Title update update

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by Deascendent

but to say that the p-51 wasn't a dogfighter is the most ignorant statement I've read on here, look at the kills on record, look at it's specs, and read the accounts of ace p51 pilots, dumb American basher.

I thought I might get a fanboy flame... the p51 enjoyed heavy numerical superiority from the time it entered service, and it was usually used in the escort role, which is a high-speed running battle, NOT an anchored dogfight.

The p51's specs show its wing loading in the high 30's, whereas the spit's loading is in the low 20's. Its thrust to weight ratio is only 0.18 hp/lb. It was fast because of other factors like low drag.

Since you apparently respect only Americans, here's what Robert Shaw the Navy expert says about low wing loading:

"The low-wing-loaded fighter's greatest performance advantages are
assumed to be good instantaneous turn performance, slow minimum
speed, and a tight sustained turn radius. In some cases this aircraft also
might have a significant sustained-turn-rate advantage. Its weaknesses
include inferior climb and acceleration performance under low-G condi-
tions, and slower "top-end" speed."

Why could the p51 fight German fighters in anchored fights? Because the bf109's wing loading was also in the high 30's, and the fw190 was even higher. The fights were mostly at high speed, where all 3 planes maneuvered best. Though none were great low-speed turners, that didn't matter if they were fighting each other at low speed since they all shared the same disadvantage. The German planes did usually have a higher t/w ratio which was incentive for them to keep the fights faster.

If a p51 were to get itself into a descending, decelerating battle with a spitfire, hurricane, zero or la-5, one on one, it would be at a major disadvantage. It could BnZ them, but that's not a dogfight. 2 p51's vs 1 spitfire, different story. A 2 to 1 advantage is huge for any kind of plane.

also if the success of the pilots is what makes a plane a great dogfighter, you'd have to call the bf109 the greatest dogfighter ever since the top 100 aces of ww2 mostly flew it. It was a good fighter, but not a "dogfighter." Not like a spitfire or a zero.

If the p51 were updated with a "fighting" model, it would handle more like a fw190, though a bit less agile because of the lower t/w. Guess what, the fw190 isn't popular online either.

If there were an "escort" mode where one side has to defend bombers and the other side has to attack them, then people would use the fast planes. But again, that's not a dogfight.

[irrelevant]

Originally Posted by kozzm0

If there were an "escort" mode where one side has to defend bombers and the other side has to attack them, then people would use the fast planes. But again, that's not a dogfight.

I want this!

Signed,

A P-51 and FW-190 fanboy.

[Deascendent]

The P51's high wing loading has alot do with it's high fuel load on takeoffs, at the merge, where p51's would dogfight at, they were more than apt, and also the p51s low drag made up for it's high weight even the fuel used up, there are many accounts of p51s being outnumbered and taking down 4 and 5 planes, just because it wasn't as good as the spitfire down low doesn't mean that it wasn't a dogfighter, depends on the pilots and other factors, but for this game to make it a complete dog and you to defend their reasoning is poor, you should be able to pick it up in this game and do just as well if not better than the g6 and k4.

And the way you wrote your comment you were begging for a "fanboy flame". I hope they fix the speed problems of the p51 in the patch too, barely over 300 after 30 seconds of WEP is pisssss poor. WTF devs? 6 months of beta testing and you can't even get the top speeds right on realistic and sim? What were they beta testing? How good the graphics looked across demographic upbringings? LOL.

It's a good game, obviously I wouldn't be on here with such passion if I didn't like it, so piss off people saying if you critique the game you should leave this forum and sell your game.

The game is a tease and with the minor tweaks and fine adjustments, it could have been twice as good and that's what pisses me off the most, let's hope the patch is sooooooooooooooooooooooooon, before we rip each other apart. I've never said the game was unplayable, so stop cussing saying that shit.

[Deascendent]

Originally Posted by kozzm0

If there were an "escort" mode where one side has to defend bombers and the other side has to attack them, then people would use the fast planes. But again, that's not a dogfight.

Um, what do you call it when the escorters engage the bogeys??

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by Deascendent

Um, what do you call it when the escorters engage the bogeys??

not to split hairs, but air battles were called "dogfights" when the planes turned repeatedly around each other, like two dogs going after each other's throats. That's still what people usually mean when they say dogfight, after-the-pass ACM using high-g turns.

An intercept-vs-escort engagement isn't usually like that. Since the objective is the bombers on both sides, neither side can use much high-g or they'll lose contact with the objective.

The fw-190 usually tried to avoid p51's entirely, attacking from the front and extending away before they could be engaged.

"Escort/intercept" would be a great addition to patch 2.0. They could even have the bombers flown by AI. I like the dogfight mode but the slow-motion furballs of hurricanes and spitfires gets boring. Defending a bomber from another player would be a greater challenge. It might work in strike mode, but nobody ever plays it.

[Riceball]

[QUOTE=kozzm0;If there were an "escort" mode where one side has to defend bombers and the other side has to attack them, then people would use the fast planes. But again, that's not a dogfight.[/QUOTE]

Yes. That game mode is really a no-brainer. I thought this was a MP mode in Heroes over Europe.