G14 is though. The the G6 just doesn't quite have the engine performance it needs to keep the nose up Vs a 38. That being said, low alt against a bunch of cons coming in higher, yes the G6 would be better in that interpretation, while in the defensive position. 

[WaffenVW]

I'm discussing purely from a performance perspective. Not a 'if the 38 spiral climbs to the right and the 109 is stupid enough to follow rather than spiral climb to the left into a two-circle fight it can, and most of the time will win.' Or any other situation that includes whimsical non-measurable data. Hard numbers! Everything else is arguable and irrelevant.

[DmonSlyr]

I'm discussing purely from a performance perspective. Not a 'if the 38 spiral climbs to the right and the 109 is stupid enough to follow rather than spiral climb to the left into a two-circle fight it can, and most of the time will win.' Or any other situation that includes whimsical non-measurable data. Hard numbers! Everything else is arguable and irrelevant.

It's a good discussion because both planes have a different style that make for good fights against each other. Kinda like the F4U Vs Ki84. Everyone thinks the Ki84 is a better turning plane. But realistically the f4U beats the Ki84 in a 1v1. The F4u has a BnZ style and is poor on the deck slow like a P38 is, while the Ki84 is a slash attack style and much better in defensive positions. However, 1v1 on the deck the F4u would still win based on equal pilots. They are good fights in the game. The P51 is also the same as the P38 in regards to fighting 109s. The p51 retains E much better and has the advantage over the 109 from an E perspective, but the 109 is better in the defensive. Depending on who's style is better would win the fight, but realistically the plane that can hold the E better is the better performer. That's just how the game is.

[WaffenVW]

It may be a good discussion, but not one that the thread starter intended (but that's just unheard of on this bbs lol). The F4U is a UFO with its flaps out. It is one of the best turners in the game and nothing at all like the P-38 or P-51 low and slow. In fact it is the exact opposite of those two, energy wise.

[DmonSlyr]

Well it explains how the P38j or other 2 engine planes  are meant to fly against different planes such as the G6. That is learning within itself how to fly 2 engine fighters better.
Both 110s can loop inside G14s and K4s but the 110 is much harder to fly and doesn't hold E like the 38 does. 
I don't have enough experience in the mossie but maybe I'll give it a try next tour.

The F4u is a great turning plane. That's what makes it great. It actually is meant to be flown BnZ style. It was built to turn well in the Pacific agaisnt japanease fighters but more importantly was meant to be flown high and fast  using their great dve. . . That is generally how all American planes are meant to fly. The F4U was lucky enough to turn as well as it can with its flaps and big elevators/ailerons. That being said, most US planes biggest weaknesses are low n slow on the deck. While the F4U has a better chance in the turn it does act very much like the P38 and the P51 on the deck in terms of sluggish behavior. The G6 shines better in the defensive category  especially on the deck , which is where it most likely will be getting chased down by higher US fighters. The F4U can turn inside them all, but US fighters have a much harder time than a G6 agaisnt BnZers on the deck because they are heavier.

Really though, I was just comparring that the F4U is to the P38j as the KI84 is to the G6, in terms of successful fighting styles. 

[WaffenVW]

The 110G is very agile for such a big plane, but like in the 109 you have to use the rudder a lot. It can hang on to a surprising amount of E in dives and zoom climbs. I've surprised many a P-47 driver in the 110G. Flew the 110G as a pure fighter before it was cool. If and when they update the model I may end up flying it again.

Here I am shooting a spit off JB42's tail, back when I was flying with the Jabostaffel.




But my favorite ride of all time is the 109F.

[Karnak]

Acceleration on an unladen Mossie VI is not bad, not good either, but not bad and the top speed is 13mph faster than the P-38J/L on the deck.  Yes, the P-38J/L does out accelerate/climb the Mossie, but those are two of the best accelerating/climbing American aircraft.  Acceleration and climb for the Mossie VI is very much like the P-51D.

Ignore the HTC performance chart for the Mossie as that is with 2000lbs of bombs and 100% (3400lbs) fuel.  When flown as a fighter it almost always has no bombs or shackles and 50% fuel.

[FLS]

You can compare acceleration directly by setting the same climb speed and comparing climb rate. This lets you easily compare any aircraft in any configuration.

[Karnak]

You can compare acceleration directly by setting the same climb speed and comparing climb rate. This lets you easily compare any aircraft in any configuration.

Yes, this is why I describe it as "acceleration/climb".  The Mosquito Mk VI with 50% fuel is very similar to the P-51D with 50% fuel in terms of acceleration/climb at low altitude.

[WaffenVW]

The OP was particularly interested in the 410. The Hornisse can be an effective heavy fighter if flown in groups (like most planes I guess). Using surprise and tactical advantage to mitigate the aircraft's weaknesses. I don't know if there are any dedicated 410 squadrons out there, but that would be my choice if I wanted to fly 410s a lot. That firepower does weigh up for a lot of other deficiencies in a group since every snapshot becomes super deadly and a group can generate many snapshot opportunities and clear each others six'.


Some 410 pron from Dolby: