I'm now guilty of commenting before watching the video, but I can't help it. I'm excited about this topic as I use the Dora a lot in IL2 and can't wait to hear what you have to say about it.
I just got the Dora and keep getting my ass handed to me online. My biggest problem is target ID. I can't tell who is friendly and who isn't, and every time I hesitate, I get murdered
Yep. That aspect certainly is modeled for all of the airplanes with any kind of seat inclination, but for simplicity I'm content to treat all pilot's with the G-suit equally. For me personally it's not worth worrying over the small varying degrees of G-tolerance for pilot's without a G-suit based on seat inclination.
Your analysis confirms exactly what Ive came to feel with hundreds of hours of flying these birds against each other. What an awesome shortcut your charts provide. @6:40 I saw a lot more shooting than I saw of the "finishing him off." LOL.
Awesome video. I have found everything you said to be true. The 51 has the overall edge, but the Dora is at least competitive and have a few advantages.
Cheers Greg, I remember your P-51 vs Dora video and was wondering what you would think of this one. I did mess up a little bit on the Dora's top speed at 25,000ft due to my EM spreadsheet linking to a wrong cell in the TAS calculation but a correct figure is available now at least. Appreciate hearing your thoughts as always mate!
Funny German pilots with 24 hours of training recorded the D9 was an easy overmatch for Mustang, if the Mustang and Thunderbolts were so great how did German pilots who never flew before January 1945 became aces and had no problems shooting down Tempest, Typhoons, Mustangs and Thunderbolts while being outnumbered 50 to 1. Germany only lost 38,000 airmen but they could not afford 10,000. Allieds lost 300,000. Plus.
@@toddduffy1658 Element of surprise will always hold a clear advantage, German pilot's knew this very well. Considering the small numbers of aircraft the Luftwaffe operated especially towards the end of the war due to fuel and pilot shortages.
@@toddduffy1658 well tbh you're right with the fact that "overall edge" doesn't really fit here since it comes down to the situation you're finding yourself in
Wow awesome video! Great info. This info can even be applied to War Thunder aswell. So anyone who struggles with playing Dora’s against Mustangs bar maybe the D-30 or H-5 ofc. But overall I heavily recommend this vid as someone with experience in WT! Very factual, and accurate. Keep up the great work 👍
Excellent analysis between both aircraft, the FW-190D9 is one of my favourite German aircraft. You can see the laminar flow wing of the Mustang being of a later design, certainly wins the Mustang a slight speed advantage.
They take such a long time to put together though...I'm hoping that by these first few videos on the subject I can create a comparison excel spreadsheet people can use to compare whatever they want and understand how to read it
The actual figures are there more or less as a verification or a way to analyze/prove the generic statements from people who say "well the Dora is an energy fighter" "The spitfire is a turn (angles) fighter" Its not that simple, but the graphics show that certain advantages against specific pairings can be realized and gained through basic study. "know thy self, know thy enemy"
I don't actually own the DCS P-47. Only have the P-51, Spitfire, and Bf 109 at the moment. I do want to make some DCS warbird tutorials to see if people enjoy them though
@@RequiemsACTL I agree with dblvision. Btw, this is one of you best videos. There´s a bit more information but it feels like a slower tempo which I like, as well as you´re more "spelling out" the details for us, instead of leaving them to our imagination. Thankfully the EM-diagrams are now becoming a bit more familiar than the first time I saw them. Speaking of that, there´s a lot of such comparisons in "Korean War Fighter Tactics presented by David Lednicer, historicflight" and some nice tactics shown in "US Navy Jet Fighter Tactics - Restored Color 1951, ZenosWarbirds". I´ve been thinking alot about the tip you mention of using formation tactics with a plane like the D-9. Seems a bit hard to exploit the rather small window of advantages if you fly it like a lonewolf.
This info helps me in other games like War Thunder. I beat my friend in his mustang using tactics pertaining to the facts in this video in my dora 9. Spiral dives are a death sentence if you aren’t comfortable using the roll rate, but overall it’s best to try to bleed the Mustangs energy, hope he’s popping flaps at slightly the wrong time, and drag him upwards. Either that or try to bet in the scissors. But I try not to since I’m not in sim cons (RB) so I can’t feather my elevator control and he can just pop flaps for max drag and AoA. While I sit there with a not much changed Drag set. However I love the parts where I reverse into him in a one circle stall drop into him as I go down with all flaps out, engine cut, and get a close up cinematic snap shot as he’s coming up at me. I might post it, it’s hard to explain but it was fun. All and all I can verify that things said in this video are very much true even in other games.
Thanks for sharing your experience! My videos are made with the purpose of having them applied in other sims. I don't simply show what works from a gaming perspective in one sim. I aim to show what works in RL, so if it works in RL then it should work regardless of the sim if it models things relatively accurately.
@@RequiemsACTL Well I can verify you did a great job! If I ever have to help teach dora piloting I’ll recommend this video!! Keep up the awesome work bud!
Thanks for the informative video. What is the pedal to seat height relationship between these two planes, and does that do anything to effect the g-suit advantage?
While you presented in, it was glossed over a bit. The 190 isn’t really out turned at mid altitudes and can climb to get an energy advantage. The 190 can simply build an energy advantage and kill the Mustang. The 190 just has to avoid low and slow. (Or super fast) Climb to 3.5+ and then you can control the fight. Not to mention a huge firepower advantage. A good solo D9 should have no problem taking a Mustang in a thunder dome situation. However, The Mustang has the ability to disengage as long as it it doesn’t allow itself to get too far behind in its overall energy situation.
Question: Do I need a two throttle stick for two engine aircraft? I know it is obviously more realistic but how much does one use the individual throttles in a typical scenario? My Cougar throttle is still working fine but I keep eyeballing the Warthog throttle. I also use a Pro quadrant throttle for my prop and mixture that Ive been tempted to use for dual throttle but cant see the payoff.
Oooh fell into the lift produced by flaps... one thing to note is the lift vector angle changes and thus the nose drops also it helps to see over the nose. But you can test it add flaps at same power setting the aircraft will not climb thus it does not produce lift. it decreases the AOA and thus the stalling speed.
