PDA

View Full Version : So, what's wrong with the P-51?



robban75
01-13-2006, 09:16 AM
I'm opening a can of worms here I know, but hopefully we can get a good discussion going on here as well. Right?

I've been reading alot lately on these boards about the P-51 being "porked".

So, let's get to the bottom of this, shall we?

Are all the P-51's porked? Or just certain variants? Is it porked at all? And if so, in what ways?

Is it not fast enough?
Is its climbrate too low?
Is it acceleration too slow
Is its dive acceleration too slow?
Is its zooming ability not good enough?
Is its roll rate not fast enough?
Is it turnrate not good enough?

Let's not focus on the "wobbly" issue as it is present in most other fighters as well.

So, Mustang experts! Care to shine a light on this? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And please, no name calling, or stupid language, like "smack-tard" and the likes.

Voice your opinions!

robban75
01-13-2006, 09:16 AM
I'm opening a can of worms here I know, but hopefully we can get a good discussion going on here as well. Right?

I've been reading alot lately on these boards about the P-51 being "porked".

So, let's get to the bottom of this, shall we?

Are all the P-51's porked? Or just certain variants? Is it porked at all? And if so, in what ways?

Is it not fast enough?
Is its climbrate too low?
Is it acceleration too slow
Is its dive acceleration too slow?
Is its zooming ability not good enough?
Is its roll rate not fast enough?
Is it turnrate not good enough?

Let's not focus on the "wobbly" issue as it is present in most other fighters as well.

So, Mustang experts! Care to shine a light on this? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And please, no name calling, or stupid language, like "smack-tard" and the likes.

Voice your opinions!

SweetMonkeyLuv
01-13-2006, 09:23 AM
Personally, I like it. One of my fav rides.

Wish we had a little more control over how the plane uses its fuel tanks, but thats a shortcoming of the sim, not the Mustang. Just happens to affect the Stang worse than most other planes.

womenfly
01-13-2006, 09:29 AM
Have problems flying her, very touchy. Have flown real aircraft ... never one close to this.

Read all the postings on this subject, still need to sort her out ... she is what she is, I am like that too ... touchy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Daiichidoku
01-13-2006, 09:31 AM
it doesnt win wars online


i want my money back

GR142_Astro
01-13-2006, 09:32 AM
Well, you cannot simply set aside the wobble issue, because the nature of Oleg's Mustang dictates that the wobble seems to effect this plane more than any other in the game.

But, to humour you:

1) Wing rip: seems bogus but I don't personally suffer these

2) Wing departure/refusal to turn: The stall speed for the P51 seems way too high. It takes nothing at all for these things to begin bucking, losing speed and simply flipping over on its back. Behaves like the P40 used to (and probably still should)

3) E bleed seems way too high

4) Improperly synched .50cals

5) Screwed up CoG, I believe due to a constantly full fuselage tank

Back in pre 4.0 days the Mustang seemed to be an outstanding fighter in the right hands. If you stayed fast you could out fight 109 drivers with confidence by using their TnB mentality against them. With the right moves you would find yourself above them, with a nice chance at slashing them on the way by with your working .50s. This was NOT a tight arena fight, but rather used up quite a bit of airspace. If you were fast and at at least 12,000 feet your skill could win the day.

Post 4.0, it ain't happening. The P51 is hopeless collection of wobbles, bobbles and departures. Really, as a USAF flier you are much, much better off in a P38J. There used to be a number of really great p51 jocks on online servers. I rarely see any P51s online anymore.

And before anyone pipes in, no I don't try to fly the P51 like a Yak 3.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/week/12-03-01.jpg

269GA-Veltro
01-13-2006, 09:34 AM
I don't like very much the FB's FW 190, but i don't kid anymore......because of the "new" P-51. In the 2.04 it was an X-Wing....now i have some doubts it could be considered a P-51.
BTW a lot of birds with the new FM seem to be "porked" (Corsair, Hellcat, FW 190, P-47....seem to be i repeat....). On the other side, Spitfire (Mark VIII for ex.) have really an high climb rate also with few energy....something is gone wrong there i'm afraid.
P-38 is a beast now, probably the best american fighter in FB.

LaGG-3 is became a great fighter....

SithSpeeder
01-13-2006, 09:41 AM
In 4.02m...

On the 51D, in QMB, I am unable to catch a Bf-109 G-6 Late on the deck.

I can catch the G-6 Late using a Mustang III.

Crimea map, nearly full difficulty, rads closed, full throttle (110%), full prop pitch (tried 90-95% as well), more or less level flight, sometimes small climbs involved, other times just right over the water.

It could be that the AI cheats (bastiges). The funny thing is I could call my wingman in to attack my target, and he will PASS me to shoot the bandit down (go figure).

Also, the gun synchronization is annoying--they should be asynchronous.

* _54th_Speeder *

Brain32
01-13-2006, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So, Mustang experts! Care to shine a light on this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunately I don't believe we will se many Mustang experts. Many Mustang whiners surely...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It could be that the AI cheats (bastiges). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It does cheat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BaronUnderpants
01-13-2006, 09:42 AM
Dont fly it at all, have tried on occasions though, along with P-47M and P-38 Late.

Rearly see any US late P-planes online anymore, eccept an od P-38 Late.

Cant help to think that it has more to do with the 50 cal armement than anything else?

As has been said, the best choice theese days seem to be P-38 Late ( used it with gunpods ) and shot down several Bf 109 and Fw 190 at medium altitude. seems like most is caught by suprise how tight it turns if u know how to do it and the added gunpods gives u firepower enough.

Mustang Mk III sure has the speed to outrun anything but with 4 50 cals u wont shoot down anything eccept the occasional mockingbird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Chuck_Older
01-13-2006, 09:43 AM
problems with P-51

1) early marks (B and C) have the thin wing with canted weapons, historically causing jams under G-loading. We don't have this modelled

2) later marks Might, just Maybe do not have the vertical stabiliser 'fin' or fillet modelled physially- they MAY only have it modelled visually, MAYBE causing SOME stability problems. If you don't know what I'm talking about, mentally put the P-51B's tail onto a P-51D

3) the pilots on the whole will not accept that they might be the issue

4) High altitude modelling in general still seems lacking; the Mustang suffers from this, but if you ask me, it's not the FM, it's the altitude model. But Mustang jockeys insist it's the plane. This affects ALL aircraft, not just the P-51. I think altitude modelling and Flight modelling is imperfectly understood

5) if the plane isn't "the best" like they read in a book, the plane must be "porked"

6) I read on one hand, that fuel location isn't modelled, only total weight, and then I read that fuel location adversely affects the P-51 because of CoG...well which is it? I haven't seen this addressed by the 'P-51 is porked' crowd, no matter how many times I've asked

That's all I can think off the top of my head

WOLFMondo
01-13-2006, 09:46 AM
The wing break is 100% to do with its elevator authority being that high. Theres also the technical explanation of the extra gun and ammo box causing weakness but then why does it happen on the other 4 gun P51's?
The wing break happens on other planes and as for happening in real life, no pilot suffering it would survive to tell the tail, much like the 26 incidents of the Tiffie loosing its tail (due to vibration). I think they were all fatal.

Given its wing design, like other laminar flow wing aircraft, isn't its snap stall in a turn realistic?

Questions I have:

Did it really require that much trim in flight? I do like flying the P51's but there very intensive on the trimming.

Now, pilots may or may not have commented on this however it has to be taken into consideration that pilots who would have flown this plane were excellently trained and trimming would have been second nature and not worth a mention. This is in the same respect as the Tempest family, they always required tons of trim all the time but Tempest pilots were generally veterans of tours on other fighters and you rarely read about needing trim unless your specifically talking about trim itself. i.e. Eric Brown talking about the Seafury display team.

robban75
01-13-2006, 10:46 AM
Climbrate comparison between the Mustang variants.

Full fuel, rads auto, climb speed 275-295km/h TAS, depending on altitude. Full power and boost. Crimea map. In m/sec.

P-51B

1000 - 17.0
2000 - 17.0
3000 - 17.0
4000 - 17.9
5000 - 15.9
6000 - 13.0
7000 - 12.0

P-51C

1000 - 17.5
2000 - 17.2
3000 - 17.2
4000 - 17.2
5000 - 15.4
6000 - 13.9
7000 - 12.0

P-51D20/NA

1000 - 17.0
2000 - 17.0
3000 - 16.7
4000 - 15.6
5000 - 12.7
6000 - 10.8
7000 - 10.6

Mustang III

1000 - 23.8
2000 - 22.2
3000 - 21.3
4000 - 19.2
5000 - 16.4
6000 - 15.6
7000 - 13.9

Sealevel topspeed

P-51B - 591km/h
P-51C - 594km/h
P-51D - 608km/h
M-III - 652km/h

AustinPowers_
01-13-2006, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


Did it really require that much trim in flight? I do like flying the P51's but there very intensive on the trimming.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC a pilot quote posted a few months ago stated the Mustang required constant retrimming... and three hands. Two on the stick, one on the trim wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

At high speeds the Dora will Yaw quite bad.. but I dont notice it as bad as on the Mustang.

jurinko
01-13-2006, 11:47 AM
its guns sux

anarchy52
01-13-2006, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jurinko:
its guns sux </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't have cannons and planes do not have radiators modelled

p1ngu666
01-13-2006, 12:19 PM
p51 would be one of the worst if rads modeled, cos its in the tail, where your most likely to hit.

robban, its not the performance, its the handling of the plane, and the wobble and wing rip

thats why u see so few about..

robban75
01-13-2006, 12:37 PM
It's not just the wobble issue. As most plane wobble, some just as much as the P-51. The wingbreaks can be fixed by adjusting the pitch settings.

With the 4.02 the Mustang is 10-15km/faster at SL, and it has a dive and zoom performance that no doubt puts most other planes to shame.

Climb rate then? Climbrate has been reduced.

Here's the climbrate for the P-51D20/NA before 4.02. Compare with the current climbrates above.

1000 - 18.5
2000 - 19.2
3000 - 20.0
4000 - 18.5
5000 - 14.7

Stall speeds has increased as well, which has a negative effect on handling. Turn rate has suffered from this I'm sure.

Kocur_
01-13-2006, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The wing break is 100% to do with its elevator authority being that high. Theres also the technical explanation of the extra gun and ammo box causing weakness but then why does it happen on the other 4 gun P51's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early D-series had ammo boxes locks faulty. When approaching Vne, lock would break, release cover, which would fly away and cause extreme forces exceeding wing's strenght. After cause of certain number of crashes was found new cover was produced, and all Mustagns in the world had them replaced within one week. No crashes anymore.

When fuselage tank was full, forces on the stick during high speed and high gs turns decreaced. Inexperienced pilots thinking that plane was loosing speed would increace power, which sometimes resulted in blackouts and structure damages, yet not catastrophic failures! In responce 20lbs weight was added in control system which greately improved planes behaviour.
No matter what is in-game's "technical reason", for Mustangs of all versions (sic!) losing their wings at high speed and even moderate stick deflection, like too high elevator authority, it is still unhistorical and leaving it unchanged is just B(e) S(ure). RL Mustang with proper ammo boxes covers was entirely safe until Ma=0,83, when buffeting, which was starting at Ma=0,75, was too heavy to continue test.

Another issue in synchronisation of ANM2s, which makes gunnery more difficult and less efective than RL. It can be changed as game's P-40 in soviet field mod proves.

OTOH why dont we forget all that and enjoy new Yak-7?

Von_Peebles
01-13-2006, 01:14 PM
acceleration
E-Bleed retention
dive accelaration
wingsnap
gun with spacing that can fit up to 8-10 planes between
15-25% rudder use which will induce a stall any speed 570-850 IAS in a dive.

then add the wobbles to all us usn and british ac only while russian german and japanese stay perfectly stable on my computer is astonishing.

The mustang can still get kills with a good 2000-3000m alt advantage and when flown right against scrubs it can do well but it still does not mean its correct.

We lost faith in oleg anyways since sturmovik, they cant even get the correct bomb positions on the p47 and usn ac let alone fms. Not just for those but 190 since sturmo its funny how drastically the planes change each and every patch and still they are not even close in the basics of flight.

Another funny thing is all aircraft with a fuel tank behind the pilot changed its COG when fuel, pilots would have a fuel selector switch and drain that tank first, I got news for you all thats every plane in game almost.. not just the mustang with the cog rear full tank problem... But this is big red country where you is wrong.

danjama
01-13-2006, 01:30 PM
I like the P51. Thats all i got to say.

anarchy52
01-13-2006, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Peebles:
acceleration
E-Bleed retention
dive accelaration
wingsnap
gun with spacing that can fit up to 8-10 planes between
15-25% rudder use which will induce a stall any speed 570-850 IAS in a dive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) heavy aircraft with mediocre powerloading
2) best zoomclimb in game, high wingloading, low lift bad for E retention in tight turns
3) It does pull away from teh 109G6 I can tell you that
4) too much elevator authority, needs to be reduced to a more realistic level
5) not true. Shotgun effect is missing though. Dispersion reduced in accordance to 250 pages of .50 threads in ORR
6) not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Peebles:
then add the wobbles to all us usn and british ac only while russian german and japanese stay perfectly stable on my computer is astonishing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Another funny thing is all aircraft with a fuel tank behind the pilot changed its COG when fuel, pilots would have a fuel selector switch and drain that tank first, I got news for you all thats every plane in game almost.. not just the mustang with the cog rear full tank problem... But this is big red country where you is wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not behind pilot but behind center of gravity. Position of fuel tank in relation to the pilot has nothing to do with it.

So that's it. Red/Jap/Nazi conspiracy against USAF planes. We all know Mustang won the war.
All these overmodelled Jap and Nazi planes kicking your butt make you sick.

p1ngu666
01-13-2006, 02:26 PM
japanease planes arent all that great tbh, p51 should have plenty of raw performance over them so its ok in the pto. be nice to have a pto gryo gunsite tho.

fuel distribution isnt modeled, so presumeably its stuck on the cog, so where they set the cog would effect in theory effect how the plane handles.

kocur, ive only flown the new yak7 a few times, but i think it flies nicer than yak9's with more "correct" COG. readme stats new yak7 have cog more forward than it should be..

many things ingame are opposite to what they should be...

p1ngu666
01-13-2006, 02:40 PM
robban, i think your underestimating handling. your tests are great, but its when u start to chuck the p51 around, or any plane of dubious handling. best examples of this are p38 and spit.

few patches ago, spits where something tobe very scared off. it wasnt raw performance, it was handling, e retention and acceloration

now, spits arent a great worry.

p38 used tobe considered as 200points that floated about and spun by itself. p51 was what everyone wanted to fly, not some dodgy suicide 200 wagon.

now p38 is one of my favourite planes to fly, and its decently potent too, and your much less likely to kill yourself in that in a mustang.

tomtheyak
01-13-2006, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
problems with P-51

1) early marks (B and C) have the thin wing with canted weapons, historically causing jams under G-loading. We don't have this modelled

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger chuck - however, it was almost eradicated by the fitting of trace boosters (small guided motors) of a modified design from that of one found in the B-26. Very few gun jams were noticable after this.

As a fixed problem there are many historical issues that afected other a/c that in game are not modelled;

1)leaky Laggs (early marks dropped coolant like they were allergic to it) - all models are free of coolant leaks.

2)Late war sabotage/poor quality control at manufactre stage of LW a/c - not modelled in game.

3)Slat snatching/wobble on 109Es

The Mustangs should not be penalised for a fixed problem if no other a/c are IMHO.

As for wing break, Roger Freeman (late noted authority on 8th Air Force) described very early marks a suffering from the problem due to the gear door locking system; in the B and C models the pilot had to maunally lock the gear in the shut position after it had been raised. In order to reduce pilot workload the gear system had been revised in the D to be automatically locked once the gear was in safely away.

However, it was not quite working - the gear doors were dropping open a fraction of an inch after the lock and at high speed such tremendous force was exerted upon the wing structure by the aiflow trying to force the gear open that it caused failure of the wing.

This issue was rapidly resolved, though I know of one Ace who fell foul of a P-51 wing failure; ex-56thFG leader Hub Zemke's Mustang (he had moved to the 479thFG) lost its wing during a violent storm, though many questions arise as to the porecise reasons for the failure.

In game the problem is purely related to G limits and elevator authority; it is possibly a limit imposed by the sim engine. I beleive that Oleg himself has said that there is a global wing failure G-limit; the only reason the P-51 suffers consistently is because it is capable of reaching this value very quickly thanks to its elevator authority, which is there to give it the high-speed manouevrability it should have (apparently).

Catch-22!

I could be wrong on this one tho... I'm sure I heard it in ORR or round here somewhere..

jimDG
01-13-2006, 03:17 PM
The secret scrolls, locked deep under a secret mountain in a secret 30 ton safe, the secret combination to which has been passed from father to son for generations, clearly state:
"...all late american planes have spring tabs on control surfaces to greatly reduce stick forces. The p-51 has an engine far ahead of the CoG and a fuel tank far behind the CoG, which gives it a high moment of inertia, compared to other american a/c like the Hellcat and the Corsair that do have spring tabs, but whose fuel tank is at the CoG and the short radial engine immediately next to it. This means that of all WW2 a/c the p-51 has one of the highest elevator authority and the biggest pitch and yaw controls hysteresis, i.e. slow return of nose to center when controls are centered. Thou shalt not make fast stick inputs, or use large stick deflections if thou wants the p-51 to go in a straight line. Thou shalt have a stick profile that ends about the 55% mark for pitch, say 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0, and thou shalt be very gentle with her".

VW-IceFire
01-13-2006, 03:29 PM
My problem with the plane is mostly related to control. On my system the P-51 is the worst of the bunch with the Corsair, Spitfire and Yak being close behind. Flying a Ki-100 or a A6M Zero or a Bf109 I can smoothly track with the nose without any adverse movements from the aircraft. With the Mustang I have trouble following opponents or aiming because of alot of adverse movements from the controls. Like the COG is way back in the tail or something...its very unpleasant to fly right now.

I usually anticipate the problem might be me or at the very least the plane is bugged and I can beat it with superior piloting skills offsetting any disadvantage. My problem online seems to be in acceleration...if someone can discount that then I'll drop it off my list.

When I go to accelerate it seems to take a while...and while I realize that it will burn energy in turns and high AoA situations...it seems even slight manuevers (and you end up making alot of them because of the bloody adverse movements) seem to burn alot of energy off.

From what I understand...in manuevers the Mustang will loose energy quicker than most due to wing area/loading/laminar flow wings/engine HP/weight. But in straight line, slight dives, and light manuevering the aircraft should retain energy well due to very low drag. More to the point, the FW190 seems, although affected by some adverse control issues, to be much better at holding energy through turns...particularly the D-9 but also the A-8 or A-9. I know its not a perfect comparison but the FW190s are heavily loaded wings with small areas and were always difficult to energy manage.

I like and prefer to fly the FW190 style of aircraft and I find the Mustang to be harder, not easier, than the FW190 in patch 4.02.

So...

- Control Issue (present on other types but strongly felt on the Mustang)
- Energy Bleed (questionable but more difficult to manage than other types that you'd expect might be more difficult comparatively)
- Acceleration

The first I know is hard to test for...heck its not even the same for all people for some bizzare reason...the other two we might be able to test for. Maybe my feelings are wrong. I'm able to believe that if the data suggests it.

Kocur_
01-13-2006, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
kocur, ive only flown the new yak7 a few times, but i think it flies nicer than yak9's with more "correct" COG. readme stats new yak7 have cog more forward than it should be..
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pingu! I didnt mention recently received, newly modelled, carefully taken care of, another Yak-7 because of any technical features of it.

Kuna15
01-13-2006, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
we can get a good discussion going on here as well. Right?

Is it not fast enough?
<span class="ev_code_red">Is its climbrate too low?</span>
Is it acceleration too slow
Is its dive acceleration too slow?
Is its zooming ability not good enough?
Is its roll rate not fast enough?
<span class="ev_code_red">Is it turnrate not good enough?</span>

Voice your opinions! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not say that it is porked or something I just edited your post and marked what in my opinion Mustang lacks most versus its contemporary axis opponents.
On the other hand it has some real nice features.

Kocur_
01-13-2006, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">More to the point, the FW190 seems, although affected by some adverse control issues, to be much better at holding energy through turns...particularly the D-9 but also the A-8 or A-9. I know its not a perfect comparison but the FW190s are heavily loaded wings with small areas and were always difficult to energy manage.

I like and prefer to fly the FW190 style of aircraft and I find the Mustang to be harder, not easier, than the FW190 in patch 4.02. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed! Im not really scared to perform a high/medium speed, near blackout turn in a carefully assessed tactical moment in any Anton. I wouldnt even think of it in any Mustang. OTOH, at least in 1943 situation P-51B/C has clear advantage above Fw-190A6 in pure deliate-manouvering-high-speed-I-want-more-E fight.

FatBoyHK
01-13-2006, 04:20 PM
I fly Mustang almost exclusively, and nowaday I am one of the reminding handful of pilots that still fly it on Warclouds. I think I am quality to say something about it.

