Kittyhawks vs Bf-109Fs

[OldGuy59]

Since I put together my paper version of a Curtis Kittyhawk Mk III, I was looking for opponents.

Adaptation of a Zio Prudenzio Kittyhawk Mk III

I have a paper plan for a Bf-109F in desert colors, so thought I would match that up with the above plane.

Before going to meet Stocky and ask if he would "fly" the plane, I needed some opponents. I read through his online bio for some info: James F. "Eddie"/"Stocky" Edwards

After reading that, I was thinking I needed the Q deck for the Bf-109F, but the latest Unofficial Stats spreadsheet says that the E and F models are using the B deck. Hmmm... the above bio stated that the Bf-109Fs he met in the desert were faster and could climb much better than the Kittyhawk, which has been given the H deck. Both the B and the H decks are the same speed? (Oh, and he initially flew the Kittyhawk Mk Is, so there is some discrepancies there, too, I suppose.)

I'm confused. The new Bf-109K is coming out with an S deck, and that was listed in the Unofficial Stats as O or P, from the new the fast decks, so I suspect it will reflect the speed, but with different maneuvers.

Also, Stocky stated that the defense against the 109s was the ability to out-turn them, or out-dive them. The H deck doesn't do that, either. I was thinking that the Q deck, with the higher speed, would allow the Kittyhawk to turn inside the radius of the higher speed deck, emulating the faster turns.

A discussion for the Unofficial Stats Committee? Any suggestions from the more experienced WGS crowd?

[Foz]

Anything over R hasn't been seen yet by those outside Ares. Without knowing what they contain, I'd not like to speculate.

[Jager]

I was wading through a lot of data on the Messers, and the Q deck is actually rather close to the whole set of 360mph decks from the Nexus planes (cards and minis).
I think I was looking at the Fs as Q* (delete the extreme SS, and (house rule) replace it with a second set of SSs, like the B deck. Basically, a B deck with a ^.35cm long card.
That would put the 4Z up to a O** (no 60 degree turns or extreme SSs, replacing as above).
Why I didn't decide or make the change in the file
Let me bounce this in committee.
Karl

[OldGuy59]

Having looked through all the decks I could get my hands on (A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I , L, M, and N), I didn't find anything significant in performance among the 5.8 cm decks, except the sideslips.

Among the 5.8 cm decks, the turns (30 and 45 degrees) are all the same, pretty much. The biggest difference was the slow speeds. Considering the descriptions of the combats, I would have thought the P-40/Kittyhawks could have been slower than the Bf-109s. However, the 109s are 1.1 cm slower at Slow speed than the P-40s. Which means that the 109s probably out-turn the P-40s at slow speed. I will try out the comparison tomorrow on the table to see.

Another compromise on the maneuver decks to get them into a box set (IE: Nexus Fokker and Sopwith Triplanes with D decks, and Ares Sopwith Triplanes with U decks)?

[Jager]

From some things discussed in committee, and out here, it looks like a design decision to give more maneuverable aircraft a shorter slow speed. I always felt the SS issue was due to roll rate (which can lead to a better side slip or barrel roll maneuver), but I wasn't sure. he fact that the R deck (Fw-190D) has a slower slow rate than the P (P-51) is not understandable.
This is also the problem with the D.520 having a D deck; slower than the Bf-109, but rather too much slower, and a faster slow speed, so less maneuverable. It should probably get a deck that is 10% slower on the fast arrows (M deck) and the same for the slow arrows (K deck) and have the same maneuver set as the B deck.
It will be interesting to see what the Bf-109K deck comes out as.
Karl

[Eris Lobo]

I already own each of the different planes from release #5. This thread got me wondering, though ...

Are the latest released decks (S, T and V) substantially different than the previously released ones (O, P, Q and R)?

-- Eris