Many thanks for all the interesting data. I would like to clarify your point when you were talking about how these airplanes are unable to sustain corner speed without descending. If these graphs are correct, after the pass if you are trying to maximize turn rate you don’t want to even attempt to maintain corner speed, because it is well above the speed for best sustained rate and you will be turning much more slowly. You can only maintain corner speed when you don’t need to sustain your best turn and are trying to keep speed in hand that you can cash in for more turn later. You mentioned that the corner speed of the pP-51 is higher, but what you really mean is that the corner speed of the P-51 pilot is higher, because your limits are based on notional pilots rather than the airplanes. What is interesting in comparing the airplanes is that even at the slower ‘corner speed’ of the FW-190, the P-51 still has nearly an extra G and 3 deg/sec more rate available. These rates are instantaneous and the P-51 should gain some angles in the first pull, but its better sustained rate and radius once the planes slow below corner is its long term advantage. Keep up the good work!
In real life the FW-190A was at its best sustaining turns at reduced throttle and partial flaps at around 160 mph, giving 18 seconds per 360. The P-51D, even with flaps and the throttle reduced, could probably do no better than 20 seconds at 180 mph. The Spitfire has no partial flap so was probably worse, at 21-22 seconds, probably similar to a Me-109G that does not reduce power. With flaps and power down the 109G could match the P-51D but not the P-47D Razorback. The P-47D bubble top was worse however. The Hellcat could likely match or beat the FW-190A. The FM-2 Wildcat out-turned A6M5 Zeroes(!) See my channel for more details on why reducing power was so crucial to sustain prolonged turns.
Also slow speed turns was increasingly dominant as the war went on, since it gave a stable sight picture compared to hit and run. Historians have it upside down: The war started all hit and run , and evolved to turn fighting..,
@@wrathofatlantis2316 We have discussed this before on another channel, and I do not accept your personal theory that reducing thrust increases sustained turn rate. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and watched part of your video on the subject, but I found it to contain unsupported conjecture rather than a cogent argument. For example, it is well know that for a cambered airfoil the center of pressure shifts toward the aerodynamic center with increasing AOA and coefficient of lift. This has nothing to do with propeller thrust, and the CP does not move forward of the CG unless the airplane was designed to be unstable. Until you or anyone else can point to an accepted aerodynamic text that supports your theory, I can only suspect you may be misinterpreting anecdotes from a couple of WWII pilots who reduced power to slow to corner speed prior to the pass. These are probably the same pilots who were wiling to slow to become anchored in a tight turning fight rather than maintain energy and options, which may also lead to your contention that historians have it backwards in this regard as well. I accept neither theory without evidence.
@@gort8203 There is no loss of stability when the CL shifts in front of the CG because the prop is offering stability by asymmetrically resisting the turn from the trust shifting above the wing. The forward shift of CL is why the pilot does not feel the prop asymmetry. There are ways forces can hide inside larger forces. The Partial shifting of the prop airflow spiral above the wing has indeed never been detected, probably for a combination of reasons, foremost among which it was never searched for... Curved air cannot be replicated in wind tunnels. As little as a 6% loss on the outside can slow the whole aircraft 3%, reloading the inside turn prop half 3%, for a 9% asymmetry: A 10% asymmetry on a 3000 lbs load generates 300 lbs at the nose. If the CL shifts one inch in front of the CG, to hide those 300 lbs from the pilot on a 10 foot nose requires an unknown 300 X 120 inches: 31 200 lbs of unknown extra strain on the wings: Reduce power by half you just cut 15 600 lbs of imperceptible extra load on your wings... (imperceptible other than by your previous crummy high prop load turn rate) : If a nose is 8 feet and the forward shift 12 inches, those 300 lbs only add 300 X 8: + 2400 lbs. That is how the FW-190A excels at low speed, without any violation of physics... This is the only way to match observed WWII behaviour both in the universal cutting of power and shorter nose radials beating much lighter inlines. It makes perfect sense (if we allow the leakage above the wings generates the extra lift needed, but still well within the strength margins of the wings) Let me ask you this: If I demonstrated in a real life test a previously unknown turn averse prop asymmetry of 6%, would you accept then that the entire edifice of current prop knowledge is up-ended?
@@wrathofatlantis2316 As I said last time, your claim makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying you have discovered something unknown to aeronautical science. If so I suggest you demonstrate it to some recognized experts in aerodynamics and get it published, and if they corroborate your theory then I'll believe it.
Just FYI a G-Suit really doesn’t have much of an effect in flight. It’s at most a 1G boost in tolerance. Hydration and nutrition are vastly more important. I hardly notice the G-Suit effect, but if I am dehydrated, my G-tolerance and general fatigue buildup is significantly impacted. This sometimes makes the second flight of a day in the summer kind of painful.
Yeah I'm aware of the RL aspects to that stuff but I provided the data in reference to how it is modeled in the sim is all. Appreciate your extra insight though!
a small question: how do you know exactly that a pilot of P-51D (in IL-2 sim) has that G-suit? in Russian community website, there's no data/description regarding the G-suit for Mustangs, neither we have it as a pre-flight option in game
My understanding is that it's based on their historical timeframe of service. When the P-51D P-47D and P-38J were flying in combat the G-suit was standard issue to their pilots.
What are you using to look around in the cockpit like that? Is that a VR headset or just a tracker and if yes which one are you using or what could you recommend?
@@RequiemsACTL Thanks for your reply, I just ordered Tobii Eye Tracker 5 today to check it out since i cant stand it to look around with the mouse while flying with a stick all the time...
All my flight tests are done within a standardised mission I use on the Kuban map in the springtime (at 15°C and an altimeter setting of 29.92) so all airplanes have the same frame of reference. The D-9 at max power with boost will reach 570 km/hr under those conditions. If you were to perform the same test with the D-9 on a winter map you will reach a higher airspeed above 600 km/hr because winter conditions will increase performance.
@@RequiemsACTL I did and came to 605. have you set the cooling flaps to 15%? the D9 in IL2 tends to open it almost 100% at full throttle. the P51, however, closes it sensibly
@@RequiemsACTL yes of course, why should you do without 30 kmh although it makes no difference. you can fly with the cooling flaps 100% max 15min on full throttle the same with closed ones. You say "Max" airspeed which it actually isn't In such cases you should also include the radiator shutters, especially if they are unnecessarily open :)
Yes, you don't want to drop flaps if you're trying to improve turn rate because of the increase in drag. It will allow you to have a lower stall speed which will make your turn radius smaller.