I can still score and bring myself back home, but it take tons of patient to do it. Fly above 6000M, look for good target, bounce it, go away regardless of the outcome.... Its speed, zoom and dive are still good enough to keep yourself out of trouble. It is solid as rock in high speed, so you can still aim easily, provided that your target is flying in a perfectly straight line. If he is making a slow turn, it will be a major test of your piloting skill for you to work out a tracking shot solution.

But even if your enmey is sleeping, you cannot always kill it, as 50cals is weak you need a very very solid hit to kill it, which is very difficult to do. Most of the time you can just damage it and let him go. However most pilot will try to finish it, and it is when they start their jornery to the hell.

If your enemy see you but you are in a very favorable position, you may try to dogfight with him. But before you start you need to make sure you are not too fast otherwise you can break you wing super easily. You can break them in as slow as 350 MPH, even you are fully aware and paid attention the the amount of stick force you are applying. It is the run-away number one reason of my online death.

In a dogfight, don't slow down too much. The best way to do is to stay fast, go for a snap shot, and extent. Mustang accelerate and deccelerate very very slowly, combine with its weak guns, most opponents will simply cut throttle and let you overshoot. If you try to slow down you will park yourself right in front of him 9 of of 10 time, and you don't have the acceleration, nor climb rate, nor turn rate to escape. If your opponent is a 190, or you are too low, you can't dive away either.

If you can find someone as patient as you are you can fly mustang in pair and it will be much more successful. Fishing tactics (the leader bounce the target and intentionally overshoot, drag the target up, and let the wingman finish it) work very well. Stay close and keep a energy reserve, you may even turn-fight with most of your opponents.

If you fly Mustang in this way, it is still a fine plane for you. However, it is so intense that sometimes I ask myself where the fun factor is.... it is like a boring job in real life.... well, you may call it realistic....

I am a Mustang fans since I was 8 years old, that is why I am so forgiving. Apparently, most people won't. Frankly, it is not their problem.... I am sad to say it, but I must agree that Mustang sucks since 4.01.

Tator_Totts
01-13-2006, 04:53 PM
This whole evoultion of the mustang is kinda strange. I remember the hype about real pilots giving the imput about the planes FM. Even had real mustang jocks testing beta. Since then the plane fm has gotten worse. I guess the real pilots were wrong ang Olegs P-51 is correct now to Russian standards.

VW-IceFire
01-13-2006, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
This whole evoultion of the mustang is kinda strange. I remember the hype about real pilots giving the imput about the planes FM. Even had real mustang jocks testing beta. Since then the plane fm has gotten worse. I guess the real pilots were wrong ang Olegs P-51 is correct now to Russian standards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the evolution was.

- Pre-release beta (publically leaked) - far too good
- First introduced - very well balanced aircraft
- Few patches later - far better than it should have been
- Pacific Fighters - about back to being well balanced
- 4.01 - slowly degraded performance from before retaining some unusual elevator authority and wingsnap for some people
- 4.02 - horrible handling characteristics

So it sort of went up and down....

p1ngu666
01-13-2006, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
kocur, ive only flown the new yak7 a few times, but i think it flies nicer than yak9's with more "correct" COG. readme stats new yak7 have cog more forward than it should be..
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pingu! I didnt mention recently received, newly modelled, carefully taken care of, another Yak-7 because of any technical features of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

fatboy i agree, flying a p51, you haveto be very aware of the ingames short comings, which are as deadly to u as the luftwaffe, or moreso..

Tator_Totts
01-13-2006, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
This whole evoultion of the mustang is kinda strange. I remember the hype about real pilots giving the imput about the planes FM. Even had real mustang jocks testing beta. Since then the plane fm has gotten worse. I guess the real pilots were wrong ang Olegs P-51 is correct now to Russian standards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the evolution was.

- Pre-release beta (publically leaked) - far too good
- First introduced - very well balanced aircraft
- Few patches later - far better than it should have been
- Pacific Fighters - about back to being well balanced
- 4.01 - slowly degraded performance from before retaining some unusual elevator authority and wingsnap for some people
- 4.02 - horrible handling characteristics

So it sort of went up and down.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you missed the point.

I remember the hype about real pilots giving the imput about the planes FM. Even had real mustang jocks testing beta. Since then the plane fm has gotten worse. I guess the real pilots were wrong ang Olegs P-51 is correct now to Russian standards.

What happened to real pilots input.

I am not talking about climb rate turn rate or acceleration. I am talking about stall rates and how easy it is to depart from flight. I know the 109 had a better stall rate but the difference between the two are quite far apart.

horseback
01-13-2006, 05:31 PM
As a teenager, I got a ride in a modified Mustang back in the late sixties; I can't say with any authority that the replacement of the fuselage tank with a rear passenger seat made a critical difference in handling, or that there absolutely weren't any modifications to improve control response. I can say that the wings and tail were standard Mustang issue, to this scale modeler's eye, and that while we were hauling @ss across the Arizona desert (and kicking up an impressive rooster tail of dust behind us) at 250+ mph, the nose did not seem to wander about; there was no 'head of a pin' feeling, or excessive bouncing around. The aircraft went where it was directed, and it did so smoothly. It felt a lot like the 1962 Cadillac Sedan de Ville (with fins!) I drove to Tucson International Airport in.

While I don't doubt that the Mustang FM can "hit its numbers" with a reasonable level of accuracy, I can't help but think that the handling is just not right.

American aeronautical engineering design philosophy for pursuit aircraft in the years just prior to WWII emphasized the concept of a steady gun platform, a fighter that allowed the pilot to easily track and hit (and keep hitting)his target.

By all contemporary accounts and descriptions, the primary US fighter designs were quite successful in this regard, and this is one area that most of the later war US fighters modelled in this game series are severely lacking. None of the Big 5 (P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U, and F6F) can be said to be smooth or solid in their handling, and the Mustang is the worst of the bunch in this respect.

cheers

horseback

Lazy312
01-13-2006, 05:39 PM
Horrible handling, gets worse with altitude.

I have no problem flying any other plane (red or blue) in this sim. But I simply refuse to "fly" this one.

Looking for next patch..

AKA_TAGERT
01-13-2006, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
I'm opening a can of worms here I know, but hopefully we can get a good discussion going on here as well. Right?

I've been reading alot lately on these boards about the P-51 being "porked".

So, let's get to the bottom of this, shall we?

Are all the P-51's porked? Or just certain variants? Is it porked at all? And if so, in what ways?

Is it not fast enough?
Is its climbrate too low?
Is it acceleration too slow
Is its dive acceleration too slow?
Is its zooming ability not good enough?
Is its roll rate not fast enough?
Is it turnrate not good enough?

Let's not focus on the "wobbly" issue as it is present in most other fighters as well.

So, Mustang experts! Care to shine a light on this? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And please, no name calling, or stupid language, like "smack-tard" and the likes.

Voice your opinions! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My opinion? Sure, ok..

Got Track smack-tard?

Followed by..

Got Real World Data nay-sayer?

jds1978
01-13-2006, 05:57 PM
i think i've killed myself more due to high G black-outs, wing snap and stalls than any enemy fire

i will not fly the "D" model at the moment...which sux because i love the K14 gunsight

Mk III works great (BTW 4 x .50 cal can still kill your opponent)

Udidtoo
01-13-2006, 06:13 PM
I really get a kick out of how there is always a certainty that someone can't resist throwing in that anyone who flies a pony thinks "It won the war" That really gets worn out around here. Although I'm sure there are some folks who's knowledge of air combat and its realities is somewhat limited.Those of you who truly believe that real history is only taught outside the U.S. are tiresome at best and not one whit better than the folk, few though they may be who thinks that any one plane "Won the war"

If the P-51 that flew in combat flew like the one we know since 4.01 have there would have never been a myth in the 1st place. Still, prior to 4.01 I often felt as though I was in a machine that was a little too generous down low. There isn't a plethora of evidence supporting any claims that the P-51 could go from a excellent long range escort and then drop to the weeds and tear up the opposition ala Yak, La5 style but that was what we had previously.

Now if I fly one at all voluntarily its up where the air is thin. The -HH- have always been a campaign builders/ground pounding squadron primarily with a few members recruited to fly cover. I audibly groan whenever I see a mission screen with P-51's as escort for a ground strike because whether its guests or other -HH- flying the opposition all your going to do down there is hopefully soak up enough 108 rounds for the GP's to escape. We get the same results no matter who is in the 109's and 190's. If your fighting against any competent pilot flying a Luft plane and your under 10'000 its a tough row to hoe an I have as yet been unable to figure out how to escort anything ground pounding if I'm at 20'000.

Bottom line is its a pale shade of a fighter plane and I avoid it if possible unless I'm flying solo and then I take it up where its lonely. If you see one down on the deck and its not taking off or landing then its most likely burning. If you can get up there in its element its still quite a satisfying to score in because if you do you earned it.

Brain32
01-13-2006, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> few patches ago, spits where something tobe very scared off. it wasnt raw performance, it was handling, e retention and acceloration
now, spits arent a great worry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please tell me you are joking, please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Back on topic, I think that appart from wobble P51's only problem is insane elevator authority, if they fix it I think it will be just right...

VW-IceFire
01-13-2006, 06:26 PM
Ok...here's something.

Flying straight at speeds under 500kph...roll to the right or left. Now why is it that my nose is moving all over the place uncontrollably.

I realize there are a number of aerodynamics issues involved here but most aircraft when you do that the nose moves it a bit and you'd expect that. But this is what makes aim so difficult.

Brain32
01-13-2006, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Flying straight at speeds under 500kph...roll to the right or left. Now why is it that my nose is moving all over the place uncontrollably. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif You get that kind of effects? I only have problems with small rudder corrections, and I brought them to min with filtering...

SithSpeeder
01-13-2006, 06:55 PM
Oooh, I almost forgot.

Opening the radiator should NOT slow down the plane due to its location and design. I think this is a modeling problem with the game (nearly all other planes were not designed this way). I can live with this, though, and understand why Oleg did it this way (same with the fuel/center of gravity issue).

Anarchy--we ain't talking dispersion, we're talking synchronization which *should* be fixable (re: P-40 field mod). I don't know why this can't get fixed.

Rocket loadout (from what I've read) appears to be missing for the D in game. I'd much rather take a fully loaded 51 than a 38 because the 38 is such a big target.

I can't catch a G6-Late in QMB with a D, but maybe online it can. All documentation I can find shows the D should be significantly faster.

Here's a good article, btw: http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1996/AS/wmtm.html

* _54th_Speeder *

Viper2005_
01-13-2006, 07:29 PM
If opening the radiator has no effect upon performance, why bother to have a variable area radiator exhaust in the first place? It would be simpler, cheaper and lighter to use a fixed geometry system.

Open radiators = increased nett cooling drag

The Mustang's performance is almost entirely due to efficient radiator design according to Atwood. As the vice president at North American Aviation when the Mustang was designed, he ought to know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
However, as engine power increased and better aerodynamic shapes were developed in monoplane designs, we were all slow to realize that, with a normally ducted radiator at high speed, we had at our disposal a really remarkable air pump.

This air pump, like all pumps, had three elements--a compressor stage, a metering or valving stage (radiator core), and a discharge function through an air outlet. This began to be a considerable pumping action as speeds approached 300 miles per hour--and at 400 miles per hour, it had a large potential and could be a considerable fraction of the airplane's total power equation, since the pumping pressure increases as the square of the speed. <span class="ev_code_RED">To make this automatic pump effective, only one thing was required, and that was to choke the outlet enough to keep the pressurized airflow through the radiator just adequate for cooling and to discharge this compressed air at the highest speed possible.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emphasis added. See the following links for further information:

http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Supp/JJ99/Mustang.html

http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/atwood/atwood3.html

VW-IceFire
01-13-2006, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SithSpeeder:
Oooh, I almost forgot.

Opening the radiator should NOT slow down the plane due to its location and design. I think this is a modeling problem with the game (nearly all other planes were not designed this way). I can live with this, though, and understand why Oleg did it this way (same with the fuel/center of gravity issue).

Anarchy--we ain't talking dispersion, we're talking synchronization which *should* be fixable (re: P-40 field mod). I don't know why this can't get fixed.

Rocket loadout (from what I've read) appears to be missing for the D in game. I'd much rather take a fully loaded 51 than a 38 because the 38 is such a big target.

I can't catch a G6-Late in QMB with a D, but maybe online it can. All documentation I can find shows the D should be significantly faster.

Here's a good article, btw: http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1996/AS/wmtm.html

* _54th_Speeder * </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually from what I've read and understood its not that the radiator should not slow the plane down...its just that the radiator, when open, should not slow the plane down much. The same can be said of the FW190 and a few other types that had some pretty good ideas for dealing with airflown into and out of radiators. The P-51's is probably arguably the best with the channeling of air...but I'm to understand that there is still drag caused by an open radiator...just not nearly as much as say on a Spitfire with the radiator full open hanging in the breeze http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
01-13-2006, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
This whole evoultion of the mustang is kinda strange. I remember the hype about real pilots giving the imput about the planes FM. Even had real mustang jocks testing beta. Since then the plane fm has gotten worse. I guess the real pilots were wrong ang Olegs P-51 is correct now to Russian standards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the evolution was.

- Pre-release beta (publically leaked) - far too good
- First introduced - very well balanced aircraft
- Few patches later - far better than it should have been
- Pacific Fighters - about back to being well balanced
- 4.01 - slowly degraded performance from before retaining some unusual elevator authority and wingsnap for some people
- 4.02 - horrible handling characteristics

So it sort of went up and down.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you missed the point.

I remember the hype about real pilots giving the imput about the planes FM. Even had real mustang jocks testing beta. Since then the plane fm has gotten worse. I guess the real pilots were wrong ang Olegs P-51 is correct now to Russian standards.

What happened to real pilots input.

I am not talking about climb rate turn rate or acceleration. I am talking about stall rates and how easy it is to depart from flight. I know the 109 had a better stall rate but the difference between the two are quite far apart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as I know there are no Russian standards for P-51's...they didn't fly any of them or even evaluate them to my knowledge. My point is that it didn't just decrease after its initial release...it was good, then too good, then good, then bad. It wasn't a continual degradation...it both benefitted and suffered with new FM models depending on how things went.

But when it came out...I think thats when it was relatively speaking the best. The elevator hadn't been whined into super sensitivity and the aircraft was fast without turning rediculously well for the time.

GR142-Pipper
01-14-2006, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
I don't like very much the FB's FW 190, but i don't kid anymore......because of the "new" P-51. In the 2.04 it was an X-Wing....now i have some doubts it could be considered a P-51.
BTW a lot of birds with the new FM seem to be "porked" (Corsair, Hellcat, FW 190, P-47....seem to be i repeat....). On the other side, Spitfire (Mark VIII for ex.) have really an high climb rate also with few energy....something is gone wrong there i'm afraid.
P-38 is a beast now, probably the best american fighter in FB.

LaGG-3 is became a great fighter.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Concur with your views.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-14-2006, 02:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
problems with P-51

1) early marks (B and C) have the thin wing with canted weapons, historically causing jams under G-loading. We don't have this modelled

2) later marks Might, just Maybe do not have the vertical stabiliser 'fin' or fillet modelled physially- they MAY only have it modelled visually, MAYBE causing SOME stability problems. If you don't know what I'm talking about, mentally put the P-51B's tail onto a P-51D

3) the pilots on the whole will not accept that they might be the issue </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There are too many very capable ex-P-51 pilots for this to be the issue. Many have real world civilian and military flight time and some have even flown real P-51's. This, in addition to the fact that the P-51 is getting seen less and less by the day on-line, are pretty good indicators that something's amiss...and it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4) High altitude modelling in general still seems lacking; the Mustang suffers from this, but if you ask me, it's not the FM, it's the altitude model. But Mustang jockeys insist it's the plane. This affects ALL aircraft, not just the P-51. I think altitude modelling and Flight modelling is imperfectly understood

5) if the plane isn't "the best" like they read in a book, the plane must be "porked" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Baloney. The P-51 was (and is) truly a world-class aircraft. No one is asking for anything but what it should be...no more, no less.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">6) I read on one hand, that fuel location isn't modelled, only total weight, and then I read that fuel location adversely affects the P-51 because of CoG...well which is it? I haven't seen this addressed by the 'P-51 is porked' crowd, no matter how many times I've asked </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The P-51's flight characteristics are poor at best, particularly under any kind of maneuvering situations. It easily departs with little warning, feels like it has a definite aft CG problem, loses energy quickly/regains it slowly, is outrun by -G6 and later 109s and virtually all 190's, and it's weapons just don't punch. Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, it's just fine.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-14-2006, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
All these overmodelled Jap and Nazi planes kicking your butt make you sick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well if you are reduced to significantly undermodeling the premier U.S. fighter aircraft to help sell a few games, then let's not pretend that this is a sim....an enjoyable game no doubt, but not a sim.

GR142-Pipper

Kocur_
01-14-2006, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[P-51]is outrun by -G6 and later 109s and virtually all 190's, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. P-51 is faster than LW fighters, including Fw-190, of respective year. The exception is D being slower than Doras (at least low), but Mk.III is faster again.

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
problems with P-51

1) early marks (B and C) have the thin wing with canted weapons, historically causing jams under G-loading. We don't have this modelled

2) later marks Might, just Maybe do not have the vertical stabiliser 'fin' or fillet modelled physially- they MAY only have it modelled visually, MAYBE causing SOME stability problems. If you don't know what I'm talking about, mentally put the P-51B's tail onto a P-51D

3) the pilots on the whole will not accept that they might be the issue </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There are too many very capable ex-P-51 pilots for this to be the issue. Many have real world civilian and military flight time and some have even flown real P-51's. This, in addition to the fact that the P-51 is getting seen less and less by the day on-line, are pretty good indicators that something's amiss...and it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4) High altitude modelling in general still seems lacking; the Mustang suffers from this, but if you ask me, it's not the FM, it's the altitude model. But Mustang jockeys insist it's the plane. This affects ALL aircraft, not just the P-51. I think altitude modelling and Flight modelling is imperfectly understood

5) if the plane isn't "the best" like they read in a book, the plane must be "porked" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Baloney. The P-51 was (and is) truly a world-class aircraft. No one is asking for anything but what it should be...no more, no less.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">6) I read on one hand, that fuel location isn't modelled, only total weight, and then I read that fuel location adversely affects the P-51 because of CoG...well which is it? I haven't seen this addressed by the 'P-51 is porked' crowd, no matter how many times I've asked </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The P-51's flight characteristics are poor at best, particularly under any kind of maneuvering situations. It easily departs with little warning, feels like it has a definite aft CG problem, loses energy quickly/regains it slowly, is outrun by -G6 and later 109s and virtually all 190's, and it's weapons just don't punch. Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, it's just fine.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you realise that your reply makes absolutely no sense?

You quote three of my points all at once, then address...none of them, but you DO make a point about real P-51 pilots being around. Well sure. But which point of mine are you refuting with that fact?

Then you quote two of my points, and address only one of them, and when you address it, it is with a vague reference to 'world class aircraft'. Can you quantify what a 'world class' aircraft must do? Of course not. So what you're saying is that you disagree with me, but you can't say why.

Then you finally directly address my last point, and instead of fact, you say it "feels" like it does something concerning CoG

Then you wrap up by addressing Me as Mary Todd Lincoln, which to be frank, makes me think you're completely insane, which is probably the case, judging from your muddled reply in general.

Ordinarily I'd day this is a mouth-breathing, petulant reply, but I detect some kind of wacky coherence in your post which makes me think maybe a point was in what you wanted to say, somewhere.

Maybe you could re-state your standpoint, and please, drop the 'baloney' BS, will you? It indicates to me that you are prepared to swap factual information with me and you clearly aren't

Bremspropeller
01-14-2006, 07:05 AM
In my opinion the P-51 suffers from two issues:

1.) There is not enough drag around in game. One can easily check this by simply ******ing the throttle. ANY plane will have a rediculously shallow glide angle. Even high-loaded planes (like the Fw 190) will glide for ages when power is cut.
That is simply unrealistic.
Your second way to try this out is to fly a "hammerhead-turn":
planes used to be pretty predictable and controllable in that maneuver, but it's virtually impossible to fly a hammerhead now.
Planes will not respond to control-surface inputs at speeds where they should (particulary because the tail-surfaces are well within the prop-stream).
Planes will fall sideways or even backway down a considerably long time when they are actually supposed to flick over (or at least depart into a spin) as soon as they aren't blown-on they way they were intended to (forward movement).

2.) The already mentioned COG issue.
Some planes (even the Fw 190, though this problem is less expressed with that a/c) seem to dance on their tail when being rolled or yawed.
That is absolutely ridiculous:
the planes have vertical and horizontal stabs which fulfill the major purpose of stabilating the plane (and making it controllable =&gt; steering function). An airplane travelling through the sky at a speed of 350 mph CAN'T wobble like that IRL.


