Pony talk

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by ramstein

the only thing that bothers me about these 'conversations' about aircraft its:

when I chat with WWII pilots about their aircraft in combat (I have talked with P40, Cosair, B24, and several other pilots that actually flew combat in WWII and Korea..) and they never once told me the History channel and military channels lie about anything. I specially asked them, just because people here always throw that argument oput saying they do. When I chatted with these WWII pilots, the chats were for a few hours and sometimes with fighter and bomber pilots together.. in very small groups of about 5 people..

yet when I come here every who never flew anything always lays down the law on how these aicraft flew..

I respect those who actually flew aicraft,, or at least builds them..

myself, I worked on aicraft, and flew on a few as I was in the USAF a few years. But I never flew in combat, only flew a piper cub, only sat in a Spitfire, F4, F15, B52's, and may, many others. I flew in tankers, C5's, military version of a lear jet (forgot the model..) and many, many other modern aircraft.. including helos.

I have worked in aerospace, but my only aicraft builds were the small scale flyable models that you fly by wires with a handle. I built combat and acrobatic models. That was when I was very young and you could build aicrat with 4 foot wingspans for $10 and the engine was $15.

oh well, I wish these conversations would help get the porked planes fixed.. I think the modders have the tools, they just don't have the knowledge or the will to fix the wrongs..

I give much credit for all the work done, as without the people that build these aicraft we would be playing some other game or sim..

10 years of IL-2 and it's going strong and there is always some war that hasn't been fought yet.. or some plane unexplored.

You've jumped in on Mustang conversations before with a very closed mind so I'm not sure how this will go... but I'll bite (and I apologise in advance for my lead in but this has been my prior experience - I look forward to being pleasantly surprised ).

History Channel and Military Channel don't lie so much as they provide a vague generalization with a dash of patriotism and not a lot of real historical content. I sometimes turn off the sound and just watch the brilliant video work as they fly around some great warbirds. Normally when I listen to what their saying it's overly dramatic (typical for TV anywhere ) and the end result is that the Mustang, in particular, is glorified far beyond reality. It's not lies... it's just gross oversimplification beyond even what is really necessary.

That is to say that the Mustang is amongst the top 5 fighters of World War II with innumerable positive attributes. The problem from a flight simulator perspective is that the Mustang has both positive and negative attributes. Anyone who comes into these simulators/games with this very one sided view of the aircraft will immediately complain about the performance of the Mustang in-game.

This has happened in CFS, Janes, IL-2 and the list goes on. There isn't much wrong with the Mustang.. no more than there is with the Tempest or FW190 or any other type present (and with over 200 types that is impressive). It has a few quirks but it's really quite accurate by the numbers. If Team Daidalos can find a problem with the Mustang I'm sure they will fix it.

I've talked to a few wartime pilots and even some fighter pilots too. Most of the ones I've talked to are a surprisingly humble bunch and normally if you ask them about their aircraft (insert Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, etc.) they will reflect on their former mount with fond memories. And of course they would...

As for being authoritative about the aircraft... In terms of history of it's inception, design, usage, and general performance of most warbirds I'd say many of us have a very solid understanding. It's not the same kind of understanding or authoritative background as a pilot who flew one in combat. It'd be wise to separate out the two.

Also I'll end by saying that much of what's been discussed in this thread walks the line between history and IL-2 sim world. Not the same although close enough to be able to find meaning... nonetheless much of the flying advice in here is about flying the sim Mustang. Some us have far too many thousands of hours on those

[Blackdog_kt]

I think i kind of agree with Icefire. The pony was not the best fighter of WWII. Neither was any other aircraft. There is no hands down best all around fighter, no such thing. What do exist are best planes for a specific job under certain circumstances. The pony was one of that aircraft, coming to light under favorable circumstances.

What the pony was, was a fighter for a specific job that came at the right time to make a significant impact on the war effort, because they just happened to badly need a plane to do that job at that time. People recognized that, history was initially written by the victors, being a very good looking, sleek aircraft didn't hurt publicity-wise and that's how the exaggerated all-around superiority myth was built...a bit of a dramatic, sensationalist voiceover on a newsreel here, a bit of a triumphant flypast sequence there and people will be impressed. As the years go by and the star status of the plane builds upon itself, there are bound to be people who genuinely believe that it single-handedly won the war.

If P47s had the range to fly to Berlin i'm willing to bet that the Jug, no matter if people think it's ugly, would be the plane that held superstar status. Harder hitting, comparable performance, much more durable.
In a similar fashion, it also has a lot to do with the opposition. If Me262s had been produced in numbers and the luftwaffe was able to retain a core of experienced veterans to fly them, things would be different as well.

All in all, if the performance gap is not too big pilots will tend to prefer the aircraft that has better armament, is more reliable and can take more punishment...it's the cold, hard math of survival and nothing more. The only reason to go for a lighter armed and lesser protected airframe is if it makes you totally untouchable by the opposition.

In the pony's case the biggest performance gain was range, which is something that would be mostly appreciated by the planners at HQ than the pilots actually flying a 6-8 hour sortie. In fact, there were some squads in the ETO (i think it was actually an entire group) that fought tooth and nail to keep flying the P47 until the end of the war and not convert to the Mustang. If memory serves me right, that would be the 56th (Zemke's wolfpack) and they actually got their wish granted.

Of course i'm not slagging the plane off but on the other hand its exploits have surely been greatly exaggerated over the years, considering that a single piece of shrapnel could leave you as a pony pilot frantically drawing up a course for neutral Switzerland, when P47s routinely returned with vertical stabs bearing holes half their size, telephone wires snagged on their wingtips and entire cylinders blown off the engine, in some cases by flying through their own bomb's shrapnel.