Fascinating piece and well done indeed!!! Is this 'tutorial' for the gaming fraternity? As in reality there was a hell of a lot more going on when these aircraft came together in combat. Nothing was as clinical as described here irrespective of what both sides at the time worked out ie through flying captured examples, interrogating pilots and letting the boffins pull apart captured aircraft etc. At the end of the day by the time the P-51 Mustang was introduced into the UK the training the American pilots received was far and above what the average Luftwaffe fighter pilot was receiving at the time. Whilst the Luftwaffe had some truly remarkable aircraft, by the time of 1943/44 it was loosing a lot of experienced pilots and irrespective of the superlative qualities of each aircraft it was down to the skill of the pilot in each machine and it was here when training and experience mattered - exploiting the full advantages of the respective aircraft. The human factor will always tell. NEVERTHELESS from a purely performance/combat envelope, aircraft to aircraft as designed, most fascinating what you have done. Again well done.
As a pilot myself, I try to approach my tutorials by including a RL flying perspective with a gaming one to keep it approachable for as many people as possible. As long as the flight modeling is relatively accurate then the data should hold but there are many things that you have in RL that aren't applicable in a sim like you mentioned. So while there was definitely a lot more to this in WWII, by using a flight sim I can isolate the performance comparison using these diagrams as that's what is important to understand how to fight a dissimilar aircraft assuming both pilots are equal skill at getting the most of their aircraft.
Prop flight sims don’t replicate that to turn a WWII fighter tighter you need to lower speed to around 160 mph, as Bf-109G ace Karhila mentions. It was a race to be the slowest in turns, which is why WWII film footage looks so different from simulations. See my channel for details😊.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 Actually the data here does illustrate that the speed for best sustained turn rate with a prop is well below corner speed. You seem to not appreciate the difference between sustained rate and instantaneous rate. Any pilot who slows below corner speed prior to the first turn is making a critical mistake. As airplanes continue to pull G will continue to slow, so the pilot should be careful to not slow below the speed for best sustained rate, which is well below the speed at which you want to enter the combat.
@@gort8203 I never said anyone believed otherwise?! This is not about corner speed, other than theory would want the best sustained turn speed to be as close to it as possible, which is wrong, given all good fighter pilots cut their throttle to turn, even though minimum 6G was way up there in the 280s... The fact that Finn ace Karhila says the optimal sustained turn speed was 160 mph by itself proves current assumptions about power in props are wrong... WWII pilots never spoke in terms of energy because it was so obvious it mattered only to climb. Another anecdote illustrates why simulation games don’t resemble WWII dogfights in the least: A painter painted the wings of a FW-190A level in a combat: The pilot corrected him: “in (1945) combat we turned continuously to the left and never stopped turning: It was the only way to survive...” Furthermore, the entire evolution of WWII is understood wrong by historians: As discovered by recent research, even the Zero avoided turning in 1941: It only used high speed hit and run. Everyone gradually evolved to turn fighting by 1945, even though theory said otherwise. The reality is high speed hit and run was assumed dominant from the earliest 1930s monoplanes, and proven wrong by low hit rates with live rounds. That is why all those useless Early war twin engine day fighters were built: The death of dogfighting was an assumed fact from the start. Current consensus on this is 180 degrees from reality, and this is because the airframe pressure towards reduced power turn fighting is not understood.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 "The fact that Finn ace Karhila says the optimal sustained turn speed was 160 mph by itself proves current assumptions about power in props are wrong..." No, I don't think it proves that at all. I can only suspect you are spinning your own assumptions out of a few misunderstood anecdotes. You seem to disagree with all the established literature so you have a steep hill to climb. When you publish your book I'll read the reviews with interest.
I always try and approach my videos in a way so you can apply them anywhere. As long as the flight modeling is good enough, you can expect that you can apply what you watch here to War Thunder.
I can VERIFY everything this man said applies. I do duels with my friend and I asked him to get his mustang D-10, and I use my Dora 9. He’s no slouch I tell ya! I did everything in this video that marked the Dora’s advantages even going up to an alt where supercharger lag is an issue for the mustang. And I won almost every time only dying 1 time out of I think 5? But I might post it since I can’t remember every detail, but it was definitely awesome to see the Dora compete, and totally wreck when playing to its advantages. But this man knows his stuff (the duel I had was a month before this vid, but I very much appreciate someone bring in numbers explaining the pros and cons of an aircraft).
@@BARelement It's too bad that in War Thunder the 190D9 will most likely be having to go up against D-30 and even worse, P51-H models which absolutely dominate on performance vs the D9.
@@Moelders109 I’ve handled D-30s as well. It’s on my channel. Granted I didn’t get to kill him yet because i over bled his speed and he crashed trying to keep up with me using rudder (good pilots I see kick rudder to increase roll rates).
Just an addendum to put it here. The P-51D reaches 298mph IAS (479km/hr) while the Fw 190 D-9 reaches 275mph IAS (444 km/hr) at 25,000ft so the P-51D has the speed advantage up high as well. There was a error in my spreadsheet's Fw 190 D-9 sheet up at that altitude which created that mistake. The formula was linking to the cells with data used for 30,000ft and not 25,000ft! When I release these figures with other airplanes publicly the mistake will be fixed. Here is a link with the fixed comparison at 25,000ft drive.google.com/file/d/1Ij0XM_o7IQjWzQd1I28WWbCy_Aj-SqoV/view?usp=sharing
I know this is very primary but would you make video about how,when&why to use RUDDER? I really need it specially the theory and scientific reasons of it.
@@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242 Don´t want to hijack your question and I hope he makes such a video, but these are well worth buying: www.amazon.com/Rudder-Fundamentals/dp/B00BB0FQ84/ www.amazon.com/Stall-Upset-and-Spin-Recovery/dp/B0072M77QE/ Video you can watch right now: www.pilotworkshop.com/videos/rudder-skills-back-basics?sub=y (direct link) www.pilotworkshop.com/rudder-eb (signup, if you want different offers which are pretty good) Then Reqium has a few "principles" videos ruclips.net/user/TheAirCombatTutorialLibraryvideos which touches the subject. In short you need rudder at takeoff, landing and climb to counter left turning tendencies with most propeller driven airplanes, as well as when you use the ailerons to fly coordinated. It saves energy and minimizes the risk of stall. The steeper the maneuvers and the more into aerobatics you come, the more cruciual it is to keep the ball centered. The problem with general aviation flying in non challenging conditions is that you can probably get away with not using them throughout your whole "career", although it would be a waste of time.