I hope these problems are adressed and solved with the next patch. I nearly stopped flying because of those issues. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Friendly_flyer
01-14-2006, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
- First introduced - very well balanced aircraft
...
- Pacific Fighters - about back to being well balanced
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite agree with Tator_Totts, when first introduced, the Mustang was a very pleasant plane to fly. Now it's, I don't know, too unstable perhaps. Speed is great, the guns are a matter of getting used to them and convergence, but the handling isn't quite what I'd expect. On the other hand, the Spitfire (which by all account's was a very pleasant plane to fly) has also become unstable and prone to some nasty stalls, so I think this is not a mater of the Mustang, but of the global flight model.

DangerForward
01-14-2006, 07:40 AM
For me fixing the 50cals is the most obvious problem with the P51(and others). I think the problem with the wings ripping off is a real life problem that was quickly fixed, as stated by earlier posters, but is a permanent feature of this game. The COG problems and wobble don't really bother me much, I guess I fly the P51 enough to compensate for it. I fly on Warclouds as Mourneblade...

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 07:48 AM
Something additional to consider:

Present day P-51 pilot accounts are great. But there's a problem with that:

I can think of exactly one P-51 that is restored to WWII condition. Weight of guns, ammo, and all original equipment in it's intended location

The overwhelming majority of P-51s flying look like they just flew out of WWII. But their equipment is not the same. Those pilots know very well what it is like to fly their present day P-51s. They might find military, WWII era P-51s a much different aircraft.

These pilots can give a very good impression of what the P-51 should behave like, but unless they are flying military-equipped P-51s restored to original equipment standard, some of the finer points of their flying experience cannot be the same. In general, what they report is to be taken as what the plane does. Specifically, however, how can the experience be the same? How can a P-51 with all armament and ammo removed fly the same as one carrying 1300 rounds of .50 ammo and the weight of six heavy machine guns in the wings?

Kocur_
01-14-2006, 07:56 AM
As much as I agree, guns and ammo are not the best example for anything depending on CoG vs. CoL, as both were located very close to CoG.

luftluuver
01-14-2006, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
problems with P-51

1) early marks (B and C) have the thin wing with canted weapons, historically causing jams under G-loading. We don't have this modelled
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Canted weapons yes but the wing was the same thickness on the B/C and D.

Icefire, the Russians got about 10 early model Mustangs from the Brits. How many Mustangs were left in the Poltava area?

Kocur_
01-14-2006, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Canted weapons yes but the wing was the same thickness on the B/C and D.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im affraid not! D had wings newly designed and they were thicker. Pros were more space for guns and tanks, cost was a bit more drag.

luftluuver
01-14-2006, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im affraid not! D had wings newly designed and they were thicker. Pros were more space for guns and tanks, cost was a bit more drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof required. What was the new airfoil?

The D got a longer wing root chord resulting in a pronounced wing kink. That is the redesign. The mounting for the .50s was redesigned.

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im affraid not! D had wings newly designed and they were thicker. Pros were more space for guns and tanks, cost was a bit more drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof required. What was the new airfoil?

The D got a longer wing root chord resulting in a pronounced wing kink. That is the redesign. The mounting for the .50s was redesigned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif According to Norman "Bud" Fortier, P-51 ace, the D model had a thicker wing. Not a "new" airfoil per se, but a thicker wing. I also think that George Loving jr. alludes to the thinner wing being one of the reasons he stuck to his P-51B when the D model was available, but I might remember that incorrectly

Sources:
"An Ace of the Eigth" by Norman Fortier
"Woodbine Red leader" by George Loving jr

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
As much as I agree, guns and ammo are not the best example for anything depending on CoG vs. CoL, as both were located very close to CoG. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's just an example of something civil aircraft don't have, Kocur_

I could have as readily noted the location of the heavy 1930's vintage radio set behind the cockpit, or the armor plate that made up the firewall, or the use in general of thinner but stronger alloys used overall, or even better materials used in radiator contruction potentially reducing all-up weight

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
problems with P-51

1) early marks (B and C) have the thin wing with canted weapons, historically causing jams under G-loading. We don't have this modelled
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Canted weapons yes but the wing was the same thickness on the B/C and D.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, see previous post on page 3

GR142-Pipper
01-14-2006, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[P-51]is outrun by -G6 and later 109s and virtually all 190's, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. P-51 is faster than LW fighters, including Fw-190, of respective year. The exception is D being slower than Doras (at least low), but Mk.III is faster again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, really. The acceleration characteristics of the P-51 are so abysmally slow that by the time top speed is reached it's already been run down.

GR142-Pipper

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 10:17 AM
I do have to tend to agree that I find the acceleration to be low. Pilots at the time commented on it's rapid acceleration, and while I have no fact to back this one up, I think you have a point about the acceleration

luftluuver
01-14-2006, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
According to Norman "Bud" Fortier, P-51 ace, the D model had a thicker wing. Not a "new" airfoil per se, but a thicker wing. I also think that George Loving jr. alludes to the thinner wing being one of the reasons he stuck to his P-51B when the D model was available, but I might remember that incorrectly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the plan view of the wing did not change any dimensions (except for the kink which is what Fortier is most likely talking about) then to get a thicker wing the airfoil has to change. Afaik the outer portion of the wing's plan view did not change.

GR142-Pipper
01-14-2006, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Maybe you could re-state your standpoint, and please, drop the 'baloney' BS, will you? It indicates to me that you are prepared to swap factual information with me and you clearly aren't </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Jesus H. Christ, are you really that freakin' DENSE? Look at my response and then look at your line above it. Is that dim bulb of yours getting even a little brighter now?

By the way, the line about Mrs. Lincoln is a figure of speech that used here in the U.S. Have someone explain it to you if you don't get it. That you think I'm actually addressing YOU as being Mrs. Lincoln is absolutely hilarious.

GR142-Pipper

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Maybe you could re-state your standpoint, and please, drop the 'baloney' BS, will you? It indicates to me that you are prepared to swap factual information with me and you clearly aren't </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Jesus H. Christ, are you really that freakin' DENSE? Look at my response and then look at your line above it. Is that dim bulb of yours getting even a little brighter now?

By the way, the line about Mrs. Lincoln is a figure of speech that used here in the U.S. Have someone explain it to you if you don't get it. That you think I'm actually addressing YOU as being Mrs. Lincoln is absolutely hilarious.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi.

I'm a Boston, Massachusetts native. I was born at MGH on August 12, 1971, and I have lived in Boston, or within 5 miles of it, my entire life.

I learned a great deal about American History, and Civics, through my Father, an History, English, Civics, and Mathematics teacher at Boston Public Schools. I furthered that interest in the background of the USA with Constitutional law classes in College, which I attended after a breif time of study of aeronautics at University in Boston, a University called Wentworth. I was also accepted at Embry-Riddle, if that means anything to you, but moving so far away didn't interest me.

I know more about not only the P-51 than you do, but about America. Calling someone "Mrs Lincoln" might be a regional saying in your neck of the woods, but last time I checked the USA was 3,000 miles across, your neighborhood isn't mine. If you need help on THAT concept, ask someone to explain it to you.

When you want to reply to one point I make, quoting THREE of them is stupid. It is almost, but not quite, as dumb as quoting three points, and then addressing NONE of them.

If you would like to swap insults with me, that's fine, but all any of your pathetic name calling tells me is that you don't know the first thing about what you're about concerning the topic of this thread.

I don't know what chip is on your shoulder, or what crawled up your butt, made a nest, and then died, but if you want to talk about the P-51, then do it.

If you want to trade broadsides with me for no reason other than you can't control your emotional tirades, then you will get the same replies back. And you will lose the exchange.

Your call, my friend.

p1ngu666
01-14-2006, 10:46 AM
well, if p51's irl handled like the ones flying about today, it would be like those restored 109s, they always seem to end up crashing.

p51s are the most commen warbirds about, tbh i dont care espcialy if one crashes cos theres alot more about..

theres a fair few spitfires about too.

spitfires where adored by everyone who flew them, theres only a *few* ppl who didnt think they where amazing, just rather nice.

the wobbly drunkeness of both planes would be easily noticed by the pilot irl, being strapped into it. i also dont see it at airshows, or in the air footage..

Udidtoo
01-14-2006, 10:46 AM
Most of us thats been around are already quite aware of who is and is not ever wrong but still these always degenerate into the above nonsense.

Please stop trying to out-Taggert Taggert and just maybe, maybe this could continue as a serious P-51 discussion and not a trade off on whose cojones have the most fuzz on them.

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
According to Norman "Bud" Fortier, P-51 ace, the D model had a thicker wing. Not a "new" airfoil per se, but a thicker wing. I also think that George Loving jr. alludes to the thinner wing being one of the reasons he stuck to his P-51B when the D model was available, but I might remember that incorrectly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the plan view of the wing did not change any dimensions (except for the kink which is what Fortier is most likely talking about) then to get a thicker wing the airfoil has to change. Afaik the outer portion of the wing's plan view did not change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought you were talking about the type of airfoil, ie: non-laminar flow versus laminar flow, that sort of thing

horseback
01-14-2006, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im affraid not! D had wings newly designed and they were thicker. Pros were more space for guns and tanks, cost was a bit more drag. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof required. What was the new airfoil?

The D got a longer wing root chord resulting in a pronounced wing kink. That is the redesign. The mounting for the .50s was redesigned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif According to Norman "Bud" Fortier, P-51 ace, the D model had a thicker wing. Not a "new" airfoil per se, but a thicker wing. I also think that George Loving jr. alludes to the thinner wing being one of the reasons he stuck to his P-51B when the D model was available, but I might remember that incorrectly

Sources:
"An Ace of the Eigth" by Norman Fortier
"Woodbine Red leader" by George Loving jr </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry Chuck. The airfoil and wing thickness top to bottom surface remained the same in the transition from the B/C to the D/K Mustangs.

Every technical resource I have on the Mustang refers to a wing redesign that included a stronger mainspar to provide for greater loads at the hard points, a fillet added at the wing root (this is apparently what Fortier, et al referred to as the "thicker" part of the wing), and the guns' installation being changed significantly.

NO mention is made of changes in the main airfoil's dimensions or shape, and a comparison of my Tamiya 1/48th scale Mustangs shows that only the wing root shape is changed from the B to the D. Believe me, in the anal retentive world that is scale plastic modelling, if Tamiya had gotten this detail wrong, there would have been a huge hullablloo about it, if only from Revell and Hasegawa, who make the next most accurate models of the pony...

The best description I have of the changes in the gun setup is taken from Bert Kinzey's Detail & Scale series, Volume 51, P-51 Mustang Part 2 (P-51D through F-82H):

"For more firepower, the number of machine guns was increased from four to six. This was a rather simple matter, because the gun bays in previous Mustangs had always been large enough for an extra gun in each wing. To reduce chances of jamming, the guns were mounted upright instead of at a slant. Additionally, they were installed along the dihedral of the wing rather than being parallel to the ground line as they were in earlier variants."

The photographs section dedicated to the wing/gun installation includes a caption that notes the guns being in a slightly staggered arrangement; comparison to the photos of the razorback versions' gun arrangement also shows that the M2s in the D model were moved forward somewhat (3 inches or so) compared to the earlier A-36/P-51A/B/C installation. The muzzles of the two outboard guns of the D model clearly protrude, while the razorback's gun muzzles are recessed from the wing leading edge.

For the D model to have a thicker wing and the same airfoil, the dimensions of the Mustang's wing would have to increase, and they didn't. Fortier and others were trying to describe the wing root fillet, not the airfoil.

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
01-14-2006, 11:34 AM
Thanks horseback. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

anarchy52
01-14-2006, 11:53 AM
If you wan't to see a really porked plane fly an Emil.

carguy_
01-14-2006, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Udidtoo: I audibly groan whenever I see a mission screen with P-51's as escort for a ground strike because whether its guests or other -HH- flying the opposition all your going to do down there is hopefully soak up enough 108 rounds for the GP's to escape. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite the same with FW190 being an escort plane ,especially when the vast majority of online coops tend to set bomber formations at 3000m for some reason.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We get the same results no matter who is in the 109's and 190's. If your fighting against any competent pilot flying a Luft plane and your under 10'000 its a tough row to hoe an I have as yet been unable to figure out how to escort anything ground pounding if I'm at 20'000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes,experienced LW flyers aren`t afraid of P51.In fact,they get even more aggresive when they see them.A good LW online player knows what a P51 can do and will easily win a DF/group DF provided the P51 is spotted.I am no physician though I think the energy loss from changing course or climbing is way too big.On both FW190 and P51/P47.If I get a P51 on my six I make few hard and shallow turns,he follows and overshoots but is ALREADY too slow to get away from me.I get a simple firing solution.
With a plane that has so smooth design as FW190 and especially P51 you should be able to make a shallow turn (25degrees) for a firing solution and yet retain enough energy (from speed gained in a dive) to easily get away in a 40deg climb.
That is not so in the game.

I would like to choose factors that hurt the P51 the most,based on my 70+ online sorties against it and a various easters/western sorties of 100+ in a FW190.The first factor being the most influental.


#1 LODs/dots rendering in the game.

We`ve had few real life experienced airlines pilots expressing how easy compared to PF is to see a plane/silhouette of it flying below you(in motion).A plane flying below is easily visible from 200-700m and silhouette is visible up to 3000m distance.That being in perfect weather conditions we mostly have in PF.

In the game the vast majority of planes are able to disappear at 300m distance while being viewed in the background.This is simply ridiculous.

This problem renders planes that use altitude/speed for their advantages basicly unable to use their real life tactics on enemies.Namely,the USAAF and LW.Hence pilots flying those are not able to spot enemies MOVING below and are unable to

1.See and rate the whole situation.
2.Attack enemies with usage of altitude/speed advantage.

Mostly,the only way one can see enemies down low is to spot tracers and imagine furter enemy position by tracers trajectory.

Heck,we aint even seeing our own godd@mn bomber formation!

Due to this problem I have stopped performing close escort because it is nothing more than a diversion for enemy planes whereas it should be a fighter sweep.You don`t see anything below,you go down,you get somebody on yer six because you didn`t see him when you were up there and you get downed.


The solution of problem #1 would significantly influence usage of advantages that listed planes have over their enemies.

#2 Absence of FM features that enable planes with bigger mass/smoother airframes use their advantages: speed,energy retention,acceleration,high speed climb,diving away.

Both the P51 and FW190 suffer from this.I can`t but laugh at situations where a P51/P47 that just jumped me is unable to gain safe distance after an attack which did not ivolve any hard horizontal maneuvers.The penalty those planes get for horizontal maneuvers is unrealistic and silly compared to the penalty that planes with poor climbrate get when performing shallow climb,zoom climb.

#3 Synched guns.
Obvious problem.Lets just note that a p51 pilot is unable to walk his fire unto the enemy thus significantly reducing 50cal performance.From tests I`ve seen the strenght per ammo of 50cal is ok,though the spray is the thing we`re looking for.

If the FW190 had 12mm guns,it would suck big time be sure.


#4 Lack of stability feature that is well documented for planes such as P51/P47.



That said,P51/P47 still rule above 6500m.I can`t accept the fact though that those planes are nothing but targets at lower altitude in PF 4.02.


If FW190 had 12mm guns and Mustang`s elevators it would suck BIG TIME.

Bremspropeller
01-14-2006, 12:34 PM
I'd sign carguy's post.

Udidtoo
01-14-2006, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'd sign carguy's post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed. Intelligent, thoughtful, and not a single personal insult or provocation thrown in for good measure........Carguy are you sure your in the right forum? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its really refreshing to see posters who although they may prefer flying against a certain set of plane's will concede that there is a possibility that said plane or planes may be a bit hobbled instead of the forum norm of "to bad when you find out your ride didn't win the war single handed"

I also see or rather, feel many off the same tendencies in the 190's even though my time in the seat of the FW's is low. Add in the fact that I'd be more likely to hit you with a thrown rock than with its guns I believe my kill/death ratio is slightly worse than in the P-51.

tomtheyak
01-14-2006, 01:18 PM
Carguy, I'd like to congratulate you on a superbly even handed post; such objectiveness is sorely lacking in these forums and I for one am glad to see it.

Having the opponents view on the P-51 in such unequivocal terms is eye-opening and illuminating to say the least. I'd love to try flying the 51 more online but theres only so much getting shot down I can take; and before any one accuses me of noobishness I can BnZ with the best of them, I just happen to like a good T&B too! I fly Spits mainly (cos i like em and think that they are well matched against Blue a/c)but want to expand my reportoire
and thought I'd try the 51 out... I get most of my kills in Spits BnZing so i thought the change might not be too drastic.

In the mustang however I just can't seem to get results; as you point out if I even so much as make a slight turn to keep an enemy whos turning in my sights I find energy bleeding off at a phenomenal rate and trying to extend and replace or even retain an enrgy is a nightmare.

I agree that the Pony should not be the Spitfire but I have to use tactics that really belong to the P-40s school of dogfighting zeros - and as I understand it thats not the plane that fought (and dare I say scared) the Luftwaffe.

drose01
01-14-2006, 01:38 PM
Coming from a "common sense" perspective, one can deduce that there must be something wrong with the Il-2 Mustang: noone wants to fly it in game because of its performance and handling.

Historically, the Mustang was extremely popular because of its performance and handling.

Something doesnt add up.



Another thing that doesn't add up- if the relative effectiveness of .50 caliber guns in real life was as poor as it is in the game, it is extremely hard to believe that the USAAF/USN would not have switched to cannons as soon as possible.

WOLFMondo
01-14-2006, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I do have to tend to agree that I find the acceleration to be low. Pilots at the time commented on it's rapid acceleration, and while I have no fact to back this one up, I think you have a point about the acceleration </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Acceleration compared to what though? In which respect?

The average pilots training in the US would have flown Havards, hardly a hot rod. Then they transfer to P51's. Of cause the P51 is going to seem like it accelerates well. British pilots before training started in the US and Canada would have flown Tigermoths. Then they transfer to the Spitfire. Their going to claim the Spitfire accelerated well.

Just read The Big Show and read Clostermans description of his first time in the Spitfire V and how it accelerated well. We all know it wasn't the best accelerator but he'd previously only flown training and civilian aircraft.

Pilot accounts should remain stories and not used as a source of data. There all relative to the pilot and his previous experiances, especially when it concerns something as vague as acceleration.

At least if people are going to use pilot accounts, use someone like Eric Browns who's flown most WW2 fighters, whereas your average USAAF or RAF pilot will have flown a couple of trainers and one fighter type or several generations of one fighter type i.e. Spitfire V and IX or P51B and P51D etc.

luftluuver
01-14-2006, 02:03 PM
Tigermoths, Cornells, Stearmans and Finchs were primary trainers. Then on to Harvards for more advanced training. The Harvard/Texan was not an easy a/c to fly dispite the trainer labeling.

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I do have to tend to agree that I find the acceleration to be low. Pilots at the time commented on it's rapid acceleration, and while I have no fact to back this one up, I think you have a point about the acceleration </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Acceleration compared to what though? In which respect?

The average pilots training in the US would have flown Havards, hardly a hot rod. Then they transfer to P51's. Of cause the P51 is going to seem like it accelerates well. British pilots before training started in the US and Canada would have flown Tigermoths. Then they transfer to the Spitfire. Their going to claim the Spitfire accelerated well.

Just read The Big Show and read Clostermans description of his first time in the Spitfire V and how it accelerated well. We all know it wasn't the best accelerator but he'd previously only flown training and civilian aircraft.

Pilot accounts should remain stories and not used as a source of data. There all relative to the pilot and his previous experiances, especially when it concerns something as vague as acceleration.

At least if people are going to use pilot accounts, use someone like Eric Browns who's flown most WW2 fighters, whereas your average USAAF or RAF pilot will have flown a couple of trainers and one fighter type or several generations of one fighter type i.e. Spitfire V and IX or P51B and P51D etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Like I posted, I have noting to back that up. Don't forget that US pilots flew more than harvards and vultee vibrators though; they even flew more than US aircraft. Some even flew experimental/lightened aircraft. A few flew the enemy's planes

My feeling is that they would know a plane that accelerated rapidly when they were in it. As I indicated, that's my opinion and nothing more. I don't offer it as a point to consider, because I have nothing to back it up with at this time. I try to be careful as to what I can argue about, and what I'm of an opinion about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 02:15 PM
Thanks, horseback

that just goes to show that even wartime pilots can give the wrong impression or remember things incorrectly, or even been given bad info themselves

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 02:17 PM
So OK, about the instability~

Nobody has touched on this point I brought up earlier:

Is the stability issue what we should expect from a D model Mustang without the fillet on the vertcal stabiliser? Could that be the problem? Visually, the fillet is there- is it modelled in the flight model?

Udidtoo
01-14-2006, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
So OK, about the instability~

Nobody has touched on this point I brought up earlier:

Is the stability issue what we should expect from a D model Mustang without the fillet on the vertcal stabiliser? Could that be the problem? Visually, the fillet is there- is it modelled in the flight model? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If someone involved in development and flight modeling would give concrete answers to questions like that........well like Leadspitter once said. "We wouldn't have You is wrong"

Ultimately pilot accounts nor real world test data counts for much unless we see FM data thats implemented in the patches to compare what we are given to fly by IcMaddox and what the boys in the war flew.