[Madfish]

If you really wanted performance stats you could only reconstruct and benchmark the planes.

Blackdog you mention an important point. For example what if the saturation of certain planes would've been higher. I don't think it's always just about performance. In the end what probably mattered most was having aces to train the rooks, having a good supply chain, quality materials and fuel, pilots that are actually getting some rest and the right numbers.
During the late war Germany wouldn't even have been able to win if they had a couple of Eurofighters or Raptors or whatever. Since the pilots have basically been living zombies, most aces were dead, the material quality was low, fuel was low, training was almost impossible and the planes have been in bad shape.

So in single player missions you could balance things out a bit. But in multiplayer everyone will of course pick the best plane to fight. And the game will supply a perfect plane, the pilot will have slept properly, fed properly, not freezing, sitting comfortably at home and also all the experience he accumulates will add up at some point. Getting shot down is simply an addition to experience - it doesn't mean injury or death at all.

So yeah, sims can only simulate a few things. Most important things can't be simulated however. So it's a rather cumbersome discussion how well certain planes really were in the real war and how they're now in a game. Things are just not comparable at all I believe.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Madfish

During the late war Germany wouldn't even have been able to win if they had a couple of Eurofighters or Raptors or whatever. Since the pilots have basically been living zombies, most aces were dead, the material quality was low, fuel was low, training was almost impossible and the planes have been in bad shape.

If all 1400 or so me262 produced for the LW were actually operational with pilots, fuel and munitions readily available, all at the same time, the 8th air force would have been obliterated and allied armor flattened.

In reality I do not think they ever had more than 100 or so me262 operational on any given day.

[X32Wright]

It won't matter because most of the 'expertens' are dead by this time and you have nothing but 'nuggets' (beginners) flying. As you probably can tell in the game, fighting aces and experienced pilots are no walk in the park either.

Remember that Mosquitoes have killed Me-163s and Mustangs have killed Me-262s. The Me-262 however would run out of ammo and probably have engine problems on a sustained fight with a P-51.

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't see how the 262 would be able to get into protracted fights with the escorts, you're right. That would probably be reserved for prop-driven fighters.

However, if used in its intended role the 262 would not need to get in a sustained fight at all. Bypass the escorts, fly parallel to the bomber stream, turn into them in a pursuit curve, attack the bombers head on...rinse and repeat until you get damaged or run out of fuel/ammo.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

If all 1400 or so me262 produced for the LW were actually operational with pilots, fuel and munitions readily available, all at the same time, the 8th air force would have been obliterated and allied armor flattened.

In reality I do not think they ever had more than 100 or so me262 operational on any given day.

Just to put the 1400 into the proper context: In March 1945, the USAAF flew 146000 sorties against Germany. That is 4700 a day. 62000 of these were fighter sorties, that is 2000 a day.
Add to these the VVS and RAF, plus the various smaller air forces, and you'll have to realize that even if all Me 262's produced up to a certain point had been available at that point, it would not have made a significant difference to the outcome.
One can assume one devastating battle against the 8th air force, which would have been a pyrrhic victory for the LW. Nothing left to flatten the Allied armour.

[dduff442]

While the 262 was certainly the future, the P-51 had certain advantages also: range and endurance. They could concentrate anywhere they chose in massive numbers. Even by Feb 44, USAAF a/c could swarm in from the UK and the Med to a single area anywhere in Western Europe. The moral impact alone on viewers on the ground -- friendly or enemy -- must have been stupefying.

The 262 lacked endurance and, unlike later jets, absolutely had to keep high and fast when enemy a/c were around. It had neither the acceleration nor the manoeuvrability to tangle with prop planes.

The strangely mixed reviews the likes of the 262, He-162 and Me-163 got are partly the result of impossible conditions. They would have performed much better in allied hands. With numerical superiority, they could have performed many kinds of mission at very low risk. The Me-163 and He-162 were too dangerous for allied training and use, though.

The 262, if produced with high quality materials, was a fairly mature design and would have even made an impact in Normandy if a couple of hundred had been available. The kill ratios are misleading -- success was not possible when the enemy could afford to keep a couple of squadrons camped over the base all day long. Vulchers!

dduff

[Codex]

Originally Posted by dduff442

...
The 262 lacked endurance and, unlike later jets, absolutely had to keep high and fast when enemy a/c were around. It had neither the acceleration nor the manoeuvrability to tangle with prop planes.

But the 262 weren't being used to tangle with the escorts, their primary role was to kill bombers using BnZ tactics. Almost all 262's that were shot down were lost during take-offs or landings.

With regards to endurance, that's one thing that LW didn't need to worry about, as the fight was now over their soil.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by JtD

Just to put the 1400 into the proper context: In March 1945, the USAAF flew 146000 sorties against Germany. That is 4700 a day. 62000 of these were fighter sorties, that is 2000 a day.
Add to these the VVS and RAF, plus the various smaller air forces, and you'll have to realize that even if all Me 262's produced up to a certain point had been available at that point, it would not have made a significant difference to the outcome.
One can assume one devastating battle against the 8th air force, which would have been a pyrrhic victory for the LW. Nothing left to flatten the Allied armour.

The point missing about the 262 was that Galland saw these aircraft as a means to kill bombers, Hitler wanted them to be bombers so there is a stark difference in tactical thinking. Obviously Hitler got his way and Germany lost. But if Galland had the 1400 or so aircraft ready and they were all configured for interception as Galland had wanted, the allied bomber squads would have not had the success they did in killing off Germany's production when they did, and I stress when they did. By D-Day I personally don't think Germany would have lasted even if they had best aircraft and pilots at their disposal, the numbers against them were just too great, but the 262 would have certainly either slowed or even stopped the bleeding of Germany's war production and prolonged the war.