@@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242 rudder is used for turns. The ball indicator or “turn slip indicator” is used to indicate if your turn is using too much rudder, too little rudder and too much roll and too little roll. Rudder is useful for coordinating turns. I’m just GA pilot right now, so if I missed anything I’m sure he’ll correct me.
@@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242 Rudder and trim usage are two of the most common things people overthink when it comes to flying. Regarding rudder, all you should do is use enough rudder to stay coordinated while flying so you fly as clean as possible (minimising drag on the airplane). If you use too much or too little rudder the airplane will have more of it's fuselage exposed to the relative wind which means you will fly slower than if you stayed coordinated. However, in certain situations it's a good idea to increase drag on the airplane by using large amounts of rudder (such as a forward slip to lose altitude without gaining excessive airspeed). It's much more difficult in a sim to use the correct amount of rudder compared to RL flying because there are subtle cues such as increase in wind noise or forces on your body which push you to the side of your seat if you fly uncoordinated. I do want to make a video showing some basics such as these things though
Are you sure? During WWII it was not wise. P51 was manufactured with better quality. If you take D9 than you take also numerous dissadvantage, no g-suit and no option to escape down low. P51 was providing higher chance of survival.
Worth to mention P51 had nicely indicated stall symphoms. Comparing to D9 was easier to fly. Fw 190 had sudden stall wing drop. 190 was better for high speed slashing attacks from surprise. As longer fight takes place than better for P51.
@@303Pinker I’m choosing an aircraft, not a side. I’d be willing to fly for the allies during the war, even if I had to fly a hurricane against a Bf.109F as I don’t necessarily agree with a certain man with a funny moustache. Dora had a much more ergonomic cockpit. The startup procedure was extremely easy, and Kommandgerät meant that pilots could focus on flying rather than on managing the engine. The Dora indeed had more unforgiving stall characteristics, but it doesn’t mean it couldn’t match P-51 turning ability in certain circumstances, especially with an outstanding roll rate. This factor is very often overlooked when comparing aircraft. Ability to change direction in a split second means that you can quickly turn a defensive situation into a neutral one. I’d say that if 2 mediocre pilots went against each other, one in a Mustang and the other one in a Dora, the Mustang pilot would win 7 out of 10 times. If the pilots were experienced though and knew their aircraft EXTREMELY well, the Dora pilot would win 7 out of 10 times
@@birkensafttt My point od view was not focused at side at all. I was pointing that Dora manufacturing quality was far behind P51 due to war conditions. Also have no reason for statement for Dora supremacy if was driven by experten pilot. Plane roll rate as defesive is a bit overestimated. Experienced P51 pilot had do problems with engine management or anything else. Fw 190 roll as defensive option was easy to overcome by high or low yoyo turns. All those sharp turns where only a delay of defeat. Could be usefull if 190 could dive away, but this was not an option. P51 could turn effective against late &heavy 109's. Don't see any other options for Dora than hit&run with teamwork. Any sort of dogfight was P51 game.
@@303Pinker even with the manufacturing quality in mind, D9 1.84 ata is faster than P-15 on 3-6 km altitude, where most combat took place, and D9 2.02 ata is just straight out faster than P-51 on any altitude below 6km. Acceleration and climb rate both favored D9 as P-51 relied more on reduced parasitic drag to match D9 in speed, and power to weight is more important in both acceleration and climb. The only advantage of P-51 is turn rate and possibly horizontal energy retention. I think irl equally trained pilot in D9 will win against one in P-51.
Yeah the P-51 is a fickle beast. It requires careful listening to the aircraft to know when you're approaching the stall as the gunports start whistling at higher AoA. Otherwise you'll have to rely on noticing airframe buffeting to indicate it.
@@RequiemsACTL I get plenty of warnings but when someone is throwing 30mm shells at you it's hard to fly straight and level. do you fly the mustang from DCS and if so does it perform better with lighter fuel loads?
@@RequiemsACTL ahh, ty. So im guessing jinking in a plane would be to roll jink then roll back and fly in the direction you really intended? I'm not sure if theres a proper method to jink while not losing any energy
@@mrhuffnpuff Well it's just a matter of getting yourself out of plane with the bandit trying to shoot you. You'll need to sacrifice energy in order to defeat their guns solution.
I'm now guilty of commenting before watching the video, but I can't help it. I'm excited about this topic as I use the Dora a lot in IL2 and can't wait to hear what you have to say about it.
It corresponds fairly well comparing to Il2 1946
I would like to see DCS D-9 vs IL 2 D-9
I just got the Dora and keep getting my ass handed to me online. My biggest problem is target ID. I can't tell who is friendly and who isn't, and every time I hesitate, I get murdered
@@jimlthor same. I try to stay below and behind as long as possible
hes cooked
The fw-190 pilot seat positioning give some g-tollerance effects on the pilot resembling a g-suit. Maybe not to the same extent, but there is.
Yep. That aspect certainly is modeled for all of the airplanes with any kind of seat inclination, but for simplicity I'm content to treat all pilot's with the G-suit equally. For me personally it's not worth worrying over the small varying degrees of G-tolerance for pilot's without a G-suit based on seat inclination.
Your analysis confirms exactly what Ive came to feel with hundreds of hours of flying these birds against each other. What an awesome shortcut your charts provide.
@6:40 I saw a lot more shooting than I saw of the "finishing him off." LOL.
This content is king. I know this must have taken a lot of effort to make. Thank you so much!
Thanks Flight Dojo, I appreciate you understand the effort it takes to make those type of comparisons!
Awesome video. I have found everything you said to be true. The 51 has the overall edge, but the Dora is at least competitive and have a few advantages.
Cheers Greg, I remember your P-51 vs Dora video and was wondering what you would think of this one. I did mess up a little bit on the Dora's top speed at 25,000ft due to my EM spreadsheet linking to a wrong cell in the TAS calculation but a correct figure is available now at least. Appreciate hearing your thoughts as always mate!
@@RequiemsACTL I think it's all spot on in terms of IL2 and darn close to reality in terms of actual comparative performance.
Funny German pilots with 24 hours of training recorded the D9 was an easy overmatch for Mustang, if the Mustang and Thunderbolts were so great how did German pilots who never flew before January 1945 became aces and had no problems shooting down Tempest, Typhoons, Mustangs and Thunderbolts while being outnumbered 50 to 1.
Germany only lost 38,000 airmen but they could not afford 10,000.
Allieds lost 300,000. Plus.