Enforcer572005
01-14-2006, 02:44 PM
I havent seen any mention of what i think is the most absurd problem, along wiht the fact that this thing falls out of the sky like it has a FM from MS CFS2.....the blasted engine is made of paper, i mean,it's so pathetically fragile that EVERY time I try to fly a B,C or D model that i wind up with a frozen prop in my face after one hit by a 7.92mm from a rookie gunner. thats the reason i havent finished "2 little ducs"....so i guess i should have flown it when it first came out.

Am I the only guy who has seen this? I cant believe that nobody else has had this problem. I realize that liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable than radials, but this is absurd. The Laggs and Cobras dont have this problem.

I really wish they would substitute the FM and DM of late model laggs or the P-63-would be alot more realistic than this silliness. Im not a p51 pilot, but I know they didnt do this nonsense. The Dominican AF flew these in combat conditions and equipment well into the 70s (kept shhooting up castros spy/fishing boats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
and they had nearly Zero attrition rate to planes falling out of the sky.

Id settle for the engine not quitting if something loud goes off nearby or a bird hits it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Slickun
01-14-2006, 02:46 PM
In reference to acceleration.

The P-38L at 1600 hp, the P-47M, and the P-51D at 67" hg all accelerated at about the same rate, in the order I posted.

The P-38L at 1725 had a bigger edge, but if one starts looking at lighter and more powerful versions of the P-51 (B/C/III, any version at higher than 67" hg boost)they are in the same boat, with Mustangs at 80/81" actually accelerationg better than the P-38L.

High boost Mustangs were the best accelerating planes in the US inventory, slightly better than the P-38L, which was slightly better than the stock P-51B/C/III, which was slightly better than the P-47M, which was slightly better than the P-51D stock version at 67" hg.

Anyone trying to make the case the P-51 accelerated poorly is, well, I dunno. It accelerated as well as the best Lightnings, which were widely known for their excellent acceleration.

Source is Dean's America's 100,000. One can make a very simple excell file, feed in weight, thrust, drag, altitude etc, and arrive at accurate acceleration numbers.

horseback
01-14-2006, 02:56 PM
Two points:

1. carguy hit the nail on the head. If the real-life Mustang and the RL Bf 109 and FW 190 series handled like the Il-2 FB/PF Mustang, Bf 109 and FW 190, then one can only assume from German loss statistics that USAAF pilots either were head and shoulders above every other air force's pilots OR that the LW simply started commiting mass suicide in the Spring of 1944...

2. USAAF pilots usually started with the Texan for their fighter training, but moved up to at least P-39s/40s before going on to deployment in late 1943/44. In most cases, the primary point of reference for USAAF pilots flying the P-51B/C/D would be the P-40K or later...

The Mustang was originally designed as a much more refined Warhawk--same engine and general armament, but faster, smoother, less torque-y. A bit (and not that much) of turn capability was sacrificed in exchange for the other goodies.

By all accounts, North American succeeded admirably in this goal. The Mustang was still a 'trim aircraft', but much less so than the P-40 -- and it was faster both in accelleration and top speed, superior in the climb, and much more forgiving.

The Packard Merlin Mustangs performed and handled slightly less well than their Allison engined forebears, but still notably better than the P-40 of any model below 15000 ft, and significantly better above that mark.

The P-40s in game are much less torque-y and trim hungry than the Mustang, and outperform it in all but climb and straight line speed. P-40 handling is vastly superior to and more forgiving than the Mustang's.

Okay, three points:

3. One can make a reasoned guess that since the Soviets operated a number of Hawk 81/P-40 models, Oleg's FM for it is close to the mark. The Soviets never received a new, 'fresh out of the box' Mustang; AFAIK, the 'shuttle' raids to Soviet held territory lost Mustangs that were destroyed, but none that were left behind close to whole because they were deemed unflyable due to lack of parts or fuel.

Any Soviet or German sources that he used for his Mustang FM that used real figures had to come from a/c put together out of parts from the wrecked and damaged aircraft that went down over Europe, or possibly, from the Chinese who received a few Lend Lease models before Mao took over.

In either case, the numbers are likely to be badly skewed. Mustangs (and Spitfires, P-47s & -38s) were complex machines that demanded a great deal of knowlegeable loving care. It was no accident that the best pilots often had the best crew chiefs caring for their aircraft. This was NOT the Soviet model.

Aircraft that have crashed or have been flown by the Nationalist Chinese AF of the 1940s are not apt to be in the best condition, or give a reliable indication of what the model's potential was. While a reasonably whole airframe might have been obtainable, the engine would undoubtedly been fried or badly abused; getting a decently new V-1650 in one piece from a crash or forced landing (weren't these usually done wheels-up?) would be a lot to ask.

It's clear that Oleg & Co are skeptical of US and British sources, sometimes labelling things like Pilot's Notes and training films 'propaganda', assuming that every rifle caliber round that strikes an R-2800, Allison, or Merlin would be instantly fatal, or that any aircraft above a certain size would be incapable of a turn measured in seconds rather than minutes. As products of the old Soviet system, it would be odd if they didn't.

But one keeps hoping that they might change...

cheers

horseback

ImpStarDuece
01-14-2006, 02:56 PM
I'm not a pilot and my understanding of this is purely theoretical, but a point to note with regard to the P-51, is that the departure characteristics from normal flight of a laminar flow wing are very sudden and unannounced. Its a high speed-low drag aerofoil, and tends to stall more suddenly and more voilently than a thicker profile wing. While in normal flight the air flow pressure distribution is even (hence low drag), at the point of a stall the pressue moves foward to the leading edge more rapidly than it would on a thicker, more cambered wing profile.

Even if the P-51 never had a true laminar flow wing (mostly because of manufacturing tolerences, airflow interruptions on the wing and other factors), its abot as close as you get in a WW2 fighter. So its stalls should be occuring quite suddenly, without the 'buffet' that you get in aircraft like the P-38, P-47 and Spitfire, or the extra AoA capabilities provided by the deployment of leading edge slats (which I happen to think, but not know, is overdone anyway).

Viper2005_
01-14-2006, 02:58 PM
Perhaps the thing to do would be to actually carry out some in-game stability measurements?

I see a lot of complaints about "wobble", but very little data.

Attempts should be made to measure short period oscillations in all 3 axies and phugoids in pitch.

This data could then be compared with flight test data (measurement of short period oscillations and phugoids was pretty standard procedure by WWII, so the data should be out there somewhere).

I suspect that the problem is caused at least partially by the way in which IL2 responds to stick displacement.

Even if you set all the sliders to 100, there still seems to be a delay between maximum stick deflection and the attainment of maximum control surface deflection in game.

This is likely to cause some stability problems.

In addition, most flight simulators are incapable of simulating the effect of stick-free stability (because force feedback is a requirement for this, and to get it right you really need to standardise the inceptors available to the user).

Stick-free stability has a major impact upon the handling of most conventional (ie non FBW) aeroplanes and therefore considerable handling errors can be expected to result from its non-inclusion in the flight model.

Slickun
01-14-2006, 03:06 PM
The P-51 warned before a stall, just not as much as other planes.

WOLFMondo
01-14-2006, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:


Any Soviet or German sources that he used for his Mustang FM that used real figures had to come from a/c put together out of parts from the wrecked and damaged aircraft that went down over Europe, or possibly, from the Chinese who received a few Lend Lease models before Mao took over.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I very much doubt Oleg would use Soviet or German data to model planes like P51's, P38's, P47's and Spitfires given the amount of data available. The only problem with that data is it varies so much, depending on where you read it and who wrote it. Theres no reason that original factory data can't be used, original test data on acceptance tests could be used.

Has Oleg ever stated his source for these aircraft?

Kocur_
01-14-2006, 03:26 PM
On B/C vs D wing:
Well, my source says that airfoil remained the same in the wingroot but further towards the tip, aerodynamical twist was used. But I definately wont defend that idea to last drop of blood http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Still wing was redesigned. Wing spars were redesigned to provide more strenght, probably in relation to larger ammo box covers, which meant larger "hole", i.e. area of skin not riveted to internal structure.

Kocur_
01-14-2006, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:


Any Soviet or German sources that he used for his Mustang FM that used real figures had to come from a/c put together out of parts from the wrecked and damaged aircraft that went down over Europe, or possibly, from the Chinese who received a few Lend Lease models before Mao took over.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I very much doubt Oleg would use Soviet or German data to model planes like P51's, P38's, P47's and Spitfires given the amount of data available. The only problem with that data is it varies so much, depending on where you read it and who wrote it. Theres no reason that original factory data can't be used, original test data on acceptance tests could be used.

Has Oleg ever stated his source for these aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For any?
Seems that the only criteria is source fitting his general idea or not. And that goes also to things Carguy mentioned. Seems to me, that this is not a 'fighters sim', but 'turn and burners sim'. Planes of higher wingloading share similar FM difficulties (with exception of course for I-185...). T'n'burners are promoted in their E retention and low speed stability, and even in areas seemingly not related, like visibility against ground.

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 04:01 PM
is this because of bias, or Fm restrictions imposed by the original Il2 game engine?

Personally I put little faith in a national bias issue. I have read from some good sources here that he Russians who play say Oleg is "blue biased", and the germans who play say he is "red biased"

I would more esily accept that the game engine and flight modelling has issues relating to a lot of these energy fighting concerns, and concessions towards turn fighting were made. Especially since we know that high altitude modelling was not of highest priority when Il2 came out.

horseback
01-14-2006, 04:04 PM
From Fighting Mustang: Chronicle of the P-51, by William Hess, which featured a flying evaluation of the P-51B by LTCOL Richard E. Turner, an early ace (11 aerial victories) with the Pioneer Mustang group, the 354th FG, which I quote here:

"I quote a phrase often used by pilots of the Mustang as the most apt comment I know of which demonstrates the true feeling of practically every pilot who had the good fortune to gain proficiency in flying the P-51. This phrase was, "She's as honest as the day is long and she hasn't a mean bone in her body!"

"The wide landing gear span made taeoff and landing a pleasure to perform and the stall characteristics were straightaway, with an ample warning nibble at the stick to tell the pilot, well in advance, of the imminent drop of the left wing as torque snatched at the completely stalled aircraft. Even after experiencing the dropping left wing, one could regain flying control by applying full throttle and coordinating right rudder."

The 'honesty' comment, for those unfamiliar with the American vernacular of the time, has to do with being predictable and not handing the pilot any surprises.

Does this sound like the Mustang in-game?

'Nuff said.

cheers

horseback

Chuck_Older
01-14-2006, 04:06 PM
Not when I fly it at least, and I wouldn't say I have wobble issues at all

horseback
01-14-2006, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
On B/C vs D wing:
Well, my source says that airfoil remained the same in the wingroot but further towards the tip, aerodynamical twist was used. But I definately wont defend that idea to last drop of blood http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Still wing was redesigned. Wing spars were redesigned to provide more strenght, probably in relation to larger ammo box covers, which meant larger "hole", i.e. area of skin not riveted to internal structure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No mention of a twist in my sources. The dzus type fasteners of the ammo tray access panels cost little in terms of structural strength, and the gun tray access panels were (if properly locked down) nearly as strong, but greater wing strength was desired for two reasons: hardpoints for bigger fuel tanks/bombs, and the stress of dive recovery. German pilots never seemed to believe that the 'Amis' could catch them that quickly in a dive, and never stopped trying.

Turner stated specifically that he could spot a 109 5000 ft in a dive from 30,000 ft and catch the 109 before he reached 15,000 ft, and several other US pilots' accounts confirm a similar advantage.

cheers

horseback

GR142-Pipper
01-14-2006, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I learned a great deal about American History, and Civics, through my Father, an History, English, Civics, and Mathematics teacher at Boston Public Schools. I furthered that interest in the background of the USA with Constitutional law classes in College, which I attended after a breif time of study of aeronautics at University in Boston, a University called Wentworth. I was also accepted at Embry-Riddle, if that means anything to you, but moving so far away didn't interest me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm hoping your very uninteresting life story ends soon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know more about not only the P-51 than you do, but about America. Calling someone "Mrs Lincoln" might be a regional saying in your neck of the woods, but last time I checked the USA was 3,000 miles across, your neighborhood isn't mine. If you need help on THAT concept, ask someone to explain it to you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>All that "education" and "experience" and you've never heard the expression, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"? That saying is as old as the hills and is by no means regional. Oh well, you probably never left the dorms.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When you want to reply to one point I make, quoting THREE of them is stupid. It is almost, but not quite, as dumb as quoting three points, and then addressing NONE of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess you're not bright enough to figure out that my responses were to the last respective paragraph you wrote directly above each reply. Your folks would be interested to know that the money they provided for your vast education isn't paying off.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you would like to swap insults with me, that's fine, but all any of your pathetic name calling tells me is that you don't know the first thing about what you're about concerning the topic of this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...and you still think I'm calling you Mrs. Lincoln. Hilarious.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't know what chip is on your shoulder, or what crawled up your butt, made a nest, and then died, but if you want to talk about the P-51, then do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Tell us again how you think I'm calling you Mrs. Lincoln. LOL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you want to trade broadsides with me for no reason other than you can't control your emotional tirades, then you will get the same replies back. And you will lose the exchange. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, I don't think that there's a prayer for you in that department. Friendly suggestion: Relax a little, have a lemonade, wipe the spittle off your monitor, let your eyes retract back into their sockets...and try READING the posts for a change. You, above all people, just might learn something.

GR142-Pipper

luftluuver
01-14-2006, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
"The wide landing gear span made taeoff and landing a pleasure to perform and the stall characteristics were straightaway, with an ample warning nibble at the stick to tell the pilot, well in advance, of the imminent drop of the left wing as torque snatched at the completely stalled aircraft. Even after experiencing the dropping left wing, one could regain flying control by applying full throttle and coordinating right rudder." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is slow speed stall not high speed stall.

Kocur. How can the airfoil be the same when the root depth was the same for both the B/C and the D? Change the aspect ratio (root length and depth) and the airfoil number changes.

Kocur_
01-14-2006, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

Kocur. How can the airfoil be the same when the root depth was the same for both the B/C and the D? Change the aspect ratio (root length and depth) and the airfoil number changes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

List of airfoils (http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html) (type P-51 in ctrf+F box)http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

luftluuver
01-14-2006, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
List of airfoils (http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html) (type P-51 in ctrf+F box)http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't care what it says. Go plot the airfoil for both and you will see the D will be much deeper than the B/Cs.

horseback
01-14-2006, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
"The wide landing gear span made taeoff and landing a pleasure to perform and the stall characteristics were straightaway, with an ample warning nibble at the stick to tell the pilot, well in advance, of the imminent drop of the left wing as torque snatched at the completely stalled aircraft. Even after experiencing the dropping left wing, one could regain flying control by applying full throttle and coordinating right rudder." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is slow speed stall not high speed stall. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I refer you to the "honest" comment. No surprises. Smooth. Reliable. Predictable. Stable gun platform. These expressions always show up in pilots' descriptions of flying the Mustang.

A sudden, no warning high or low speed stall does not fit that description.

cheers

horseback

BfHeFwMe
01-14-2006, 08:23 PM
Takes some real clever aerospace engineers to design aircraft in which the elevator is so strong it can rip off wings without elevator failure first, nor without boosted control.

Now was that a real or simulated plane. ROFLMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Aaron_GT
01-15-2006, 12:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Stable gun platform. These expressions always show up in pilots' descriptions of flying the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone posted, a few weeks ago, a set of comments from USN pilots evaluating the P51 for possible use. About half of the pilots commented that the plane was NOT a stable gun platform. So your claim that it was always called a stable gun platform is undermined by this. This was one of the few consistent threads throughout the USN pilot comments, though, or at least the only one that I remember.

Aaron_GT
01-15-2006, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Takes some real clever aerospace engineers to design aircraft in which the elevator is so strong it can rip off wings without elevator failure first, nor without boosted control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Originally people complained that the elevator authority of the P51 in the game was insufficient and apparently complained enough to get it changed to what we have now, which is too sensitive at high speed. I don't know if the game physics engine is detailed enough to be able to tone down the response at high speed without undesirable side effects elsewhere.

Badsight.
01-15-2006, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Hi.

I'm a Boston, Massachusetts native. I was born at MGH on August 12, 1971, and I have lived in Boston, or within 5 miles of it, my entire life.

I learned a great deal about American History, and Civics, through my Father, an History, English, Civics, and Mathematics teacher at Boston Public Schools. I furthered that interest in the background of the USA with Constitutional law classes in College, which I attended after a breif time of study of aeronautics at University in Boston, a University called Wentworth. I was also accepted at Embry-Riddle, if that means anything to you, but moving so far away didn't interest me.

I know more about not only the P-51 than you do, but about America. Calling someone "Mrs Lincoln" might be a regional saying in your neck of the woods, but last time I checked the USA was 3,000 miles across, your neighborhood isn't mine. If you need help on THAT concept, ask someone to explain it to you.

When you want to reply to one point I make, quoting THREE of them is stupid. It is almost, but not quite, as dumb as quoting three points, and then addressing NONE of them.

If you would like to swap insults with me, that's fine, but all any of your pathetic name calling tells me is that you don't know the first thing about what you're about concerning the topic of this thread.

I don't know what chip is on your shoulder, or what crawled up your butt, made a nest, and then died, but if you want to talk about the P-51, then do it.

If you want to trade broadsides with me for no reason other than you can't control your emotional tirades, then you will get the same replies back. And you will lose the exchange.

Your call, my friend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL owned Pipper

Pipper doesnt know when to shut up - & when hes out of actual points its down to the insults

just ask him about unfair blackout LMAO!

GR142-Pipper
01-15-2006, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
just ask him about unfair blackout LMAO! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, it's more enlightening listening to you tell about the extent of your real life aviation experiences as illustrated below. LOL

http://www.tikitoys.com/TKTstore/uploads/tsu013a.jpg

GR142-Pipper

msalama
01-15-2006, 04:04 AM
It's funny how the topic starter _always_ puts in a warning about personal insults not being welcome, and how the topics nevertheless _always_ degenerate into s**te... ROTFLMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Still, we're flying a BoB beta FM now, and many AC _are_ somewhat off... 'nuff said

anarchy52
01-15-2006, 04:06 AM
Pipper, you wouldn't by any chance be related to Protos?

GR142_Astro
01-15-2006, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
[QUOTE]Nah, it's more enlightening listening to you tell about the extent of your real life aviation experiences as illustrated below. LOL

http://www.tikitoys.com/TKTstore/uploads/tsu013a.jpg

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh yeah, bump for a usable Mustang.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

neural_dream
01-15-2006, 05:13 AM
So, to sum up
this is an ETO sim, optimal for Sturmoviks and Yaks, but not optimal for high altitudes. The P-51 shines only in high altitude. Thus, the P-51 can't shine as much in this game.

From what I saw by Robban's numbers, most mustangs shine over about 6000m, which is where they were supposed to shine anyway.

Another issue is the synched .50s, but if you start pressing the two buttons with a tiny time difference, you get "unsynched" guns, so that's not a big deal.

Alright, I think I learned all I had to learn from this discussion. Surprisingly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

luftluuver
01-15-2006, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I refer you to the "honest" comment. No surprises. Smooth. Reliable. Predictable. Stable gun platform. These expressions always show up in pilots' descriptions of flying the Mustang.

A sudden, no warning high or low speed stall does not fit that description. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have read pilot accounts that said they departed high speed flight or could not persue a high speed manuevering German a/c as the Pony would have had a flight departure.

neural_dream
01-15-2006, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I refer you to the "honest" comment. No surprises. Smooth. Reliable. Predictable. Stable gun platform. These expressions always show up in pilots' descriptions of flying the Mustang.
A sudden, no warning high or low speed stall does not fit that description. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have read pilot accounts that said they departed high speed flight or could not persue a high speed manuevering German a/c as the Pony would have had a flight departure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
kommie propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Don't read such books.

Friendly_flyer
01-15-2006, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
if you start pressing the two buttons with a tiny time difference, you get "unsynched" guns, so that's not a big deal.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah, off cource! And as soon as the guns are out of sunc, they will stay out. Nice!

Chuck_Older
01-15-2006, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Stable gun platform. These expressions always show up in pilots' descriptions of flying the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone posted, a few weeks ago, a set of comments from USN pilots evaluating the P51 for possible use. About half of the pilots commented that the plane was NOT a stable gun platform. So your claim that it was always called a stable gun platform is undermined by this. This was one of the few consistent threads throughout the USN pilot comments, though, or at least the only one that I remember. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is interesting. I don't know if this is the reason or not, but USN pilots were used to aircraft with much more forgiving low speed handling characteristics than the USAAC/USAAF pilots were

I wonder if this is a case of one group of pilots being used to very stable gun platforms, and one being used to relatively unstable ones. To one group, the P-51 wouldn't be stable. To the other it would be like a rock

Concerning the elevator, I had a hard time being convinced the Mustang would shed wings in a dive. I recall trying this out many times when the issue was first reported. I simply wasn't hauling back on the stick far enough. This may be an extremely simplistic solution, but in a high speed dive, behaving as if the plane could break if handled roughly seems to work for me. I haven't been able to break a P-51 wing unless I have given it conscious effort- I simply don't yank the stick back as far and as fast as I can when in a high speed dive. This seems to eleiminate all wing shedding issues for me. I also recall a real wartime pilot (was it Eric Brown?) who tried the sim reported that putting in much milder stick settings than the default ones ws needed to make the plane felt as he recollects it did.

