109 G,K numbers should be evaluated

[Rusty1961]

https://www.luftkrieg-ueber-europa.de/e ... tt-bf-109/

Walter Eichhorn is a Red Bull test pilot and has flown all the warbirds; he says the 109 G was much more maneuverable than the 51B and 51D.

Combined that with the G/K having a dramatically superior climb rate and acceleration, I think the plane is not given justice in this game.

[HMSWarspite]

A couple of things:
a) warbirds are never flown to their limits these days - or at least not by pilots who want to keep it and them in one piece, so this evidence cannot be taken at face value.
b) the ratings in the game are the 'applied' rating, that is the real effect they have on combat performance. The devs haven't explicitly said this, but the balancing process inevitably makes this so. Thus, unless your guy has flown the planes in combat conditions, pure 'airshow' maneuverability doesn't count for much. An example of this is relative RAF and LW fighter losses in the Battle of Britain and then over France in 1940. The LW suffered horribly in 1940, but RAF found out in 1941 it wasn't all due to the aircraft.

What (from RL) makes you think 109G/K losses (and hence implied game ratings) justify an in game tweak?

The ratings do not seem intrinsically odd: P51B - D have man 36. The 109G are generally 35. (with a couple of exceptions). The 190As are also 35. This is better/similar to Spit V (34), IX (35). To get significantly higher in Spitfires you need to go to the Griffon Spits (XII or XIV). And this ignores the 109G-10 and G-14 that are 37 man... And then we get to the 109K - which at 38 is equal highest in the game...

But the game is complex and manoeuvre is't everything.

[mssm45]

Very interesting thread.

What are the key tech specs to consider when comparing planes?
Is it maneuver, weapon and speed specs that are the most important for dogfight effectiveness?

[cfulbright]

And climb rate.

Cary

[bomccarthy]

You can't base comparisons of historical performance on present day warbirds. The restored Bf-109s, P-51s, B-17s, A6Ms, etc. lack the armor and armament carried by the operational aircraft and are almost never flown with a full internal fuel load, thus weighing up to several thousand pounds less than their wartime predecessors. More importantly, they are not powered by the same engines, even lacking the emergency boost systems that were all-important to vertical maneuver performance. Since they almost never fly above 10,000 feet, few of the later generation restored warbirds, such as the P-51, have an auxiliary stage supercharger, which gave the P-51 its speed. The B-29s that have been restored (two, I believe) all use a modified Wright R-3350 based on the engine model that powered the AD Skyraider in Korea and Vietnam - it produces up to 600 more horsepower at sea level than the version that powered the B-29 in WWII, but lacks the turbosupercharger. One wartime B-29 pilot who had the opportunity co-pilot a restored aircraft said something like "They sure didn't take off like this when we flew them!"

As a result of all these modifications, their c.g can vary somewhat from the operational versions, depending upon whether ballast has been added to compensate for the missing armor, armament, fuel, supercharger installations, etc. This could really affect the flight characteristics of the Bf-109G, whose approach and landing characteristics were described by some Luftwaffe test pilots as "malicious."

For game purposes, comparisons should only come from the original manufacturer and service flight tests (which are available if you have the time, means, and patience to go through archived material that is usually not available online), or through the USAAF TAIC flight test reports (many or which are available online, if you have the patience to search). TAIC tested most of the German, Italian, and Japanese aircraft that were flyable after capture, and some of the data was surprising.

[MechFO]

As previous posters have said, comparing relative aircraft combat performance is very difficult.

High and fast, P51 is the undisputed master, low and slow, the Bf109, anything in between, it depends.

Combat is never fair and how to isolate factors like tactical situation, aircrew, numerical advantage or mission.

Even the contemporary comparison of various aircraft, the few that exist, is fraught with interpretation as they inevitably compared a pilot in a familiar mechanically sound aircraft with a pilot in an unfamiliar badly serviced aircraft (no maintenance manuals), often damaged, who had little incentive to kill themselves in order to seek out the edge of the envelope.

Thus you get reports like Germans stating that the earliest most underpowered Fw190A was more manoeuvrable and could outturn Spitfire I's captured in France. Doesn't really make sense according to most peoples understanding of how they match up but the report exists.

That said, I do think something is wonky somewhere but looking at the various stats that's IMO most likely a weapon data issue with the MF151, MK108 and 103.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

A couple of things:
a) warbirds are never flown to their limits these days - or at least not by pilots who want to keep it and them in one piece, so this evidence cannot be taken at face value.
b) the ratings in the game are the 'applied' rating, that is the real effect they have on combat performance. The devs haven't explicitly said this, but the balancing process inevitably makes this so. Thus, unless your guy has flown the planes in combat conditions, pure 'airshow' maneuverability doesn't count for much. An example of this is relative RAF and LW fighter losses in the Battle of Britain and then over France in 1940. The LW suffered horribly in 1940, but RAF found out in 1941 it wasn't all due to the aircraft.

What (from RL) makes you think 109G/K losses (and hence implied game ratings) justify an in game tweak?

The ratings do not seem intrinsically odd: P51B - D have man 36. The 109G are generally 35. (with a couple of exceptions). The 190As are also 35. This is better/similar to Spit V (34), IX (35). To get significantly higher in Spitfires you need to go to the Griffon Spits (XII or XIV). And this ignores the 109G-10 and G-14 that are 37 man... And then we get to the 109K - which at 38 is equal highest in the game...

But the game is complex and manoeuvre is't everything.

I submit a turning radius, w/r/t time, that of nearly 50% less than a '51D means that intrinsically the 109 is more maneuverable than a P51D. Noticeably so.

Secondly, how much cockpit time do you have in a 109, Spitfire XIV or a P51D as opposed to Walther Eichhorn?

[Saturn V]

I can't speak to the German fighter figures, but I would point out the Lancaster II isn't included in the game, but it should be, given it was operated by six Bomber Command squadrons, most for a considerable period of time. The B-17F ought to be split into an early version without the 'Tokyo Tanks' and a later version with them, rather than relying on loadouts to distinguish between the two. I would also suggest the loadouts in general for the Allied bombers need an overhaul, based on the actual bomb loads carried that I've found in researching the topic.