@@toddduffy1658 Element of surprise will always hold a clear advantage, German pilot's knew this very well. Considering the small numbers of aircraft the Luftwaffe operated especially towards the end of the war due to fuel and pilot shortages.
@@toddduffy1658 well tbh you're right with the fact that "overall edge" doesn't really fit here since it comes down to the situation you're finding yourself in
Learned more in 20 mins here than 20 mins in any formal education I’ve received. Great video! Great planes.
Glad it was helpful!
Great video! Great explanation about using flaps in combat
Incredible video! So much effort to collect and present all the data. Fantastic work!
Appreciate that you enjoyed it, thanks!
Wow awesome video! Great info. This info can even be applied to War Thunder aswell. So anyone who struggles with playing Dora’s against Mustangs bar maybe the D-30 or H-5 ofc.
But overall I heavily recommend this vid as someone with experience in WT! Very factual, and accurate. Keep up the great work 👍
Brilliant and elaborate tutorial.
Awesome content as always! Thank you and Happy new year!
Same to you!
Excellent analysis between both aircraft, the FW-190D9 is one of my favourite German aircraft. You can see the laminar flow wing of the Mustang being of a later design, certainly wins the Mustang a slight speed advantage.
Great videos mate, thank you so much!
Amazing content, thank you for your efforts. Time to consider Patreon for you. :)
Very helpful video for me. Happy new year!
Happy new year!
The best. Thank you
Superb.
Awesome!
Requiem - these EM comparison vids are MONEY !!!!!! Keep it up !!!!!!!
They take such a long time to put together though...I'm hoping that by these first few videos on the subject I can create a comparison excel spreadsheet people can use to compare whatever they want and understand how to read it
@@RequiemsACTL Absolutely and I hope most here understand that - or should ! Thank you for the time and attention to detail you put into these. DG
Muy buen video, excelent video, very informative.
Muy buen
I didn't soak up the actual figures (I got a 'U' in maths several times as a kid!!) but the theory is, as ever, sound. Thanks Req, as ever!!
The actual figures are there more or less as a verification or a way to analyze/prove the generic statements from people who say
"well the Dora is an energy fighter"
"The spitfire is a turn (angles) fighter"
Its not that simple, but the graphics show that certain advantages against specific pairings can be realized and gained through basic study. "know thy self, know thy enemy"
Liked it before I'd even made it more than 1 minute through.
Hope you've got tutorials for the DCS P-47D coming. Great channel.
I don't actually own the DCS P-47. Only have the P-51, Spitfire, and Bf 109 at the moment. I do want to make some DCS warbird tutorials to see if people enjoy them though
@@RequiemsACTL Any DCS Warbirds would be welcome and appreciated.
@@RequiemsACTL I agree with dblvision. Btw, this is one of you best videos. There´s a bit more information but it feels like a slower tempo which I like, as well as you´re more "spelling out" the details for us, instead of leaving them to our imagination. Thankfully the EM-diagrams are now becoming a bit more familiar than the first time I saw them. Speaking of that, there´s a lot of such comparisons in "Korean War Fighter Tactics presented by David Lednicer, historicflight" and some nice tactics shown in "US Navy Jet Fighter Tactics - Restored Color 1951, ZenosWarbirds". I´ve been thinking alot about the tip you mention of using formation tactics with a plane like the D-9. Seems a bit hard to exploit the rather small window of advantages if you fly it like a lonewolf.
@@inrptn Well....I bought the DCS P-47 last night... :-)
@@RequiemsACTL Good:)
This info helps me in other games like War Thunder. I beat my friend in his mustang using tactics pertaining to the facts in this video in my dora 9.
Spiral dives are a death sentence if you aren’t comfortable using the roll rate, but overall it’s best to try to bleed the Mustangs energy, hope he’s popping flaps at slightly the wrong time, and drag him upwards.
Either that or try to bet in the scissors. But I try not to since I’m not in sim cons (RB) so I can’t feather my elevator control and he can just pop flaps for max drag and AoA. While I sit there with a not much changed Drag set.
However I love the parts where I reverse into him in a one circle stall drop into him as I go down with all flaps out, engine cut, and get a close up cinematic snap shot as he’s coming up at me. I might post it, it’s hard to explain but it was fun.
All and all I can verify that things said in this video are very much true even in other games.
Thanks for sharing your experience! My videos are made with the purpose of having them applied in other sims. I don't simply show what works from a gaming perspective in one sim. I aim to show what works in RL, so if it works in RL then it should work regardless of the sim if it models things relatively accurately.
@@RequiemsACTL Well I can verify you did a great job! If I ever have to help teach dora piloting I’ll recommend this video!! Keep up the awesome work bud!
is there a place i can get these graphs for other planes?
Thanks for the informative video. What is the pedal to seat height relationship between these two planes, and does that do anything to effect the g-suit advantage?
The angle of the seat is taken into account for G-force calculations, however it really doesn't compare to the benefit you get with the G-suit.
While you presented in, it was glossed over a bit. The 190 isn’t really out turned at mid altitudes and can climb to get an energy advantage. The 190 can simply build an energy advantage and kill the Mustang. The 190 just has to avoid low and slow. (Or super fast) Climb to 3.5+ and then you can control the fight. Not to mention a huge firepower advantage. A good solo D9 should have no problem taking a Mustang in a thunder dome situation. However, The Mustang has the ability to disengage as long as it it doesn’t allow itself to get too far behind in its overall energy situation.
Question: Do I need a two throttle stick for two engine aircraft? I know it is obviously more realistic but how much does one use the individual throttles in a typical scenario? My Cougar throttle is still working fine but I keep eyeballing the Warthog throttle. I also use a Pro quadrant throttle for my prop and mixture that Ive been tempted to use for dual throttle but cant see the payoff.
You don't neeeeeed it but it makes life much much easier when it comes to taxiing or dealing with engine failures.
Oooh fell into the lift produced by flaps... one thing to note is the lift vector angle changes and thus the nose drops also it helps to see over the nose. But you can test it add flaps at same power setting the aircraft will not climb thus it does not produce lift. it decreases the AOA and thus the stalling speed.
But then saw your flash card n the vid 100% correct.
Many thanks for all the interesting data. I would like to clarify your point when you were talking about how these airplanes are unable to sustain corner speed without descending. If these graphs are correct, after the pass if you are trying to maximize turn rate you don’t want to even attempt to maintain corner speed, because it is well above the speed for best sustained rate and you will be turning much more slowly. You can only maintain corner speed when you don’t need to sustain your best turn and are trying to keep speed in hand that you can cash in for more turn later.