I also think he was the test pilot for the wartime effort to get the P-51 aileron response to rival that of the Fw 190 in regards to roll. An aileron boosted prototype was developed, but by that time, the production model P-51 had roll rates only slightly inferior to the Fw 190. I could double check that, I'm sure I read that in my reference recently

neural_dream
01-15-2006, 05:37 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif hm, probably.

Kocur_
01-15-2006, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
So, to sum up
this is an ETO sim, optimal for Sturmoviks and Yaks, but not optimal for high altitudes. The P-51 shines only in high altitude. Thus, the P-51 can't shine as much in this game.

From what I saw by Robban's numbers, most mustangs shine over about 6000m, which is where they were supposed to shine anyway.

Another issue is the synched .50s, but if you start pressing the two buttons with a tiny time difference, you get "unsynched" guns, so that's not a big deal.

Alright, I think I learned all I had to learn from this discussion. Surprisingly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as much as Merlins in P-51 were optimised for higher alts, Mustangs should not handle, in terms of airframe and control system, better in thinner air, should they.

The .50 trick you mention is possible in P-47 only.



The basic problem IMO is different approach for low wingloaded planes, for which the game is 'nice' and high wingloaded planes, for which the game is adverse. But I must diagree with Chuck that its just, so many times brough up, "game engine limitations". I dont belive there are any, in terms of planes handling (while high alts are a different story, as above certain alt changes of it are no longer modelled). Obviously plane's characteristics are modelled individualy, without connection with RL tech specs, and devs can do with them whatever they like. I-185/M-71 wingloading was HIGHER than late Fw-190s, and still it flies in the game like 2/3 of that, etc.

neural_dream
01-15-2006, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
The .50 trick you mention is possible in P-47 only.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh yeah, forgot. Haven't flown the 51 for a while.

robban75
01-15-2006, 06:15 AM
What was the Mustangs stalling speed?

This is what I get most of the time in-game. (All versions of the Mustang stall at the same speed)

Full fuel, 500m alt.

Landing configuration

140km/h IAS, 153km/TAS

Clean configuration

160km/h IAS, 184km/h TAS

With 25% fuel the stall speeds almost remained the same. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
The difference is minimal, just a couple of km/h lower than with full fuel. I also stalled the D-9 with 100% fuel and 25% fuel, and the difference in stall speed between the fuel states was similar to that of the Mustang.
(The D-9 stalled at 190km/h IAS, 210km/h TAS, clean config)

So, it seems that fuel state has almost no impact on stall speeds. Which means all(?) planes fly and manouver as if they had full tanks? Climbrate improves with less fuel. Why is there no impact on stalling speed and handling?

tomtheyak
01-15-2006, 06:46 AM
The reference to amiable stall chracteristics is I believe related to power off stall - thats very different to an poer on accelerated stall; I do have a source somewhere that says;

"the P-40 would warn you of an approaching stall with a gentle shake of the stick; the mustang would warn of he stall by snap rolling to the left. It was a characteristic I never learned to appreciate!"

it was by a Jug driver tho (might have been Hub Zemke), so again pilot preferences come into play. Dont have the book handy - it was a quote from John Dibbs' Flying Legends - a lovely book of photos of restored warbirds full of interesting historicalanecdotes like the one above.

Aaron_GT
01-15-2006, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have read pilot accounts that said they departed high speed flight or could not persue a high speed manuevering German a/c as the Pony would have had a flight departure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember in EAW, with all the patches, the modelling of the P-51 was praised. It had pretty vicious high speed stall departure characteristics in EAW. (I'd still play EAW - the AI was great for the time, and immersive, only I got fed up trying to get it to work for Windows XP).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is interesting. I don't know if this is the reason or not, but USN pilots were used to aircraft with much more forgiving low speed handling characteristics than the USAAC/USAAF pilots were </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is it - the USN pilots were probably used to F4Fs and F6Fs which were definitely stable, whereas USAAF pilots were probably transitioning from the P40, which was known for its more squirrely behaviour. It's all relative, but when someone says "X was stable" it might be worth looking at what it is in relation to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">behaving as if the plane could break if handled roughly seems to work for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That might be it. For those with a force feedback stick pulling back hard when the stick is vibrating a lot is a nervewracking experience and might encourage you to pull back more gently.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This seems to eleiminate all wing shedding issues for me. I also recall a real wartime pilot (was it Eric Brown?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was.

luftluuver
01-15-2006, 07:36 AM
Pilot's notes say to use pull back on the stick and NOT use elevator trim to pull out of a high speed dive.

jimDG
01-15-2006, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
So, to sum up
this is an ETO sim, optimal for Sturmoviks and Yaks, but not optimal for high altitudes. The P-51 shines only in high altitude. Thus, the P-51 can't shine as much in this game.

From what I saw by Robban's numbers, most mustangs shine over about 6000m, which is where they were supposed to shine anyway.

Another issue is the synched .50s, but if you start pressing the two buttons with a tiny time difference, you get "unsynched" guns, so that's not a big deal.

Alright, I think I learned all I had to learn from this discussion. Surprisingly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

depends. 2 (or 3) mustang IIIs with the proper teamwork can outdo any opposition at low level - both have to make really wide turns, to maintain 600 km/h, and work together to box in the opposition. One 'stang maintaining 600km/h at low level is easy meat as it can always be cought in a wide fast turn by opponents that cut accross the circle in at a lower speed.
The problem is - this game is fought online just like the japs did it - no radios, no communication, no teamwork, every man for himself trying to outdo his collegues and excell (get the most single kills, and leave his collegues get single kills without interference). So, naturally, K/D ratios for "group" a/c like the fw190, and most american a/c are lower than in real life.
I have no problem with a single BnZing Fw190- i can always avoid it until it runs out of energy and then out accelerate it or out-climb it for a kill. Two BnZing Fw190s I can never deal with; I invariably get shot down even if there are more reds around.
Fighters that put an emphasis on speed and energy retention at the expense of maneuverability can only work in packs - to herd one of the opposition in a good kill position for one of the pack.
Otherwise you're stuck in a situation where you are making a big circle arround a smaller circle were the opposing fighter is - and he's constantly in a good firing position. (regadless of whether its a horizontal or a vertical circle)

Nigel_Woodman
01-15-2006, 08:02 AM
A little comparison of generally accepted real-world specifications:

P-51D

Slickun
01-15-2006, 09:10 AM
To the poster inferring that the P-51 was unable, or limited, in its ability to chase and maneuver with LW birds at high speeds....

EVERYTHING I've ever read about the Pony, everything my Dad ever told me about it, was that the place it really excelled, was at high speeds. Period.

It could pull 8 g's down to about 265 mph incdicated. Per the Pilot's manual. This is hardly indicative of being unable to maneuver and pull g's at high speeds.

Its roll rate exceeded the FW's at about 350 mph indicated. C'mon. The one place there should be no question about is high speed handling and ability.

Nigel_Woodman
01-15-2006, 09:40 AM
A little comparison of generally accepted real-world specifications:

P-51D Bf-109K FW-190D
top speed 437mph 452mph 426mph
power 1720 HP 2000 HP 2240 HP
max climb** 3478 fpm 4873 fpm 4400 fpm
wing loading* 40.5 lb/ft-sq 36.0 lb/ft-sq 54.2 lb/ft-sq
power loading*5.55 lb/HP 3.5 lb/HP 4.1 lb/HP
dry weight 7000 lb 5298 lb 7694
max weight 12096 lb 7438 lb 10670
armament 6x50cal MG 2x13mm 2x13mm
1x30mm 2x20mm
other gyro gunsight high-G seat well armored
features bubble canopy slats

* At typical combat weights.
** Initial at low altitude

The specifications indicate to me that the P-51 would never be able to out-climb, out-accelerate, out-turn or out-gun a contemporary 109 or 190. But, because of weight/laminar wing and higher wing loading, the P-51 would out-dive and out zoom them.

In the real world, the P-51 would usually have the advantage of numbers, altitude, training and experience. A 190 or 109 in the hands of a rookie, clawing itself skyward in single minded pursuit of a formation of bombers would be easy prey for an experienced pilot in a P-51 loitering about a mile higher... and history shows that they were.

As far as the sim is concerned, the stability of the P-51 in combat configuration is a moot point. I personally don't find it a problem, but who alive now can really say for sure? Pulling the wings off? I always find I black out before I pull the wings off which seems about right to me. If you want to be realistic, don't get involved in turning fights with the P-51. Their job was to keep fighters off the bombers, and the surest way to fail at that is to get involved chasing a kill down in energy sucking turns. Zoom and boom, vertical maneuvers, retain energy and advantage and stay with the bombers. Too much elevator authority? Don't pull so hard.

The P-51 was obviously an excellent fighter in it's time and for the purpose it filled; however there were many other contemporary fighters that were just as good or better. Unfortunately or fortunately, the winners and survivors get to write history, and the P-51 was the winner. It's just possible that in the romantic history of WW-2 the P-51's good qualities have been a little over-played and its faults ignored. In any case, I enjoy flying it in the sim.

Chuck_Older
01-15-2006, 09:51 AM
Well, I tend to agree with most of your post Nigel, not all but most.

One point I'd like to make however, is that in terms of overall numbers present in each air force, the Mustang was more numerous, but in terms of local numbers, the Luftwaffe can and did often overwhelm escorts with their own fighters

They would exploit the fact that 60 Mustangs would escort 400 bombers, they would find a lightly escorted section, be directed by radar, and concentrate attacks. James Howard won the CMOH for single handedly fighting off 30+ German fighters attacking the bomber stream

A related issue is pilot exprience, and in my opinion, with the USAAF's policy of rotating pilots home after a tour, whether they signed on for another tour or not (if they signed on for another tour, they got 30 days R+R, starting when they got to the US), coupled with the fact that a german pilot bailing out over Europe could expect to fly again soon, a US pilot was either captured, or escaped, but if he escaped, official policy was he not return to combat flying, fo fear of betraying the Underground. Some pilots were exceptions, like Chuck Yeager

But on the whole, I would argue that local air superiority was attainable (and was acheived in many cases) by the Luftwaffe during the heyday of the P-51, and the pilots on each side were both in a constant state of flux, with new pilots and experiemced pilots filling the ranks of both. i can't agree with the notion that P-51s did well because they shot down inexperienced pilots, because most of the P-51 pilots were themselves inexperienced, since the old hands were constantly rotated out, and replacements came in. Even Urban Drew, who got two Me 262s on the same mission while flying a P-51D, was 'new' to combat at one point, his time as in instructor gave him zero combat experience. how many other P-51 jocks were like him, but without the hundreds and hundreds of hours worth of instructor benefit in 1944? the vast majority, I'll bet

But in general I agree with you

~edit
bad typos, I have splinters lodged in my finger, typing is hard

Nigel_Woodman
01-15-2006, 11:17 AM
More statistics:

In January 1944, the German day fighter force completed a total of 3,315 combat sorties in the Home Defence - against 12,541 effective combat sorties by US 8th and 9th Air forces. By May 1944, the monthly figures were 3,805 German day fighter combat sorties against 55,358 effective by US 8th and 9th Air forces (including 32,860 by US fighters). That's a ratio of about 8.6 to 1 if you assume the Germans were dealing only with fighters, which they were not. There is no doubt that during the ascendancy of the P-51, the Germans were fighting against vastly superior numbers.


As far as experience is concerned, the typical "rookie" allied fighter pilot would have about 300 flight hours before his first operational flight. In contrast, Luftwaffe fighter training had been shortened to about 160 hours by early 1944, and within a few weeks it was shortened to only 112 hours, by Spring, pilots were sent into first line service with only an A2 flight certificate which meant about 60 flights for a total of about 15 flight hours. That's typically the number of hours needed to solo a Cessna 150 today.

There is no doubt that P-51 pilots were encountering out-numbered, poorly trained and inexperienced opposition.

Not to disparage the accomplishments of Allied airmen during that period, but it was a (relatively) easy time to get kills. The P-51 made a lot of it's reputation against a weak and outnumbered foe. No matter how great the enemy aircraft might have been performance-wise, it's still the pilot and his training and experience that makes the difference (as shown by the continued sucess of the few veteran German pilots who survived to fight in this period).

All this be as it may, I still like the P-51.

Slickun
01-15-2006, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no doubt that P-51 pilots were encountering out-numbered, poorly trained and inexperienced opposition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh yes there is. Did you read one word of the post before yours?

400 escorts means the escorts went in relays, not one huge gaggle. In Jan-May 1944 the miles-long B-17 train would be escorted, beyond the range of the P-47's, by usually ONE fighter group. One squadron in front, one on each side. That group would ride along for awhile, then be replaced by another group.

The literature is FULL, I say again, FULL of accounts of escorts being overwhelmed by numbers, up into 1945. I can give a few references on that if you wish. This little myth is hit on so many times I tire of debunking it.

Factor in drag into all your calculations. Simple numbers of horsepower and weight are meaningless without the drag factor. How did the Mustang go so fast, being that heavy with so little, relatively, hp? Extreme low drag. It factors into every single aspect of its flying.

Factor in the combat flaps of the P-51 when talking about wing loading. 10 degrees available up to 400 mph indicated. Mustang pilots never hesitated to turn with 109's or 190's.

Top speed of the P-51D is between 437 (the lowest, but most common figure) and 442, depending on which publication. Top speeds of earlir marks, but versions still in the ETO and MTO, in numbers, until VE day are:
P-51B/C/III with -3 engine - 450 mph.
P-51B/C/III with -7 engine - 442 mph.

P-51's at higher boost ratings than 67" hg were also flying in numbers during the time of the K and D. Book numbers describing climb and low level speeds do not do justice to Mustangs operating at 72" and 81" hg. 405 mph on the deck was achieved with a squadron example of a Mustang III, operating at 25 pounds boost. Mustang III's escorted bombers, RAF pilots were aces in the type.

It is estimated that 1/3 of all P-51's flying at VE day were other than D models.

US pilots got more initial training by Jan 1944, but the pilots also never got real experienced. There were maybe 2 or 3 pilots in the AAf that got anything like the combat hours a LW experten could get.

As well, there was a "lull" in combat ops after the Oct 43 Schweinfurt raid. Both sides took a deep breath, trained, retooled, then hurled themselves at each other in Jan 1944, when the raids recommenced. Any attempt to handicap LW fliers as poorly trained newbies at this time is not accurate. Campbell is very clear on how the experienced pilots were attrited in Jan-May 1944, leaving newbies to face the Allies after that.

It is clear to me that the P-51B was a better plane than anything the LW had in this time frame. It is also clear that the 109K and 190D were a match for the P-51D, but to say they are better is a stretch.

All three did some things very well, some other things not as well. Pilot skill determined.

Nigel_Woodman
01-15-2006, 01:12 PM
More, more statistics: Please note that I refer specifically to the timeframe during which the P-51D saw action.

By spring 1944, there were almost nine US fighters in the air for every German fighter over the Reich. Hash the figures anyway you want, the Germans were outnumbered.

Out of an average German fighter pilot strength of 2283 for the period, no less than 2262 were lost in the period January through May 1944. **** near 100% loss!!! This fact alone indicates that a lot of rookies were flying by spring 1944. German day fighter aircraft combat losses in the West, Home Defence and the south increased each month - 143 in January 1944, 524 in February, 583 in March, 687 in April and 758 in May. The grand total is 2425.

As bad as the situation was for the Germans during that period, they still managed to inflicted still higher losses on Allied aircraft. The USAAF alone recorded 4,103 aircraft losses in Europe between January and May 1944, and 2223 of these were recorded as shot down by enemy aircraft. To these losses should be added those sustained by the RAF's Mediterranean forces, plus 421 of the British fighters which operated from the UK.

Accounts may be full of stories of bomber formations being overwhelmed by German fighters, and they could well be true, but the fact is who is going to write a war story about a mission where nothing happened or where own forces were overwhelmingly superior? Anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. Analysis of post war intelligence has shown that it was more than common for a half dozen pilots/gunners to claim the same kill. Does that mean these people actually saw/killed six of the enemy? To get a more accurate picture of what was actually going on it's best to look at the cold hard statistics.

Slickun
01-15-2006, 01:51 PM
Not talking about bombers, or bomber gunner claims. Talking about the escorts.

I don't believe you made it clear you were talking about the P-51D exclusively. But that's fine, we can talk about it.

By the time it appeared, the LW WAS whittled down, at least as far as pilot skill was concerned. However, the Reich continued to churn out fighters at an alarming rate (for the allies). Problem was gas and pilots.

BUT, to try to denigrate the Mustang's late marks for what earlier marks helped set the table for is only telling half the story. The D had an "easy time" because of what B's and C's did before, as well as the Jugs and Lghtnings.

But also understand, during the time frame you and I seem to agree was crucial, Jan-May 1944, P-51 groups scored at a rate roughly twice that of the P-47 groups, and a rate 4 times that of the P-38 groups. Same missions, same airspace, same goals, same enemy.

Slickun
01-15-2006, 02:00 PM
Cold hard stats show us that of the LW aircraft available on a given day, virtually ALL could attack a bomber stream and its escorts. Often twice, once going and coming.

On the other side, all the Allied planes that had turned back (many P-47, all the RAF types), or were yet to get to the bomber stream (P-51 and P-38 groups enroute to take over at a certain point), were not available to defend.

Only the group present. Something like 16 planes in front, and 16 on each side. Covering a miles long bomber stream. Only a small percentage of the total escort ever there to actually try to intercept the interceptors. These are the cold hard facts. Anecdotal evidence supports this.

Any Me-109 or FW getting through to the bombers became a hunter, hunting the bombers. They were defending. As we know, the fighters usually got the better of that engagement. For all the hundreds and hundreds of gunner claims, only a relative few fighters went down to their guns. LW fighters got much, much, much the better of that. The theory of self defending bombers was buried once and for all in Oct 1943.

All that said, the D came mostly after all this. The claims that the Mustang was too late, fought newbies, and always outnumbered the opposition, has a certain truth in talking about the D model.

LStarosta
01-15-2006, 02:03 PM
We don't want your anecdotal evidence. We want cold hard charts and proofs! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bremspropeller
01-15-2006, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Often twice, once going and coming.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may be true for '43 and early '44, but from mid '44 onwards this was not possible anymore:

The 8th AF almost exclusively flew P-51s and therefore those "take over" stunts weren't performed anymore.
However the Mustangs began to chase the Lw planes down to their bases (particulary after D-day).

Taking off into an opposing fighter-cover is a pretty bad idea IMHO.

p1ngu666
01-15-2006, 02:50 PM
i wouldnt say the sim is biased towards turn fighters. biased towards slat aircraft would be more acurate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

yak3's are pretty uber, but yak9's arent. lagg/la's with slats are uber, the laggs without slats are average really.

hurri isnt that great, nor zero, or any japanease aircraft (apart from ki84)

the spitfire, the preimer "turn fighter" of the western allies isnt doing well either

even the 109 has gone from new best to being average..

best planes currently are 190, corsair, p38 (in coops, not sure about df)

robban75
01-15-2006, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nigel_Woodman:
A little comparison of generally accepted real-world specifications:

P-51D Bf-109K FW-190D
top speed 437mph 452mph 426mph
power 1720 HP 2000 HP 2240 HP
max climb** 3478 fpm 4873 fpm 4400 fpm
wing loading* 40.5 lb/ft-sq 36.0 lb/ft-sq 54.2 lb/ft-sq
power loading*5.55 lb/HP 3.5 lb/HP 4.1 lb/HP
dry weight 7000 lb 5298 lb 7694
max weight 12096 lb 7438 lb 10670
armament 6x50cal MG 2x13mm 2x13mm
1x30mm 2x20mm
other gyro gunsight high-G seat well armored
features bubble canopy slats

* At typical combat weights.
** Initial at low altitude

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-9 had a max power output of 2100PS with MW50. Later variants such as the D-11 and D-13 had 2240PS.

The D-9 with MW50 had a topspeed of 435 MPH, and a D-9 using C3 could reach 443 MPH at 5700m.

The D-13 with a Jumo 213EB engine could reach 477 MPH at 9500m. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Chuck_Older
01-15-2006, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nigel_Woodman: Anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. Analysis of post war intelligence has shown that it was more than common for a half dozen pilots/gunners to claim the same kill. Does that mean these people actually saw/killed six of the enemy? To get a more accurate picture of what was actually going on it's best to look at the cold hard statistics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are saying that the USAAF routinely had combat experienced, highly trained pilots who also routinely outnumbered their opposition in the air after jan 1944, and you are saying that the fact that pilots and gunners got confused in combat as your own proof that anecdotal evidence isn't valid

OK, fine. Then what about the anecdotal evidence the Luftwaffe presents? They say they were outnumbered. Well, that's just what they say, right? How do we know for a fact? Sheer numbers? That tells one story. So taken at face value, that measn that when the Luftwaffe went up on any given day, they were outnumbered by bomber escorts? No, that doesn't prove that at all!