You mentioned that the corner speed of the pP-51 is higher, but what you really mean is that the corner speed of the P-51 pilot is higher, because your limits are based on notional pilots rather than the airplanes. What is interesting in comparing the airplanes is that even at the slower ‘corner speed’ of the FW-190, the P-51 still has nearly an extra G and 3 deg/sec more rate available. These rates are instantaneous and the P-51 should gain some angles in the first pull, but its better sustained rate and radius once the planes slow below corner is its long term advantage.
Keep up the good work!
In real life the FW-190A was at its best sustaining turns at reduced throttle and partial flaps at around 160 mph, giving 18 seconds per 360. The P-51D, even with flaps and the throttle reduced, could probably do no better than 20 seconds at 180 mph. The Spitfire has no partial flap so was probably worse, at 21-22 seconds, probably similar to a Me-109G that does not reduce power. With flaps and power down the 109G could match the P-51D but not the P-47D Razorback. The P-47D bubble top was worse however. The Hellcat could likely match or beat the FW-190A. The FM-2 Wildcat out-turned A6M5 Zeroes(!) See my channel for more details on why reducing power was so crucial to sustain prolonged turns.
Also slow speed turns was increasingly dominant as the war went on, since it gave a stable sight picture compared to hit and run. Historians have it upside down: The war started all hit and run , and evolved to turn fighting..,
@@wrathofatlantis2316
We have discussed this before on another channel, and I do not accept your personal theory that reducing thrust increases sustained turn rate. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and watched part of your video on the subject, but I found it to contain unsupported conjecture rather than a cogent argument. For example, it is well know that for a cambered airfoil the center of pressure shifts toward the aerodynamic center with increasing AOA and coefficient of lift. This has nothing to do with propeller thrust, and the CP does not move forward of the CG unless the airplane was designed to be unstable. Until you or anyone else can point to an accepted aerodynamic text that supports your theory, I can only suspect you may be misinterpreting anecdotes from a couple of WWII pilots who reduced power to slow to corner speed prior to the pass. These are probably the same pilots who were wiling to slow to become anchored in a tight turning fight rather than maintain energy and options, which may also lead to your contention that historians have it backwards in this regard as well. I accept neither theory without evidence.
@@gort8203 There is no loss of stability when the CL shifts in front of the CG because the prop is offering stability by asymmetrically resisting the turn from the trust shifting above the wing. The forward shift of CL is why the pilot does not feel the prop asymmetry. There are ways forces can hide inside larger forces. The Partial shifting of the prop airflow spiral above the wing has indeed never been detected, probably for a combination of reasons, foremost among which it was never searched for... Curved air cannot be replicated in wind tunnels. As little as a 6% loss on the outside can slow the whole aircraft 3%, reloading the inside turn prop half 3%, for a 9% asymmetry: A 10% asymmetry on a 3000 lbs load generates 300 lbs at the nose. If the CL shifts one inch in front of the CG, to hide those 300 lbs from the pilot on a 10 foot nose requires an unknown 300 X 120 inches: 31 200 lbs of unknown extra strain on the wings: Reduce power by half you just cut 15 600 lbs of imperceptible extra load on your wings... (imperceptible other than by your previous crummy high prop load turn rate) : If a nose is 8 feet and the forward shift 12 inches, those 300 lbs only add 300 X 8: + 2400 lbs. That is how the FW-190A excels at low speed, without any violation of physics... This is the only way to match observed WWII behaviour both in the universal cutting of power and shorter nose radials beating much lighter inlines. It makes perfect sense (if we allow the leakage above the wings generates the extra lift needed, but still well within the strength margins of the wings) Let me ask you this: If I demonstrated in a real life test a previously unknown turn averse prop asymmetry of 6%, would you accept then that the entire edifice of current prop knowledge is up-ended?
@@wrathofatlantis2316 As I said last time, your claim makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying you have discovered something unknown to aeronautical science. If so I suggest you demonstrate it to some recognized experts in aerodynamics and get it published, and if they corroborate your theory then I'll believe it.
Could you link some of the diagrams (the G-lock one in particular) for reference outside the video?
I'm going to be putting something together for the community to have when I have enough airplane data for comparisons to be made.
Just FYI a G-Suit really doesn’t have much of an effect in flight. It’s at most a 1G boost in tolerance. Hydration and nutrition are vastly more important. I hardly notice the G-Suit effect, but if I am dehydrated, my G-tolerance and general fatigue buildup is significantly impacted. This sometimes makes the second flight of a day in the summer kind of painful.
Yeah I'm aware of the RL aspects to that stuff but I provided the data in reference to how it is modeled in the sim is all. Appreciate your extra insight though!
a small question: how do you know exactly that a pilot of P-51D (in IL-2 sim) has that G-suit? in Russian community website, there's no data/description regarding the G-suit for Mustangs, neither we have it as a pre-flight option in game
My understanding is that it's based on their historical timeframe of service. When the P-51D P-47D and P-38J were flying in combat the G-suit was standard issue to their pilots.
What are you using to look around in the cockpit like that? Is that a VR headset or just a tracker and if yes which one are you using or what could you recommend?
I use TrackIR, but there are several cheaper options out there if you wanted to build one yourself but I don't really know much about those.
@@RequiemsACTL Thanks for your reply, I just ordered Tobii Eye Tracker 5 today to check it out since i cant stand it to look around with the mouse while flying with a stick all the time...
hm the D9 in IL 2 flies at sea level around 600kmh? how do you get to 570 here?
All my flight tests are done within a standardised mission I use on the Kuban map in the springtime (at 15°C and an altimeter setting of 29.92) so all airplanes have the same frame of reference. The D-9 at max power with boost will reach 570 km/hr under those conditions. If you were to perform the same test with the D-9 on a winter map you will reach a higher airspeed above 600 km/hr because winter conditions will increase performance.
@@RequiemsACTL I did and came to 605.
have you set the cooling flaps to 15%?
the D9 in IL2 tends to open it almost 100% at full throttle.
the P51, however, closes it sensibly
Ah you're manually controlling those flaps in the D-9, so that's the difference then. If something has an automatic function I leave it in auto.
@@RequiemsACTL yes of course, why should you do without 30 kmh although it makes no difference.
you can fly with the cooling flaps 100% max 15min on full throttle the same with closed ones.
You say "Max" airspeed which it actually isn't
In such cases you should also include the radiator shutters, especially if they are unnecessarily open :)
14:55 did I miss something? lower flaps will cause the lower of turn rate?
Yes, you don't want to drop flaps if you're trying to improve turn rate because of the increase in drag. It will allow you to have a lower stall speed which will make your turn radius smaller.
@@RequiemsACTL You're righrt, these are 2 aspects )
Is the g-suit modelled in DCS? I cannot seem to out turn a D9... at least not the AI ones.
No, the way physiology is modeled in Il-2 is not present in DCS. The pilots have the same limits in DCS
@@RequiemsACTL I wish they'd just finish something!
Where is this G-suit ingame? I dont see it in any section, i dont see it as an option for the fighters.
G-suit is automatically equipped for US pilots after a certain date which escapes me at the moment. There's no option to select or deselect it.
Fascinating piece and well done indeed!!! Is this 'tutorial' for the gaming fraternity? As in reality there was a hell of a lot more going on when these aircraft came together in combat. Nothing was as clinical as described here irrespective of what both sides at the time worked out ie through flying captured examples, interrogating pilots and letting the boffins pull apart captured aircraft etc.
At the end of the day by the time the P-51 Mustang was introduced into the UK the training the American pilots received was far and above what the average Luftwaffe fighter pilot was receiving at the time. Whilst the Luftwaffe had some truly remarkable aircraft, by the time of 1943/44 it was loosing a lot of experienced pilots and irrespective of the superlative qualities of each aircraft it was down to the skill of the pilot in each machine and it was here when training and experience mattered - exploiting the full advantages of the respective aircraft. The human factor will always tell.
NEVERTHELESS from a purely performance/combat envelope, aircraft to aircraft as designed, most fascinating what you have done. Again well done.
As a pilot myself, I try to approach my tutorials by including a RL flying perspective with a gaming one to keep it approachable for as many people as possible. As long as the flight modeling is relatively accurate then the data should hold but there are many things that you have in RL that aren't applicable in a sim like you mentioned. So while there was definitely a lot more to this in WWII, by using a flight sim I can isolate the performance comparison using these diagrams as that's what is important to understand how to fight a dissimilar aircraft assuming both pilots are equal skill at getting the most of their aircraft.
Prop flight sims don’t replicate that to turn a WWII fighter tighter you need to lower speed to around 160 mph, as Bf-109G ace Karhila mentions. It was a race to be the slowest in turns, which is why WWII film footage looks so different from simulations. See my channel for details😊.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 Actually the data here does illustrate that the speed for best sustained turn rate with a prop is well below corner speed. You seem to not appreciate the difference between sustained rate and instantaneous rate. Any pilot who slows below corner speed prior to the first turn is making a critical mistake. As airplanes continue to pull G will continue to slow, so the pilot should be careful to not slow below the speed for best sustained rate, which is well below the speed at which you want to enter the combat.
@@gort8203 I never said anyone believed otherwise?! This is not about corner speed, other than theory would want the best sustained turn speed to be as close to it as possible, which is wrong, given all good fighter pilots cut their throttle to turn, even though minimum 6G was way up there in the 280s... The fact that Finn ace Karhila says the optimal sustained turn speed was 160 mph by itself proves current assumptions about power in props are wrong... WWII pilots never spoke in terms of energy because it was so obvious it mattered only to climb. Another anecdote illustrates why simulation games don’t resemble WWII dogfights in the least: A painter painted the wings of a FW-190A level in a combat: The pilot corrected him: “in (1945) combat we turned continuously to the left and never stopped turning: It was the only way to survive...” Furthermore, the entire evolution of WWII is understood wrong by historians: As discovered by recent research, even the Zero avoided turning in 1941: It only used high speed hit and run. Everyone gradually evolved to turn fighting by 1945, even though theory said otherwise. The reality is high speed hit and run was assumed dominant from the earliest 1930s monoplanes, and proven wrong by low hit rates with live rounds. That is why all those useless Early war twin engine day fighters were built: The death of dogfighting was an assumed fact from the start. Current consensus on this is 180 degrees from reality, and this is because the airframe pressure towards reduced power turn fighting is not understood.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 "The fact that Finn ace Karhila says the optimal sustained turn speed was 160 mph by itself proves current assumptions about power in props are wrong..." No, I don't think it proves that at all. I can only suspect you are spinning your own assumptions out of a few misunderstood anecdotes. You seem to disagree with all the established literature so you have a steep hill to climb. When you publish your book I'll read the reviews with interest.
Do you feel these videos apply to War Thunder? I love how in-depth you are.
I always try and approach my videos in a way so you can apply them anywhere. As long as the flight modeling is good enough, you can expect that you can apply what you watch here to War Thunder.
@@RequiemsACTL you doing any Videos on Japanese aircraft?
I can VERIFY everything this man said applies. I do duels with my friend and I asked him to get his mustang D-10, and I use my Dora 9. He’s no slouch I tell ya!
I did everything in this video that marked the Dora’s advantages even going up to an alt where supercharger lag is an issue for the mustang. And I won almost every time only dying 1 time out of I think 5?
But I might post it since I can’t remember every detail, but it was definitely awesome to see the Dora compete, and totally wreck when playing to its advantages.
But this man knows his stuff (the duel I had was a month before this vid, but I very much appreciate someone bring in numbers explaining the pros and cons of an aircraft).
@@BARelement It's too bad that in War Thunder the 190D9 will most likely be having to go up against D-30 and even worse, P51-H models which absolutely dominate on performance vs the D9.
@@Moelders109 I’ve handled D-30s as well. It’s on my channel. Granted I didn’t get to kill him yet because i over bled his speed and he crashed trying to keep up with me using rudder (good pilots I see kick rudder to increase roll rates).
Just an addendum to put it here. The P-51D reaches 298mph IAS (479km/hr) while the Fw 190 D-9 reaches 275mph IAS (444 km/hr) at 25,000ft so the P-51D has the speed advantage up high as well. There was a error in my spreadsheet's Fw 190 D-9 sheet up at that altitude which created that mistake. The formula was linking to the cells with data used for 30,000ft and not 25,000ft! When I release these figures with other airplanes publicly the mistake will be fixed. Here is a link with the fixed comparison at 25,000ft drive.google.com/file/d/1Ij0XM_o7IQjWzQd1I28WWbCy_Aj-SqoV/view?usp=sharing
I know this is very primary but would you make video about how,when&why to use RUDDER?