If one argument is anecdotal, then the other is too, unless the Luftwaffe records are always to be believed and the USAAF records are always to be suspect

Slickun
01-15-2006, 03:10 PM
In March of 44, in the first big raid on Berlin, our friend Heinz Knoke flew two missions. Give credit to the Mustangs and Lightnings for limiting this, as well as making the practice of twin engined types queing up for rocket attacks much more dangerous.

The P-51's ability to range far and wide, to attack LW planes taking off and landing, before the Invasion, MUST be included in its list of abilities. That's why all the gas. When judging it with contemporaries, looking at a fully loaded Mustang puts it at a weight disadvantage. Count it as an advantage when its lining up a 109 or 262 on final, 3 hours from home.

It is clear to me that late in the war, which plane was going to go faster, the FW-190D or P-51 variant, depended on altitude, type of gas onboard, and the condition of the undersurface of the wing.
RAF P-51's operating at 81" hg (25 pounds boost) produced well over 2000 hp. 8th AF planes operating at 72" boost operated at about 1850 hp. Both produced significant performance, acceleration and climb boosts up to about 20,000 feet, just as the more powerful FW engines did in their birds.

Comparing late mark FW's and 109's to the 1944 P-51D at 67" hg doesn't tell the whole story.

horseback
01-15-2006, 03:11 PM
The issue here is the quality of the Merlin Mustang, and whether the Flight Model we get from Maddox for the Mustang is accurate relative to the Flight Models for the 109G/K and the 190 Late A/D.

The fact is that when the LW was at the height of its skill and power, from late 1943 to say, April 1944, only the Mustang and Lightning groups could reach into Germany, and out there by themselves, the Mustang groups were getting lots of kills (this is relative; the Lightning groups were flying an even more trouble plagued a/c, and they were maintining a bit above a 1:1 ratio for kills vs losses to all causes). This was when the tide was turned, and if the Mustang were anything like it is depicted in-game, the tide would not have turned then; it would have taken another 4-5 months, when the bubbletop Thunderbolts arrived in sufficient numbers.

As Slickun has repeatedly pointed out, covering a bomber stream almost 200km long with a maximum of 48 aircraft (usually 10-25% less; the Mustang had some severe early teething problems) per 40 km or so is a test of not only fighting abilities, but of piloting,leadership planning and navigational skill.

The escort rendezvous were tightly scheduled, and an error in timing by either the bombing group or its escort meant that someone went alone into the gauntlet. Keeping in mind that even minor damage could eventually lead to loss of an Allied aircraft and crew, if it occured over Central Europe, there had to be a bit more trepidation on the part of any American airman heading into "Injun Territory". The stress of mustering literally hundreds of aircraft over southeastern England after flying (in four plane formations) through heavy overcast before breaking through to clear sky most of the time was way above all but the most vivid imaginations' ability to picture.

When you consider the relative numbers at the point of attack, the stress and difficulty of just getting there (it was cold for the Mustang pilots; it was frigging freezing for bomber and Lightning types, for a minimum of an hour before you could expect enemy contact), the escort pilot's job was exhausting before he ever got to the target.

An aircraft that could make it to the target area, protect the bombers effectively AND have a pilot sufficiently comfortable and alert to make the most of his plane's strengths could NOT be hard to fly. It's hard enough to shoot down an enemy fighter when you've just been in the air for 15-20 minutes and still fresh and relatively warm. It would take an exceptional level of skill and native talent to do so while cold, tired, and fighting your own aircraft.

No pilot description of the RL Mustang ever indicated that his mount made his job harder than it had to be. Ask any virtual FB Mustang driver, and he'll tell you that the opposite is true. That simply isn't a true-to-life depiction of the Mustang, particularly when compared to its competition.

As I've said before, if the Il-2 FB/AEP/PF Mustang is accurate relative to the FMs for the 109 & 190 series, then the USAAF's fighter pilots were easily the best the world has seen, and we all know from reading in this forum that they were really overpaid, overclaiming, overpublicized, undereducated gum chewing punks and fakes.

cheers

horseback

robban75
01-15-2006, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The issue here is the quality of the Merlin Mustang, and whether the Flight Model we get from Maddox for the Mustang is accurate relative to the Flight Models for the 109G/K and the 190 Late A/D.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From my testings, the P-51 can outdive and outzoom the D-9. It's almost as fast at SL, and as fast or faster at alt. It can out roll the D-9 at high speed. Turn rate I don't know, but they are probably pretty similar, with a slight advantage to the Mustang. The D-9 has a better acceleration and climbrate, as well as a faster roll rate at low speed.

The K-4 out accelerates, outclimbs and out turns the Mustang by a good margin. At low speed it outrolls and out turns the Mustang. The Mustang is slightly faster at SL, but slower at alt. The Mustang is also more manouverable at high speed.

kweassa
01-15-2006, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From my testings, the P-51 can outdive and outzoom the D-9. It's almost as fast at SL, and as fast or faster at alt. It can out roll the D-9 at high speed. Turn rate I don't know, but they are probably pretty similar, with a slight advantage to the Mustang. The D-9 has a better acceleration and climbrate, as well as a faster roll rate at low speed.

The K-4 out accelerates, outclimbs and out turns the Mustang by a good margin. At low speed it outrolls and out turns the Mustang. The Mustang is slightly faster at SL, but slower at alt. The Mustang is also more manouverable at high speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds spot on to what one would expect from a P-51 to me.

horseback
01-15-2006, 03:33 PM
Handling, handling, handling!!!

Numbers are meaningless if you can't consistantly put rounds on target.

cheers

horseback

robban75
01-15-2006, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Handling, handling, handling!!!

Numbers are meaningless if you can't consistantly put rounds on target.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See my post on page 6. Maybe it can be a cause to the handling of the Mustang? I don't know?

horseback
01-15-2006, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">See my post on page 6. Maybe it can be a cause to the handling of the Mustang? I don't know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So you're saying that all aircraft are flying as though they always have full tanks with this new global FM?

Certainly, that does penalize the American a/c disproportionately, but it doesn't explain the Spitfire's similar problems despite a much lower internal fuel capacity.

I'd bet more on an "engine package" form of modelling; Merlin engined aircraft seem to me to be disproportionately torque-y and bumpy, while the Daimlers of the world are rediculously smooth.

By all accounts, the Mustang was much closer to its real life abilities around patch 3.02, so it's clear to me that oleg and Co know what it should be capable of. There's more to it than simple experimentation with new flight modeling techniques if a couple of the major aircraft types are so badly hamstrung.

cheers

horseback

robban75
01-15-2006, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
So you're saying that all aircraft are flying as though they always have full tanks with this new global FM? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure, but it is possible. Climbrate is affected by how much fuel is carried, but stall speed isn't. I'm just guessing here.

Slickun
01-15-2006, 04:30 PM
Oh, BTW, nice post, Horseback. The one on the last page, I mean.

PS. your description of the average US fighter jock describes my Dad perfectly. He just didn't know it.

kweassa
01-15-2006, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not sure, but it is possible. Climbrate is affected by how much fuel is carried, but stall speed isn't. I'm just guessing here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because the weight of internal fuel carried by WW2 fighters is not proportionately large enough to adversely affect stall speeds. The P-51 aft tank destabilization issue was a CoG problem, not about weight.

Also, I'm sure somebody would have mentioned before, but all reference to 'stall' in combat anecodotes should be treated as accelerated stall, not powered-off stall. A powered-off stall is a state defined as the condition where a plane cannot maintain level altitude any longer. The stall in pilot anecdotes are largely in mention of accelerated stall, which only the AoA is in concern, and fuel weight, G-loading or angle of bank have no effect on AOA. The plane always stalls at the same AoA no matter what.

The in-game "Stall" message, technically, has nothing to do with a stall itself, and usually when the 'stall' message appears it refers to an accelerated state of 'spin', rather than a stall.

horseback
01-15-2006, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Oh, BTW, nice post, Horseback. The one on the last page, I mean.

PS. your description of the average US fighter jock describes my Dad perfectly. He just didn't know it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure he did. But like all us Americans, he no doubt overcompensated and acted out.

cheers

horseback

Slickun
01-15-2006, 06:38 PM
Hah.

Good one.

GR142-Pipper
01-15-2006, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
By all accounts, the Mustang was much closer to its real life abilities around patch 3.02, so it's clear to me that oleg and Co know what it should be capable of. There's more to it than simple experimentation with new flight modeling techniques if a couple of the major aircraft types are so badly hamstrung. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. It's further clear that this situation does NOT need to be because Maddox managed to correct the P-38. There's no legitimate reason why the P-47 and P-51 can't also be rectified.

GR142-Pipper

p1ngu666
01-15-2006, 06:57 PM
its been said that americans exajurated for dramatic effect, while the raf crews would play down (cant think of the right word).

a american dude might say, "as the flames was melting my zip, i decided to bail out"

a raf crewman might say "it was getting abit warm, so i decided to leave"


the biggest issue imo, is the handling. the performance is certainly reasonable

Brain32
01-15-2006, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the biggest issue imo, is the handling. the performance is certainly reasonable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agree 100%

neural_dream
01-15-2006, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
a american dude might say, "as the flames was melting my zip, i decided to bail out"

a raf crewman might say "it was getting abit warm, so i decided to leave" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Udidtoo
01-15-2006, 07:35 PM
"If one argument is anecdotal, then the other is too, unless the Luftwaffe records are always to be believed and the USAAF records are always to be suspect"

Hush now, your treding on a sacred cow with talk like that. Thats long been a matter of course round this place with a quite vocal minority.

"the biggest issue imo, is the handling. the performance is certainly reasonable'

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

VW-IceFire
01-15-2006, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Well, I tend to agree with most of your post Nigel, not all but most.

One point I'd like to make however, is that in terms of overall numbers present in each air force, the Mustang was more numerous, but in terms of local numbers, the Luftwaffe can and did often overwhelm escorts with their own fighters

They would exploit the fact that 60 Mustangs would escort 400 bombers, they would find a lightly escorted section, be directed by radar, and concentrate attacks. James Howard won the CMOH for single handedly fighting off 30+ German fighters attacking the bomber stream

A related issue is pilot exprience, and in my opinion, with the USAAF's policy of rotating pilots home after a tour, whether they signed on for another tour or not (if they signed on for another tour, they got 30 days R+R, starting when they got to the US), coupled with the fact that a german pilot bailing out over Europe could expect to fly again soon, a US pilot was either captured, or escaped, but if he escaped, official policy was he not return to combat flying, fo fear of betraying the Underground. Some pilots were exceptions, like Chuck Yeager

But on the whole, I would argue that local air superiority was attainable (and was acheived in many cases) by the Luftwaffe during the heyday of the P-51, and the pilots on each side were both in a constant state of flux, with new pilots and experiemced pilots filling the ranks of both. i can't agree with the notion that P-51s did well because they shot down inexperienced pilots, because most of the P-51 pilots were themselves inexperienced, since the old hands were constantly rotated out, and replacements came in. Even Urban Drew, who got two Me 262s on the same mission while flying a P-51D, was 'new' to combat at one point, his time as in instructor gave him zero combat experience. how many other P-51 jocks were like him, but without the hundreds and hundreds of hours worth of instructor benefit in 1944? the vast majority, I'll bet

But in general I agree with you

~edit
bad typos, I have splinters lodged in my finger, typing is hard </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats a really good point. I keep hearing about how the Germans were outnumbered from 1944 and onwards but the fact is that they exploited alot of local superiority to confront the allied fighters.

Closterman's book I hold up as one example. Eight Tempests would go into battle against twice as many FW190s or Bf109s. Early sorties over France in Tempests had 4 or 8 Tempests fighting against 12 or more 109s. And whenever I read about the Mustangs fighting the Luftwaffe the numbers seem pretty even or even against the Allies. Sure they had lots of planes but they weren't all in one spot.

My feeling is:

1) The Mustang was an excellent fighter by its own attributes and should not be argued into meaningless performance
2) Mustang's were fighting the Luftwaffe at tree top level and at 25,000 feet. Orders from the Eight were to escort the bombers and then shoot up whatever they could find on the way back. Lots of gun camera footage of Mustangs screaming across aerodromes shooting parked planes, aircraft taking off, and the like. Surely they got into some nasty low altitude fights and won on more than one occasion.
3) The RAF used alot of Mustangs (Mark I and Mark III models mostly) for a variety of roles. The Polish squadrons and several regular RAF squadrons flew Mark III's (high and low boosted) against German armor, troops, artillery, guns, noball sites, you name it...and they got into fights with 109s and 190s of JG1, JG2, JG26, and JG54 amongst others. Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost but you never get a sense from the reports that they were easy pickings because of their tree skimming altitudes (I'm reading the history of the 2nd TAF including day to day operational information).

The Mustang should be able to hold its own...it shouldn't be aruged into meanglesness because it was more numerous or had a greater range. Lets ignore those features and focus on the aircraft, how it handled in the sky, and how it compared against its enemies. Fuel in this argument should be considered for its weight and its effect on COG.

The problem with the Mustang in patch 4.02 does not appear to be its speed, or its turn rate, or its wing snap (still a problem but most of us have learned to live with it). No the problem is that the Mustang and some other notable planes have adverse yaw when rolling and other FM related issues that affect handling. How is this important? Because if you're flying a fighter that has its nose constantly moving about for little reason then you have a very hard time trying to hit something.

Not soley direted at you Chuck...you just reminded me of a bunch of things I've been meaning to say. And you made an excellent point sir!

horseback
01-15-2006, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
its been said that americans exajurated for dramatic effect, while the raf crews would play down (cant think of the right word).

a american dude might say, "as the flames was melting my zip, i decided to bail out"

a raf crewman might say "it was getting abit warm, so i decided to leave"


the biggest issue imo, is the handling. the performance is certainly reasonable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The word is "understatement"; to use the Naval idiom, take the American version, then take the British version, then fire for effect (in the middle).

And yes, the issue is handling. Mustangs and Spitfires were, and are, honest aircraft, while the 109 certainly had a rep for being touchy, particularly as the design got heavier and more powerful. The 190, however, is often referred to even in Allied appraisals as a delight to fly, yet it is harder to handle than the 109. How did they miss that?

Icefire, spot on.

cheers

horseback

WOLFMondo
01-16-2006, 12:52 AM
The 190 was a delight to fly because of the automated systems, good layout in the cockpit, fine control balance, little need for trim, easy to take off and land...all these things are correct in this sim. Its only difficult if your stuck in the turn and burn mentalityhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

GR142_Astro
01-16-2006, 01:24 AM
Good points from a number of folks. I just keep thinking that I have never read anything that says fighting a 109 1v1 was suicide unless you had some insane speed or alt advantage.

What was the patch before 4.0? Somewhere along there the P51 could at least hold its own.

GR142-Pipper
01-16-2006, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
Fighters that put an emphasis on speed and energy retention at the expense of maneuverability can only work in packs - to herd one of the opposition in a good kill position for one of the pack.
Otherwise you're stuck in a situation where you are making a big circle arround a smaller circle were the opposing fighter is - and he's constantly in a good firing position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, that's not necessarily true. Fighters having good energy retention do need to fight in the vertical (vice the horizontal) where their power advantages can be exploited. The 109 is a good example of this. In more recent days, the F-4 Phantom was another example of a good vertical fighter which was generally just so-so/weak in the horizontal. In real life, the F-4 and 109 have much in common that way.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-16-2006, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the biggest issue imo, is the handling. the performance is certainly reasonable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Handling, certainly. I would also include energy retention and acceleration.

GR142-Pipper

WOLFMondo
01-16-2006, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Good points from a number of folks. I just keep thinking that I have never read anything that says fighting a 109 1v1 was suicide unless you had some insane speed or alt advantage.

What was the patch before 4.0? Somewhere along there the P51 could at least hold its own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never really read of a P51 pilot, apart from one going one on one with a 109. Its like an FW190D9 going one on one with a Spitfire IX. The Dora is essentially a superior plane but you have to be a superior pilot to dogfight with one of the best dogfighters of WW2. One on one some planes lend themselves better than others. Two on two is totally difference and requires a different set of attributes for both the plane and pilot.

Kwiatos
01-16-2006, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Well, I tend to agree with most of your post Nigel, not all but most.

One point I'd like to make however, is that in terms of overall numbers present in each air force, the Mustang was more numerous, but in terms of local numbers, the Luftwaffe can and did often overwhelm escorts with their own fighters

They would exploit the fact that 60 Mustangs would escort 400 bombers, they would find a lightly escorted section, be directed by radar, and concentrate attacks. James Howard won the CMOH for single handedly fighting off 30+ German fighters attacking the bomber stream

A related issue is pilot exprience, and in my opinion, with the USAAF's policy of rotating pilots home after a tour, whether they signed on for another tour or not (if they signed on for another tour, they got 30 days R+R, starting when they got to the US), coupled with the fact that a german pilot bailing out over Europe could expect to fly again soon, a US pilot was either captured, or escaped, but if he escaped, official policy was he not return to combat flying, fo fear of betraying the Underground. Some pilots were exceptions, like Chuck Yeager

But on the whole, I would argue that local air superiority was attainable (and was acheived in many cases) by the Luftwaffe during the heyday of the P-51, and the pilots on each side were both in a constant state of flux, with new pilots and experiemced pilots filling the ranks of both. i can't agree with the notion that P-51s did well because they shot down inexperienced pilots, because most of the P-51 pilots were themselves inexperienced, since the old hands were constantly rotated out, and replacements came in. Even Urban Drew, who got two Me 262s on the same mission while flying a P-51D, was 'new' to combat at one point, his time as in instructor gave him zero combat experience. how many other P-51 jocks were like him, but without the hundreds and hundreds of hours worth of instructor benefit in 1944? the vast majority, I'll bet

But in general I agree with you

~edit
bad typos, I have splinters lodged in my finger, typing is hard </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats a really good point. I keep hearing about how the Germans were outnumbered from 1944 and onwards but the fact is that they exploited alot of local superiority to confront the allied fighters.

Closterman's book I hold up as one example. Eight Tempests would go into battle against twice as many FW190s or Bf109s. Early sorties over France in Tempests had 4 or 8 Tempests fighting against 12 or more 109s. And whenever I read about the Mustangs fighting the Luftwaffe the numbers seem pretty even or even against the Allies. Sure they had lots of planes but they weren't all in one spot.

My feeling is:

1) The Mustang was an excellent fighter by its own attributes and should not be argued into meaningless performance
2) Mustang's were fighting the Luftwaffe at tree top level and at 25,000 feet. Orders from the Eight were to escort the bombers and then shoot up whatever they could find on the way back. Lots of gun camera footage of Mustangs screaming across aerodromes shooting parked planes, aircraft taking off, and the like. Surely they got into some nasty low altitude fights and won on more than one occasion.
3) The RAF used alot of Mustangs (Mark I and Mark III models mostly) for a variety of roles. The Polish squadrons and several regular RAF squadrons flew Mark III's (high and low boosted) against German armor, troops, artillery, guns, noball sites, you name it...and they got into fights with 109s and 190s of JG1, JG2, JG26, and JG54 amongst others. Sometimes they won and sometimes they lost but you never get a sense from the reports that they were easy pickings because of their tree skimming altitudes (I'm reading the history of the 2nd TAF including day to day operational information).

The Mustang should be able to hold its own...it shouldn't be aruged into meanglesness because it was more numerous or had a greater range. Lets ignore those features and focus on the aircraft, how it handled in the sky, and how it compared against its enemies. Fuel in this argument should be considered for its weight and its effect on COG.

The problem with the Mustang in patch 4.02 does not appear to be its speed, or its turn rate, or its wing snap (still a problem but most of us have learned to live with it). No the problem is that the Mustang and some other notable planes have adverse yaw when rolling and other FM related issues that affect handling. How is this important? Because if you're flying a fighter that has its nose constantly moving about for little reason then you have a very hard time trying to hit something.

Not soley direted at you Chuck...you just reminded me of a bunch of things I've been meaning to say. And you made an excellent point sir! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well said. The main problem of P-51 is not its peformance but stupid wobbling. P-51 in 3.04 have the same max speed, turn and climb rate but didnt wobble and was effective as a fighter.

Friendly_flyer
01-16-2006, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
the problem is that the Mustang and some other notable planes have adverse yaw when rolling and other FM related issues that affect handling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is in other words a problem of the global FM. Spitfires suffers under the same regime (though few seem to want to whine for it). I guess we'll just have to hope that the next (final?) patch will ammend this problem.

danjama
01-16-2006, 04:52 AM
Alot of planes have too much yaw when you roll them. What can be done about it?

Nothing for now thats for sure!

One of the only planes that doesnt is the BF109. I dont know why.

neural_dream
01-16-2006, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
One of the only planes that doesnt is the BF109. I dont know why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? dammit . Mine is wobblier than the other aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

danjama
01-16-2006, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
One of the only planes that doesnt is the BF109. I dont know why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? dammit . Mine is wobblier than the other aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WOLFMondo
01-16-2006, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
One of the only planes that doesnt is the BF109. I dont know why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? dammit . Mine is wobblier than the other aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly the 109's very occasionally, last night I flew the K4. No wobble. I forget sometimes how nice some of the BF109's are to fly. I also forget just how little fuel and ammunition it carries.

Kwiatos
01-16-2006, 06:10 AM
Make short test with different planes:

Fly straight - then stick forward - and neutral

Im sure that P-51 will be springing its nose like the hell and no other plane.

danjama
01-16-2006, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Make short test with different planes:

Fly straight - then stick forward - and neutral

Im sure that P-51 will be springing its nose like the hell and no other plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok but only if you do the same with the Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GonFlying
01-16-2006, 08:04 AM
The P-51D has been a bit of a dog to fly in other combat sims too, I can recall the AvHistory and the cfs3 models being just as hard to master in a dogfight when set to realistic.
Truth is that although the Mustang was the best long-range, escort fighter of WW11, it WASN'T the best fighter. There is a big differance.
I'd lay a wager that 90 % of P-51D kills were one, or more, of the following siuations;

1. Against German/Japanese fighters trying to get at the bombers.

2. German/Japanese fighters in the landing pattern or having just taken off, around their own airfields, most of which the Mustangs could now reach with ease (including those in Japan).

3. Against rookie German/Japanese pilots of 1944-45 that could barely intercept bombers, let alone deal with fighters.

There is no reason why successive game programmers should get this plane wrong, jeez there are enough flying these days all round the globe. It was not an easy fighter to fly in combat, it had some horrendous vices that, for example the Spitfire didn't have.
I'm not talking airshows here, but in a dogfight situation. Sure it was fast (because of its license-built Rolls-Royce Merlin), but unless your opponent just did a runner, that didn't always help, what did help were the 3 points I listed above.

lrrp22
01-16-2006, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GonFlying:
The P-51D has been a bit of a dog to fly in other combat sims too, I can recall the AvHistory and the cfs3 models being just as hard to master in a dogfight when set to realistic.
Truth is that although the Mustang was the best long-range, escort fighter of WW11, it WASN'T the best fighter. There is a big differance.
I'd lay a wager that 90 % of P-51D kills were one, or more, of the following siuations;

1. Against German/Japanese fighters trying to get at the bombers.

2. German/Japanese fighters in the landing pattern or having just taken off, around their own airfields, most of which the Mustangs could now reach with ease (including those in Japan).

3. Against rookie German/Japanese pilots of 1944-45 that could barely intercept bombers, let alone deal with fighters.

There is no reason why successive game programmers should get this plane wrong, jeez there are enough flying these days all round the globe. It was not an easy fighter to fly in combat, it had some horrendous vices that, for example the Spitfire didn't have.
I'm not talking airshows here, but in a dogfight situation. Sure it was fast (because of its license-built Rolls-Royce Merlin), but unless your opponent just did a runner, that didn't always help, what did help were the 3 points I listed above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This view is mostly a myth that has become a kind of conventional wisdom amongst some of those who post here. There is simply no contemporary data to support this view.

The P-51 was considered to be a superb flying fighter- not viceless, but nothing like the "horrendous" ill-tempered gas truck that some wish to believe it was.

LRRP

WOLFMondo
01-16-2006, 10:28 AM
Theres no data to prove that Luftwaffle training was a mere fraction of what it was in 1945 compared to previous years? Theres plenty of supporting data and comments in history about how poor new pilots training in the luftwaffe was late in the war. Its a fact that while there were still experten, there were also allot of poorly trained pilots as well. Even WW2 some WW2 pilots acknoledge this.

Slickun
01-16-2006, 10:46 AM
Not this again.

Somebody get me a hammer to hit myself with.

2/3 to 3/4 of ALL aerial kills are the unobserved bounce. How is it a negative if a plane is good at this? It is more important to be good at that than "dogfighting". And, what the heck does it matter how a plane gets its kills? If it has attributes that ease its killing, makes it easy to knock the other guy down, this goes into its "plus" column as surely as turning radius does in the Spit's.

Credit the P-51 for being one of the main reasons LW pilot training fell behind the curve. Earlier a poster listed the kills per month in early 1944. As more P-51's flew, there were more and more LW pilot losses, from 100 some in January to 700 some in June. All P-51's did not fly and fight in the waning, last, desperate days of the LW. They helped bring about those days.

In January-May of 1944, when the question was settled, P-51 groups got twice as many kills/group as the P-47 groups, and four times the P-38 kills/group. Does that mean the Jug and Lightning were really dogs?

High speed. Acceleration. Dive top end. Dive acceleration. Zoom climb. Good at all altitudes from the deck to 30,000 feet plus. Range. High speed roll rate. High speed turning. Gunsight. G-suit. Good air to ground.

It did a lot of things well, there is documentation AND anecdotal reports galore to support this, as well as its combat record in every theater, in multiple wars.

And we are cutting it down because of:

a. Low speed turning and handling.
b. It got a lot of easy kills.

Cuhraazy.

p1ngu666
01-16-2006, 11:02 AM
they cut out blind flying, navigation and other things, i know they cut out those, dont know what else they cut out.

training wont nesserily help u in a df, most of us i bet cant really do instrument flying, or navigate that well

lrrp22
01-16-2006, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Theres no data to prove that Luftwaffle training was a mere fraction of what it was in 1945 compared to previous years? Theres plenty of supporting data and comments in history about how poor new pilots training in the luftwaffe was late in the war. Its a fact that while there were still experten, there were also allot of poorly trained pilots as well. Even WW2 some WW2 pilots acknoledge this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm talking about the Mustang's performance. Regardless of the state of the Luftwaffe in 1944-45, the Mustang was an excellent performer and fully the equal of any other contemporary prop fighter.

The many attempts by some here to portray it as a hapless dogfighter whose undeserved reputation was built upon swarms of Mustangs preying on Nachwuchs in the landing circuit borders on the ridiculous.


LRRP

VW-IceFire
01-16-2006, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Make short test with different planes:

Fly straight - then stick forward - and neutral

Im sure that P-51 will be springing its nose like the hell and no other plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The P-51 is the worst...but the Corsair is second worst, the P-40, Spitfire, the P-47 and F6F somewhere around there and the Yak-9 variants are close after that.

In comparison the Bf109, the A6M, and the Ki-61 seem to be the least affected. Now the A6M and the Ki-61 are ligher than their western counterparts...but the Bf109, particularly the K-4 isn't all that different than a Spitfire in weight...and the Yak's weren't exactly heavyweights either so why are they partially affected?

VW-IceFire
01-16-2006, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Good points from a number of folks. I just keep thinking that I have never read anything that says fighting a 109 1v1 was suicide unless you had some insane speed or alt advantage.

What was the patch before 4.0? Somewhere along there the P51 could at least hold its own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never really read of a P51 pilot, apart from one going one on one with a 109. Its like an FW190D9 going one on one with a Spitfire IX. The Dora is essentially a superior plane but you have to be a superior pilot to dogfight with one of the best dogfighters of WW2. One on one some planes lend themselves better than others. Two on two is totally difference and requires a different set of attributes for both the plane and pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That pilot who went 1 on 1 with a 109 managed to sustain a turn fight from 20,000 feet down to treetop and he won the fight. As the story goes, three of the four machine guns were jammed due to the G forces jamming the mechanisms (typical of the B and C model) and he shot down the 109 with the remaining machine gun. Interestingly, the pilot landed back at base having lost about 10-15lbs of weight due to the rigours of air combat and him having to hold the 109 into the turn.

Obviously a Mustang can fight a 109 1 vs 1 and win...given everything else is roughly equal and that seemed to be the case.

But you're right...most WWII air combats were not done in duel fashion. They were group affairs.

p1ngu666
01-16-2006, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Theres no data to prove that Luftwaffle training was a mere fraction of what it was in 1945 compared to previous years? Theres plenty of supporting data and comments in history about how poor new pilots training in the luftwaffe was late in the war. Its a fact that while there were still experten, there were also allot of poorly trained pilots as well. Even WW2 some WW2 pilots acknoledge this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm talking about the Mustang's performance. Regardless of the state of the Luftwaffe in 1944-45, the Mustang was an excellent performer and fully the equal of any other contemporary prop fighter.

The many attempts by some here to portray it as a hapless dogfighter whose undeserved reputation was built upon swarms of Mustangs preying on Nachwuchs in the landing circuit borders on the ridiculous.


LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

theres a few benifits to the p51 over other aircraft

1)range, take that away and it becomes average to good

2)highspeed stuff

ice, i think the japanease planes have less wobble because there controls stiffen up early (too early)

ive no idea what makes the 109 less wobbly (it does wobble, but not much)

Slickun
01-16-2006, 11:45 AM
I have read dozens and dozens of accounts, by Pony pilots, of swirling, hell-for-leather dogfights that started high and ended low, started low, whatever type you want, that ended with a P-51 victory. "Aces Over Europe" is a good place to start.

I have read the same with 109 pilots that defeated a P-51. There is one account in Caldwell's "JG-26, Top Guns of the LW" where an experienced 109 pilot fought a P-51 for a long time, finally began to get the advantage, and suddenly the Mustang's engine spouted white smoke. The pilot immediately bailed out. Sounds like it ran too long at WEP.

But the one thing that stands out, so often, is one group, allied or axis, sees the other first, bounces them, and nearly always gets the better of the affair.

Brain32
01-16-2006, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ive no idea what makes the 109 less wobbly (it does wobble, but not much) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same reason you stated for Japanese planes, go over 450Kph, and you start to feel it, after that it only gets worse(trim or die)...

p1ngu666
01-16-2006, 11:57 AM
its stable at low speeds

u can pull turns with vapour trails pouring off the wingtips, something u cant do in most planes for very long..

WOLFMondo
01-16-2006, 12:41 PM
The P51 wobbles a bit, its CoG is off. You need to prove this wasn't the case, you can't do that with some annecdotal accounts, no matter how many of them match up. THere will always be arguments to say the Luftwaffe was undermanned and poorly trained in 44/45 which cannot be ignored and there will also be reasons why the P51 was that good. Both of which can be proven.

Oleg won't listen unless you provide test data and evidence to the planes peformance based on scientific data. Not direct comparisons with other aicraft based on pilot accounts and certainly not patriotic chest thumping.

GR142-Pipper
01-16-2006, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Oleg won't listen unless you provide test data and evidence to the planes peformance based on scientific data..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And still this isn't enough to incorporate fixes (to wit: 50 cal synch/asynch, R-2800 damage susceptibility, P-51 wings departing, poor energy/acceleration characteristics, etc.). It's pretty clear that the continued existence of these and other major flaws in major U.S. types for so long can only be attributed to "game play" considerations.

GR142-Pipper

neural_dream
01-16-2006, 01:41 PM
What evidence isn't enough? No evidence was brought in this thread. Maybe you refer to another thread that I haven't read. Not to mention that this isn't ORR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

CUJO_1970
01-16-2006, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:

There is one account in Caldwell's "JG-26, Top Guns of the LW" where an experienced 109 pilot fought a P-51 for a long time, finally began to get the advantage, and suddenly the Mustang's engine spouted white smoke. The pilot immediately bailed out. Sounds like it ran too long at WEP.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, it was a FW190A-6 from JG/26, flown by Waldi Radener.

He was bounced by two Mustangs after shooting down a B-24 and was out of ammunition.

The Mustang that went down was from the 357th FG and would have to be a P-51B considering the date was February 24th.

WOLFMondo
01-16-2006, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Oleg won't listen unless you provide test data and evidence to the planes peformance based on scientific data..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And still this isn't enough to incorporate fixes (to wit: 50 cal synch/asynch, R-2800 damage susceptibility, P-51 wings departing, poor energy/acceleration characteristics, etc.). It's pretty clear that the continued existence of these and other major flaws in major U.S. types for so long can only be attributed to "game play" considerations.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So far in this thread theres very little scientific data and an awful lot of heresay, annecdotal evidence, stories and some comparisons. No one is going to change anything unless you prove it.

You wanna get Tagert in here with some of his test data and fancy graphs etc if you want to actually get something changed with the P51's.

p1ngu666
01-16-2006, 03:22 PM
id disagree with u there mondo, this isnt about raw performance (mostly), handling is subjective, im not sure u can graph that.

thats where pilots annicdotes should come in, but not for performance (mostly)

GR142-Pipper
01-16-2006, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
So far in this thread theres very little scientific data and an awful lot of heresay, annecdotal evidence, stories and some comparisons. No one is going to change anything unless you prove it.

You wanna get Tagert in here with some of his test data and fancy graphs etc if you want to actually get something changed with the P51's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As good as Tagert's and others' data is, it doesn't seem to matter. These different issues (some specific to the P-51 per this thread as well as others) have been thoroughly discussed and it's clear that much of what's represented in this game just doesn't align with what occurred in the real world. This is neither new to many here nor to Oleg and yet, with the exception of the P-38, little has been done. Quite to the contrary, performance and handling in many cases has actually gone down with each patch release (to wit: P-51, P-47, Yak-3/3P, F4U, F6F, LA-5FN, etc.). On the other hand performance/handling has consistently gone up with the 109 to the point where the 109G-2 outturns a 109F-4. The list goes on and on to the point where, unfortunately, the credibility of the developer as an honest broker in the accurate representation of these aircraft comes into question (IMHO). As much as I enjoy this game and though that may not be your view of the situation, it certainly is mine. I hope this changes going forward.

GR142-Pipper

Kocur_
01-16-2006, 04:11 PM
Yes, those poor inflammable Yaks and almost-unstallable Las... Definately as harmed as Mustang! Be Sure.

neural_dream
01-16-2006, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
with the exception of the P-38, little has been done. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
IIRC there were graphs and similar hard evidence for the P-38.

My advice is you go to ORR and start one new thread for each aspect of the P-51 you claim is undermodelled. For each thread you'll present your evidence and the same will do other complaining P-51 fans, who seem to be a lot. Asking Tagert's help might also be a good idea.

I'm sure you understand that the way you do it now you only get misunderstandings and achieve nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. We know you used to be a fighter pilot and you are more experienced than most in Real Life aircraft, which means that you can find the evidence you need to prove what you want to prove. Hard work, I know, but Oleg's is even harder. This discussion is already 10 pages long and has zero useful content, I'm afraid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif .

Nigel_Woodman
01-16-2006, 04:12 PM
My point about the P-51 is that its reputation has been magnified by the lens of history. It was a good fighter but it was not the uber-fighter some have come to see it.

This sim is obviously driven by numbers and specifications, not romantic pre-conceptions, and I suspect that those who are disappointed with the P-51's performance in the sim are (at least in part) influenced by those romantic preconceptions. The numbers tell us that the P-51 wasn't exceptional among contemporary fighters in terms of turning, climbing, firepower, or acceleration and top end speed. It was exceptional in terms of range, dive and zoom capability, and the D model had the advantage of a next-generation gunsight, and in some cases a G-suit. Further, the pilots that flew them were better trained, and for the most part more experienced than those they flew against. P-51 pilots usually had a situational and numerical advantage. As a result of all this, the P-51 was a very sucessful killing machine in 1944/45, and that is why the P-51 has such a sterling reputation. I say none of this to detract from the accomplishments of the Allied pilots who flew the P-51. After all, their training, courage and determination were by far the biggest part of the formula for the P-51's success.

As far as the instability of the P-51 model in the sim, I suspect that we just have to accept the result that the numbers hand us unless or until someone can come up with solid documentation to support a change. In any case, I enjoy flying the P-51 and see its various strengths, weaknesses and quirks as a total package that is both challenging and fun.

lrrp22
01-16-2006, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nigel_Woodman:
My point about the P-51 is that its reputation has been magnified by the lens of history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In many ways that's quite true. However, on these and other boards, its reputation has been diminished by the 'lens of revisionism' in just as many ways. Just like the fact that its superlative kill ratios do not signify a concurrent performance dominance, unqualified raw powerloading and climb numbers don't tell the whole story of relative performance either.

The issue of handling in this sim is certainly not just a matter of the numbers, there seems to be a certain amount of alchemy and subjective interpretation that goes into determining which aircraft are a delight to handle and which are handful. If not, then why do handling characteristics and relative capabilities change so much from patch to patch?

LRRP

lrrp22
01-16-2006, 05:20 PM
Here are some specifics regarding handling characteristics for P-51B-15-NA 43-24777:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
C. Stability
The airplane is statically stable and dynamically unstable longitudinally throughout the entire speed range. The degree of dynamic instability becomes slightly less with the fuselage fuel tank empty. Lateral stability is neutral, and the airplane is both statically and dynamically stable directionally. The airplane has a slight tendency to hunt longitudinally, and this condition becomes more exaggerated in rough air.

D. Trim and Balance
Trim tabs are provided for all control surfaces and the airplane is readily trimmed for all normal conditions. The changes in longitudinal trim resulting from the operation of landing gear, wing flaps, and oil and coolant shutters are slight and can be easily corrected by use of the elevator trim control.

E. Controllability
The airplane has excellent control characteristics. The controls are well coordinated and are highly effective at all speeds with moderate control force.

F. Maneuverability
The airplane is very maneuverable and response to the controls in aerobatics is excellent. It has a fairly short radius of turn, and there is no tendency to tighten up in steep turns. However, if the turn is pulled in too violently, the airplane will stall abruptly with little warning. Abrupt use of the controls at slow speeds will cause the airplane to stall preceded by sharp elevator buffeting, but there is no tendency to spin. It has an exceptionally fast rate of roll with excellent lateral control at all speeds.

G. Stalling Characteristics
The stall is gentle with the airplane rolling slowly to the right; there is no tendency to spin. In the power off stall, some warning is given about 3 to 4 MPH above the stalling speed by slight elevator buffeting. The controls remain effective throughout the stall, and recovery is immediate upon release of back pressure on the stick and application of rudder and aileron opposite the dropping wing. Considerable right rudder and aileron is required for power on stalls. See paragraph V E for stalling speeds at various configurations.IV Flight Characteristics

H. Spinning Characteristics
See Memo Report No. Eng-47-1737-A, dated 30 April 1944, for tests made on P-51B, AAF No. 42-12136.

I. Diving Characteristics
At indicated airspeeds slightly over 500 MPH the controls are still highly effective with only moderate force. The stick force per "g" acceleration is normal for recovery at this speed. In trimmed dives there is no tendency for the airplane to recover automatically once the recovery has begun. At indicated airspeeds over 450 MPH a rumble is heard emanating from the coolant scoop.

J. Single Engine Operation
Not applicable

K. High Altitude Trials
Handling characteristics and stability of the airplane are satisfactory up to 40,000 ft., and the controls are still very effective. The aileron trim tab freezes at altitudes over 30,000 ft., however, this is not too objectionable.

L. Approaches and Landing
Approach and landing characteristics are normal for an airplane with conventional gear. The airplane has a steep glide angle and vision during the approach is good. A three point landing is easily made and there is no tendency to ground loop.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not this matches the current P-51 FM.

neural_dream
01-16-2006, 05:25 PM
Nice find but you need to mention your source LRRP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
01-16-2006, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
Nice find but you need to mention your source LRRP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wright Field Test Engineering Branch Report No. Eng-47-1749-A, 20 May 1944.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p51b-24777.html


LRRP

geetarman
01-16-2006, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
Nice find but you need to mention your source LRRP http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wright Field Test Engineering Branch Report No. Eng-47-1749-A, 20 May 1944.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p51b-24777.html


LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow! missed that report. Did 75" ever get approved/used in the ETO?

lrrp22
01-16-2006, 06:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
Wow! missed that report. Did 75" ever get approved/used in the ETO? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't appear that it did.

LRRP

Slickun
01-16-2006, 06:22 PM
There is a ton of relevant data at that site.


One question I have. We are almost certain (99.99999999%) that P-38 and P-47 jocks pulled more than legal map. I wonder if after the modification to allow 72" the same was possible with the P-51? I'm wondering if there were 8th AF Mustang jocks that "illegally" pulled all they could, or if there was some sort of limit, like a governor, and if there was, if they ever had their crew chief's fiddle with it.

And if so, I ain't asking it to be modelled. It would be cool to have a 25 lb boost P-51D, though.

GR142-Pipper
01-16-2006, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
My advice is you go to ORR and start one new thread for each aspect of the P-51 you claim is undermodelled. For each thread you'll present your evidence and the same will do other complaining P-51 fans, who seem to be a lot. Asking Tagert's help might also be a good idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This has been done by many with more than ample supporting anectodal information offered as well. Oleg can either change it or not...and he has (up to now) decided not to and it's certainly not due to lack of available information.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sure you understand that the way you do it now you only get misunderstandings and achieve nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, there's no misunderstanding whatsoever. The discussion here is straightforward, supported, and easily understood. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We know you used to be a fighter pilot and you are more experienced than most in Real Life aircraft, which means that you can find the evidence you need to prove what you want to prove. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Like I said, it's already been done and little has changed. If what's already been presented as well as what's available isn't sufficient then it becomes difficult not to believe there are other than technical issues at work influencing his decision to remain with the current aircraft modelings. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hard work, I know, but Oleg's is even harder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ruff Ruck Oleg but that's the job he signed up for. Like anything else worth doing, it very well may be hard work...if it's done right. These weren't right to begin with (which is certainly and entirely forgivable) but have remained highly flawed for a long time in spite of the ample information to the contrary (much less forgivable).