I really need it specially the theory and scientific reasons of it.
@@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242 Don´t want to hijack your question and I hope he makes such a video, but these are well worth buying:
www.amazon.com/Rudder-Fundamentals/dp/B00BB0FQ84/
www.amazon.com/Stall-Upset-and-Spin-Recovery/dp/B0072M77QE/
Video you can watch right now:
www.pilotworkshop.com/videos/rudder-skills-back-basics?sub=y (direct link)
www.pilotworkshop.com/rudder-eb (signup, if you want different offers which are pretty good)
Then Reqium has a few "principles" videos ruclips.net/user/TheAirCombatTutorialLibraryvideos which touches the subject. In short you need rudder at takeoff, landing and climb to counter left turning tendencies with most propeller driven airplanes, as well as when you use the ailerons to fly coordinated. It saves energy and minimizes the risk of stall. The steeper the maneuvers and the more into aerobatics you come, the more cruciual it is to keep the ball centered. The problem with general aviation flying in non challenging conditions is that you can probably get away with not using them throughout your whole "career", although it would be a waste of time.
@@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242 +1 for this, once I get off the ground, I’m lost on the use of the rudder.
@@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242 rudder is used for turns. The ball indicator or “turn slip indicator” is used to indicate if your turn is using too much rudder, too little rudder and too much roll and too little roll. Rudder is useful for coordinating turns.
I’m just GA pilot right now, so if I missed anything I’m sure he’ll correct me.
@@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242 Rudder and trim usage are two of the most common things people overthink when it comes to flying. Regarding rudder, all you should do is use enough rudder to stay coordinated while flying so you fly as clean as possible (minimising drag on the airplane). If you use too much or too little rudder the airplane will have more of it's fuselage exposed to the relative wind which means you will fly slower than if you stayed coordinated. However, in certain situations it's a good idea to increase drag on the airplane by using large amounts of rudder (such as a forward slip to lose altitude without gaining excessive airspeed). It's much more difficult in a sim to use the correct amount of rudder compared to RL flying because there are subtle cues such as increase in wind noise or forces on your body which push you to the side of your seat if you fly uncoordinated. I do want to make a video showing some basics such as these things though
how about another one between k4 and mustang
I made a graph for the P-51 vs K-4 here if you want a look drive.google.com/file/d/1jtm_6LZ4M7ba76ZiCfYfrVyfrOlO5tIr/view?usp=sharing
More suited compare should be vs 109G6 variant. Was most common for P51 D. K4 was rare plane.
I would always take the D-9 over P-51
Are you sure? During WWII it was not wise. P51 was manufactured with better quality. If you take D9 than you take also numerous dissadvantage, no g-suit and no option to escape down low. P51 was providing higher chance of survival.
Worth to mention P51 had nicely indicated stall symphoms. Comparing to D9 was easier to fly. Fw 190 had sudden stall wing drop. 190 was better for high speed slashing attacks from surprise. As longer fight takes place than better for P51.
@@303Pinker I’m choosing an aircraft, not a side. I’d be willing to fly for the allies during the war, even if I had to fly a hurricane against a Bf.109F as I don’t necessarily agree with a certain man with a funny moustache.
Dora had a much more ergonomic cockpit. The startup procedure was extremely easy, and Kommandgerät meant that pilots could focus on flying rather than on managing the engine. The Dora indeed had more unforgiving stall characteristics, but it doesn’t mean it couldn’t match P-51 turning ability in certain circumstances, especially with an outstanding roll rate. This factor is very often overlooked when comparing aircraft. Ability to change direction in a split second means that you can quickly turn a defensive situation into a neutral one.
I’d say that if 2 mediocre pilots went against each other, one in a Mustang and the other one in a Dora, the Mustang pilot would win 7 out of 10 times. If the pilots were experienced though and knew their aircraft EXTREMELY well, the Dora pilot would win 7 out of 10 times
@@birkensafttt
My point od view was not focused at side at all. I was pointing that Dora manufacturing quality was far behind P51 due to war conditions. Also have no reason for statement for Dora supremacy if was driven by experten pilot. Plane roll rate as defesive is a bit overestimated. Experienced P51 pilot had do problems with engine management or anything else. Fw 190 roll as defensive option was easy to overcome by high or low yoyo turns. All those sharp turns where only a delay of defeat. Could be usefull if 190 could dive away, but this was not an option. P51 could turn effective against late &heavy 109's. Don't see any other options for Dora than hit&run with teamwork. Any sort of dogfight was P51 game.
@@303Pinker even with the manufacturing quality in mind, D9 1.84 ata is faster than P-15 on 3-6 km altitude, where most combat took place, and D9 2.02 ata is just straight out faster than P-51 on any altitude below 6km.
Acceleration and climb rate both favored D9 as P-51 relied more on reduced parasitic drag to match D9 in speed, and power to weight is more important in both acceleration and climb.
The only advantage of P-51 is turn rate and possibly horizontal energy retention. I think irl equally trained pilot in D9 will win against one in P-51.
Here my problem, i fly DCS and the pony loves to tip stall you get low in a try to turn and it's all over!
Yeah the P-51 is a fickle beast. It requires careful listening to the aircraft to know when you're approaching the stall as the gunports start whistling at higher AoA. Otherwise you'll have to rely on noticing airframe buffeting to indicate it.
@@RequiemsACTL I get plenty of warnings but when someone is throwing 30mm shells at you it's hard to fly straight and level. do you fly the mustang from DCS and if so does it perform better with lighter fuel loads?
Since last big patch they messed up the acceleration system. I mean its not bad but in my opinion the Pilot get to fast exhaust
Ok,that's against the Dora9, how about against the Ta-152H?
The Ta-152 doesn't exist in the Il-2 series so there's no comparable data
whats a jink?
A quick change of direction
@@RequiemsACTL ahh, ty. So im guessing jinking in a plane would be to roll jink then roll back and fly in the direction you really intended? I'm not sure if theres a proper method to jink while not losing any energy
@@mrhuffnpuff Well it's just a matter of getting yourself out of plane with the bandit trying to shoot you. You'll need to sacrifice energy in order to defeat their guns solution.
Give me a P-47D-30 or even better a P-47M if combat was above 25K feet.
Jink is like: always change course?
Jinking is getting "out of plane" with the bandit as it attempts a shot against you.
@@RequiemsACTL Thank you!