GR142-Pipper

horseback
01-16-2006, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nigel_Woodman:
My point about the P-51 is that its reputation has been magnified by the lens of history. It was a good fighter but it was not the uber-fighter some have come to see it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In light of the fact that it was not initially deployed in overwhelming numbers, I have to disagree. As repeatedly pointed out in this thread, in the critical period beginning in January 1944 and ending in April 1944, during which the German Air Force took devastating losses over its own territory, the only fighter consistantly able to reach that territory in near group strength was the Mustang. Mustang groups grew from 1 in December to 3 by mid- March (only one of which was composed of veteran pilots converting from the P-47), to 7 by the end of April, each able to field about 40 aircraft per mission.

Even assuming that the 280 or so Mustangs were all in the air over Germany at the same time and approximate place, they were easily outnumbered by the single and twin engined fighters the Luftwaffe had defending that territory, and at the beginning of that period, well into March 1944, there was a strong corps of well trained, experienced combat veterans to rely upon.

Who do you think killed them all?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This sim is obviously driven by numbers and specifications, not romantic pre-conceptions, and I suspect that those who are disappointed with the P-51's performance in the sim are (at least in part) influenced by those romantic preconceptions. The numbers tell us that the P-51 wasn't exceptional among contemporary fighters in terms of turning, climbing, firepower, or acceleration and top end speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The numbers you hear quoted most often have been carefully plucked from the figures for fully loaded aircraft. The Mustang rarely entered combat with a full fuselage tank; that was the first tank selected for takeoff & climbout until that first 35 or so gallons had been burned off, at which point the switch was made to droptanks. Medium range missions were made without filling the fuselage tank at all, and the Mustang with only the wingtanks filled was a very competitive performer.

You can't chase a 109 or 190 down to the deck and still kill it if you aren't still at the very least competitive at that altitude.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was exceptional in terms of range, dive and zoom capability, and the D model had the advantage of a next-generation gunsight, and in some cases a G-suit. Further, the pilots that flew them were better trained, and for the most part more experienced than those they flew against. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The fancy K-14 gunsight arrived some time after the first D models, in fact about the same time the G-suits appeared in the Fall of 1944, by which time the issue in the air had long been decided.

As for superior training and experience, I refer you to the section above. All those great veterans who had enjoyed so much success in 1942 and 1943 hadn't just disappeared. They were shot down by less experienced (albeit well trained) and less numerous (at the point of attack) young men flying, quite often, Mustangs in the winter and spring of 1944.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P-51 pilots usually had a situational and numerical advantage. As a result of all this, the P-51 was a very sucessful killing machine in 1944/45, and that is why the P-51 has such a sterling reputation. I say none of this to detract from the accomplishments of the Allied pilots who flew the P-51. After all, their training, courage and determination were by far the biggest part of the formula for the P-51's success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, I must dispute the numerical advantage arguement. The advent of the Mustang was simultaneous with the defeat of the Luftwaffe over Central Europe. Compared to its American counterparts, the P-47 and P-38, it was vastly easier to master and exploit in combat. By the time the huge numerical advantages and training deficits of the German pilots, the issue had long been decided.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as the instability of the P-51 model in the sim, I suspect that we just have to accept the result that the numbers hand us unless or until someone can come up with solid documentation to support a change. In any case, I enjoy flying the P-51 and see its various strengths, weaknesses and quirks as a total package that is both challenging and fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The instability of the Mustang is counterintuitive, just on the face of the record. It was successful because it was easy to fly (by fighter standards of its era), unlike the late model Bf 109. The one hundred plus Mustangs still flying provide a wealth of data about how it actually flew and handled, but that data has been studiously ignored of late.

Instability and twitchiness of this degree makes a classic diving bounce exceptionally difficult, and coupled with the relative ineffectiveness of the wing mount HMGs (which unrealistically contribute to the twitchiness when fired), make a successful bounce or any aggressive action nearly impossible, even against an opponent caught unaware.

For a lifelong student of WWII air combat who has devoured every book and article I could get my hands on for over 40 years, the whole point of virtual air combat is the ability to duplicate the tactics and successes of the men whose memoirs and biographies I've read, and who I have had the great good fortune to meet and talk to. I can't do that in this game. The trim adjustments are sloppy and uneven, the needle and ball are flat out dishonest two thirds of the time, and the slightest adjustment of the stick makes the nose bounce like a basketball in a Harlem Globetrotters' exhibition.

The Mustang, and in truth most Western fighters in Il-2 Forgotten Battles have become a huge disappointment to me and anyone else who has any knowlege of WWII air combat and a shred of intellectual honesty.

The fact is that most fighters in late WWII operated within a very close performance envelope, with advantages and disadvantages that largely cancelled out each other, with one exception: ease of handling. Training levels aside, any idiot was more likely to fly a Spitfire, a Mustang, or a Hellcat to its limits in combat than his counterpart in a Messerschmitt, Focke-Wulf or Ki-84 because these aircraft had fewer vices or surprises for the pilot who trusted them.

It speaks volumes that the most 'honest' aircraft in the sim is the Bf 109, an aircraft that was successful primarily because when it started operations, it was greatly superior to the overwhelming majority of its oppostion and its pilots were better prepared and led, and which in real life became ever more difficult and treacherous to fly as weight and power were added after the 109F series.

cheers

horseback

WOLFMondo
01-17-2006, 01:05 AM
The FW190 was said to be one of the nicest planes to fly though Horseback. Fully automated, well balanced, excellent control harmony. I'd say the Spitfire has more vices than an FW190. THe BF109 definatly has its vices, but the FW190, from pilot accounts and test accounts from both sides of teh conflict make it seem one of the easiest planes to fly.

GR142-Pipper
01-17-2006, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Instability and twitchiness of this degree makes a classic diving bounce exceptionally difficult, and coupled with the relative ineffectiveness of the wing mount HMGs (which unrealistically contribute to the twitchiness when fired), make a successful bounce or any aggressive action nearly impossible, even against an opponent caught unaware.

For a lifelong student of WWII air combat who has devoured every book and article I could get my hands on for over 40 years, the whole point of virtual air combat is the ability to duplicate the tactics and successes of the men whose memoirs and biographies I've read, and who I have had the great good fortune to meet and talk to. I can't do that in this game. The trim adjustments are sloppy and uneven, the needle and ball are flat out dishonest two thirds of the time, and the slightest adjustment of the stick makes the nose bounce like a basketball in a Harlem Globetrotters' exhibition.

The Mustang, and in truth most Western fighters in Il-2 Forgotten Battles have become a huge disappointment to me and anyone else who has any knowlege of WWII air combat and a shred of intellectual honesty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Absolutely true and I concur fully. Well said. It's also a better than even bet that this situation will not change much.

GR142-Pipper

robban75
01-17-2006, 04:02 AM
I'd be surprised if the wobbles aren't changed with the next patch.

AustinPowers_
01-17-2006, 04:13 AM
I don't have any problems with the Mustang http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Controls are sensitive.. but a world class fighter no doubt.

WOLFMondo
01-17-2006, 04:24 AM
I don't have a problem shooting them down. I do have a problem with Megile and Fish trying to steal my P51 kills, especially when its Leadspitter flying the P51! :P

Back on topic. About the CoG, wobble and trim i.e. general flight handling. Surely this data must exist? It can all be worked out mathmatically. The designers at North American must have worked this all out on paper during the design and revisions. You cannot just submit a design to an airforce with data based on test pilots 'feel' for a plane.

Is this not all available though the patent holders, the USAF or national records?

AustinPowers_
01-17-2006, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't have a problem shooting them down. I do have a problem with Megile and Fish trying to steal my P51 kills, especially when its Leadspitter flying the P51! :P
? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I heard those guys got hax

WOLFMondo
01-17-2006, 04:56 AM
haha!

Be careful, someone one day might actually belive you. Oh wait, someone did! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Nigel_Woodman
01-17-2006, 08:09 AM
A little fiddling with the full mission builder will reveal that the maximum level flight speeds that can be "ordered" for aircraft in the sim are as follows (all are approximately 1944 models)i:

Me-262.......845 kph
Me-109K.....720
P-51D.........703
Tempest V...700
FW-190 D9...685
LA-7............680
Me-109G......675
FW-190 A9...660
Spitfire IXe...660
P-47D..........650
P-38............620
LA-5............600

These numbers are revealing in a relative sense and indicate, that at least in the speed department the P-51D is not slighted in the sim.

From ther Wright-Pat testing done in 1944 and quoted above, we get level flight max speeds for a production P-51 as:

714.6 kph @ 75" MAP clean
685.5 kph @ 67" MAP with racks

It is further noted that 75" MAP gives an increased max speed of between 14 and 16 mph, or about 24 kph, thus top speed clean at 67" MAP would be about 691 kph.

It appears, that if anything the top speed of the P-51 is a little generous in the sim. Granted that top speed is only one dimension, but, in light of these numbers, it appears that it's one less item of P-51 performance to whine about.

I like the P-51, and I fly it all the time. I accept its quirks and appreciate its strengths. It's a sharp knife that does a deadly job, but it can cut you if you're not careful.

GR142_Astro
01-17-2006, 08:35 AM
Yeah, terrific.

Nobody is saying a word about top speed. Acceleration is probably too low, but top speed has not been question here.

You can fly around fast all day long, but if you're not allowed to turn, what's the fargin point of calling it a fighter plane. Clearly, this is not the Mustang North American fielded in WW2.

Slickun
01-17-2006, 08:42 AM
Lots of flight tests available for the P-51. They are hard to filter through, as they involve different marks, new and old planes, different map levels, and tests with and without racks.

Some tests are fully loaded, some are done less than fully loaded. It's hard to wade through it all. There are many tests to look at in the web page posted above.

437 at 67" hg 25,000 feet, no wingracks, is the classic top end one finds for the P-51D. There are other references to 440, even 442, same condition and map ratings. It was generally slightly slower than the Mustangs with the -3, but not at all altitudes.

The Mustangs with the -3 engine, which had its supercharger tuned for high altitude flight, went 450. There are so many references to this I never use the more commonly seen 440. The USN, the RAF, AHT, all agree that P-51B/C/III at full combat loads, clean wings, 67" hg, hit 450 at 28,000 feet. The speed was achieved with new and war weary models. The above models with the -7 went 442, were generally faster down low due to different supercharger kick-in levels. One can reference this in the RAF pilot's manuals available at the web site.

Add wing racks, it slows down 10-12 mph. Increased map levels had, basically, no effect on absolute top end, they affected its speed, climb, and acceleration at lower levels. By about 20,000 feet, the hp available from 150 octane gave little advantage.

january 1943 the LW was facing a plane that could go 440 mph with wing racks.

lrrp22
01-17-2006, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nigel_Woodman:
It appears, that if anything the top speed of the P-51 is a little generous in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p51d-15342.html

LRRP

Slickun
01-17-2006, 09:16 AM
Bad data posted by yours truly. See kocur's post below for the real deal.

Apologies, Rick "Slick" Land

Kocur_
01-17-2006, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
440 mph works out to roughly 730 kph. give or take.

430 (top end with wing racks) works out to roughly 717 kph.

703 is not fast enough, even with wing racks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do I understand correctly, that "kph" is kilometer per hour?

Emmm... Last time I checked a mile was 1,609 km.

440mph x 1,609 = 708kmh
430mph x 1,609 = 691kmh

Or to use data from the report:
442mph x 1,609 = 711kmh
429mph x 1,609 = 690kmh
420mph x 1,609 = 675kmh

horseback
01-17-2006, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The FW190 was said to be one of the nicest planes to fly though Horseback. Fully automated, well balanced, excellent control harmony. I'd say the Spitfire has more vices than an FW190. THe BF109 definatly has its vices, but the FW190, from pilot accounts and test accounts from both sides of teh conflict make it seem one of the easiest planes to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I've mentioned that repeatedly in previous posts, WOLFMondo.

How about if I said<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It speaks volumes that the most 'honest' aircraft in the sim is the Bf 109, an aircraft that was successful primarily because when it started operations, it was greatly superior to the overwhelming majority of its oppostion and its pilots were better prepared and led, and which in real life became ever more difficult and treacherous to fly as weight and power were added after the 109F series </div></BLOCKQUOTE>and then added "instead of the FW 190?"

cheers

horseback

Slickun
01-17-2006, 10:10 AM
kocur, thanks. I stand corrected. I was using ".6" for my calculations.
Sorry for the misinformation, gents.

I'm gonna edit the post to nothing.

-hangs head-

danjama
01-17-2006, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I don't have a problem shooting them down. I do have a problem with Megile and Fish trying to steal my P51 kills, especially when its Leadspitter flying the P51! :P
? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I heard those guys got hax </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fish do have Hax he told me on comms

geetarman
01-17-2006, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
There is a ton of relevant data at that site.


One question I have. We are almost certain (99.99999999%) that P-38 and P-47 jocks pulled more than legal map. I wonder if after the modification to allow 72" the same was possible with the P-51? I'm wondering if there were 8th AF Mustang jocks that "illegally" pulled all they could, or if there was some sort of limit, like a governor, and if there was, if they ever had their crew chief's fiddle with it.

And if so, I ain't asking it to be modelled. It would be cool to have a 25 lb boost P-51D, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think 72" was pretty much SOP post-summer 1944. The stats at 75" are really impressive

geetarman
01-17-2006, 05:58 PM
You can't chase a 109 or 190 down to the deck and still kill it if you aren't still at the very least competitive at that altitude.

yes!



[/QUOTE]The instability of the Mustang is counterintuitive, just on the face of the record. It was successful because it was easy to fly (by fighter standards of its era), unlike the late model Bf 109. The one hundred plus Mustangs still flying provide a wealth of data about how it actually flew and handled, but that data has been studiously ignored of late.

Instability and twitchiness of this degree makes a classic diving bounce exceptionally difficult, and coupled with the relative ineffectiveness of the wing mount HMGs (which unrealistically contribute to the twitchiness when fired), make a successful bounce or any aggressive action nearly impossible, even against an opponent caught unaware.

True, but some of the best fighters are/were kind of unstable.

cheers

horseback[/QUOTE]

BoCfuss
01-17-2006, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Back on topic. About the CoG, wobble and trim i.e. general flight handling. Surely this data must exist? It can all be worked out mathmatically. The designers at North American must have worked this all out on paper during the design and revisions. You cannot just submit a design to an airforce with data based on test pilots 'feel' for a plane.

Is this not all available though the patent holders, the USAF or national records? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to know where Oleg(or whomever) was able to get his "data" on how the mustang handled. How can there be data for handling? "On a scale of 1 to 10 how did that mustang handle?" "About a 6." Not making fun, just wondering. Having played this sim since IL2, I have always thought that the sim was a little too realistic, or uber realistic. I believe Oleg has exagerated a few things to make it seem more "real." This would include the effectiveness of guns/cannons, FMs, how much lead you have to spray someone with, how dogfight prone it is, etc. Just a few thoughts.

WOLFMondo
01-18-2006, 12:43 AM
Data about handling can be worked out, just like any other attribute because its adheres to the laws of physics and things like power loading, wing loading, CoG can all be worked out. Using wind tunnels as well will also be used to find out characteristics. Not sure if they did but you could also measure stick forces needed to perform manouvers at different speeds etc.

Nasa didn't design the Space shuttle then assume cause it has wings, a few rockets in the back and some manouvering jets that it could make re entry and glide to ear. It was all worked out on paper first using mathmatics.

horseback
01-18-2006, 01:07 AM
Part of the problem may well be the COG issue. The original design of the Mustang did not include a fuselage tank, and it was not added until after the initial production versions of the B/C entered combat.

For all intents and purposes, the Mustang was designed with a center of gravity that existed only with an empty fuselage tank; as the fuselage tank emptied, the COG would have crept forward, and handling progressively improved.

If Oleg's FMs assume a static FM, and Oleg's Mustang FM has the COG placed where it would be with a full fuselage tank, all we get with less internal fuel is a lighter plane with cruddy handling due to a COG too far aft.

That still doesn't explain the sloppy and inconsistant trim, deceptive turn and bank indicators, or the exaggerated yaw when the guns are fired.

Handling is a combination of factors including cockpit layout, control linkage, control surfaces, and overall finish. These are hard to quantify or define, but as a US Supreme Court Justice once said of pornography, "I know it when I see it."

I saw it in the Mustang two or three patches ago, and I'm waiting to see it again.

cheers

horseback

Nigel_Woodman
01-18-2006, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
I'd like to know where Oleg(or whomever) was able to get his "data" on how the mustang handled. How can there be data for handling? "On a scale of 1 to 10 how did that mustang handle?" "About a 6." Not making fun, just wondering. Having played this sim since IL2, I have always thought that the sim was a little too realistic, or uber realistic. I believe Oleg has exagerated a few things to make it seem more "real." This would include the effectiveness of guns/cannons, FMs, how much lead you have to spray someone with, how dogfight prone it is, etc. Just a few thoughts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a previous life, I did a little work in designing flight simulators. It's just a guess, but I would assume that IL-2 uses one or two very sophisticated mathmatical models and that data for each specific aircraft is just plugged into one of the mathematical models. Once all the numbers are assigned, the mathematical model runs and the results are what we see as performance of any particular aircraft in the sim.

I'm sure there's no data for "handling on a scale from 1 to 10". More likely there's a line of numbers concerning CG location, moments, weights, power curve, yada, yada, yada. All this gets plugged into the model and the handling that comes out is what we get. In all liklyhood, the last patch tweaked the mathmatical model and the result was the "improved" handling of the P-51.

AGAIN, THIS IS ALL JUST CONJECTURE ON MY PART.

lrrp22
01-18-2006, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
If Oleg's FMs assume a static FM, and Oleg's Mustang FM has the COG placed where it would be with a full fuselage tank, all we get with less internal fuel is a lighter plane with cruddy handling due to a COG too far aft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm beginning to think this may be the root of the problem. If so, a quick fix might be to simply remove the fuselage tank as a usable option- the resulting forward shift in CG would improve both the departure characterisitcs and the excessively light elevators. 184 gallons internal is more than enough for any map in PF.

I'm not sure if it is CG related, but I flew the FB v1.22 Mustang this weekend: a completely different experience. Having said that, I much prefer the current FM overall.

LRRP

HayateAce
01-18-2006, 09:47 PM
Even a 3.00v P51 flies ok.

VW-IceFire
01-18-2006, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Data about handling can be worked out, just like any other attribute because its adheres to the laws of physics and things like power loading, wing loading, CoG can all be worked out. Using wind tunnels as well will also be used to find out characteristics. Not sure if they did but you could also measure stick forces needed to perform manouvers at different speeds etc.

Nasa didn't design the Space shuttle then assume cause it has wings, a few rockets in the back and some manouvering jets that it could make re entry and glide to ear. It was all worked out on paper first using mathmatics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true...its just beyond virtually all of us. I think most of us can sit down in the aircaft, fly it for a while, choose another set of aircraft with similar attributes, and realize that something just isn't right.

That certain types of aircraft seem to exhibit the problem and then others seem to not despite being relatively similar designs speaks to me that there are some FM bugs to be worked out. Its not so much the aircraft but the actual FM's underlying them that are the issue.

To fight this the usual, prove it otherwise its right, may be difficult as we'll need to be able to present complex aerodynamics data for several types that are affected by this problem and at least one or more that are not.

I don't know where to start unfortunately...its just way beyond me. I know its wrong but I'm not in a position to determine how wrong it is.

4.02 introduced this...4.01 was quite alright. So something changed in between.

GR142-Pipper
01-19-2006, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
That certain types of aircraft seem to exhibit the problem and then others seem to not despite being relatively similar designs speaks to me that there are some FM bugs to be worked out. Its not so much the aircraft but the actual FM's underlying them that are the issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The flight models ARE, in fact, the aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4.02 introduced this...4.01 was quite alright. So something changed in between. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right. A lot of this seems to be brought to the forefront with the introduction of engine torque. For the most part, it's been overdone and already suspect flight models have been driven even further afield. Introducing yet another variable that significantly affects them just didn't make any sense. Oh well...here we speak.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
01-19-2006, 12:52 AM
Fine-tuning, my friends, fine-tuning is where it's at! Remember that we're flying beta FMs here, and the Mustang is hardly the sole victim of Oleg's tweakings...

That said, we'll just have to see what gets fixed and when (or at all). I personally would like to see the roll rates corrected, because they seem to be in error across the board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

danjama
01-20-2006, 05:46 AM
BUMP. I like where this thread is starting to go! What Icefire said was spot on!

horseback
01-20-2006, 02:42 PM
Let's try a few comparisons on a consistant course of flights...American pilots learned their aircraft by flying 'rat races', hedge-hopping and so on, so let's compare flight handling directly, using that method.

I've started a thread here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8951031104

Check it out, try the course, and tell me what you find/think. It won't be the first time I was called a moron...

cheers

horseback