PDA

View Full Version : P-51 issues



Snuffly
11-01-2005, 07:11 PM
When we used to fly in the 3.04m patch and everything was at least "good"

My main plane I would fly online and offline was the P-51, I managed to work with it and learned how to fly it with perfection.
I remember a few times I used to actually beable to stay on a spitfires six, by performing basic and complex maneuvers.
There was even some times when I shot down a couple la-7's.


BUT when 4.01 hit!!! The plane just would not turn, climb, dive or anything, I took it offline and tried desperately to fight off the quick stalls, and poor handling.
Even when I took it up high, it still did very poorly. (isnt the p-51 recognized for the best high altitude fighter?)

Then 4.02 came. I tried out the p-51 again and wooooooo it was a little more maneuverable but still stalled like crazy.
I thought maybey it would do better in high altitude, so I flew it offline at a good 3000m
It seemed like it flew ok, but I remembered the words "You never know a plane untill you fly it in combat"

So I took it online and the server I happen to come across had some high altitude flying going on at about 2500m I decided I was going to kick some ****.

bull

I flew up to 3000m, started to dive on a 109 and eased on the stick and cut my throttle so I wouldnt get too much speed or black out. As I dove in on him and was levelling out onto his 6 I eased my throttle up to 100% and was gaining on him quick.As I was about to pull the trigger, he pulled a hard left and to my suprise at this altitude, as I started to make a left with him, I stalled. I got pissed and just started complaining that they will never get the p-51 right... Thats not the only time either btw.



I always end up telling these thoughts into stories..


So what p-51 issues do you have?

VW-IceFire
11-01-2005, 07:40 PM
Ok...2500m is not high altitude. Thats LOW altitude. I'd say 2500m is nearly medium altitude but not really.

Although I haven't had a good run in the Mustang yet, I haven't found it to stall much more than previously and certainly not any differently than its counterparts.

I mean, we do have some problems with the stall system as we now have Spitfires doing snap stalls in turns and the Spitfire definitively did not snap stall. So if an aircraft that had a superb record in terms of stall behavior snap stalls then you can bet that the Mustang, with a slightly lesser reputation (in this regard alone I am talking about), is going to have its share of snaps too.

My suggestion is to perhaps look at your joystick settings. Alot of people have found 4.02 to be VERY sensitive to stick settings. Even without the control issues that some of us had (some still do) this patch is very sensitive. So you may want to back your stick settings off a bunch and see if you still have problems.

Smooth controls, precise flying, and decisive controls will definately work in the Mustangs favour. Fly the FW190 for a bit and you will feel like the Mustang is made of gold.

This all said, I have very few hours of Mustang combat logged since 4.02. I should probably have a go at it but I didn't notice anything bad the last time I flew it.

Badsight.
11-01-2005, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Snuffly:
I happen to come across had some high altitude flying going on at about 2500m I decided I was going to kick some ****. HA HA HA HA HA !



.



.



.



you were joking right ?

Tully__
11-02-2005, 05:05 AM
2500m is still below 10,000 feet. If you want high, treat 5000m as a minimum and be prepared to go all the way up to 8500-10,000m

SpartanHoplite
11-02-2005, 05:32 AM
I knew as soon as I saw that 2500 meters comment, this thread was done.

Anyway, the P-51D seems like the easiest plane in the game to stall. Only the Corsair rivals it (and at least the Corsair is well - known for twitchy stall issues).

I'm not saying that it is historically incorrect (I've never read anything about the P-51 being such a general poor performer / totally reliant on speed, but I'm no armchair expert). I'm saying that as a mediocre pilot, the P-51D has become probably the last plane I'd take into a online or offline fight (and I always fly up to around 5000-6000 m). Maybe others can make it work, but not me!

SH

Friendly_flyer
11-02-2005, 05:44 AM
It seems all planes are very sensitive now. Even the rather benevolent Hurricane will stall out easily, and the slightest forward ,moment of the stick will kill the engine. I think I'll have a look at the stick settings tonight.

mynameisroland
11-02-2005, 06:41 AM
Until you learn to fly the Mustang correctly it will always seem like its porked. Here is a bit of advice 3000m isnt high altitude - its the bare minimum Id want to start an engagement with. When flying a Mustang think of 6000m and above that is where you ideally want to meet the enemy. If they are lower dive on to them but never fight on the enemies terms, the Mustang simply will not outfight a 109 or Fw 190 at their own game at their own altitude. The Mustang isnt a dogfighter, you wont be able to follow a 109 that pulls a tight evasive turn so dont try let him turn and lose speed while you climb and stay in control.

geetarman
11-02-2005, 06:49 AM
Roland's point is well taken. It seems you are approaching the plane incorrectly. Keep one thing in your mind when flying a P-51: "Don't dogfight." The sooner you learn this, the quicker you'll do better with it.

You've missed all the good points of the plane:

1. Four to six .50's hit hard;
2. Excellent visibility;
3. Exceptional high altitude performance (20,000' +)
4. Exceptional top end speed:
5. Great dive speed an zoom climb.
6. All control surfaces remain effective at very high speeds.
7. Very good high speed instantaneous turn.

The list goes on. A pair of Mustang III's or P-51's at 23,000' are a headache for any Luft planes nearby.

WOLFMondo
11-02-2005, 07:02 AM
Good points! IMHO the Mustang MKIII is the best fighter in this sim at the moment. P51D is close behind but only up high.

It does require accuracy but its performance at all altitudes, its controls, stability, view are all very good. Its got great cockpit layout, a mirror (I value it!), holds allot of fuel, great zoom climb, excellent high speed climb rate, near FW190 roll rate, high structural integrity, amaizing dive acceleration, high cruise speed, good efficient radiator (it rarely overheats) make it one of the best fighter planes of WW2 and this simulator.

The only thing going against it is its ugly.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
11-02-2005, 07:20 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how many people scream for historical accuracy in the aircraft FMs and then they go into a DF server and try to fight against planes that never historically flew against each other and complain when it doesnt work like the think it should.

I have no major issues with the P-51.. and I am fully aware that practice will rectify 90% of the other minor ones I have. The Mustang wasnt designed to be a T&B superstar... it was and is in the sim a good all around plane if handled properly. My major beef with it is I cant carry rockets on it.

Estocade85
11-02-2005, 07:32 AM
Huh what does beef have to do with aviation lolz!?

Vipez-
11-02-2005, 07:45 AM
In servers like AFJ, or 334-dedicated I would choose the P51D over all others.. its rather simple, it's fastest plane there (only few prop. planes can competete with p51D at over 5000 m, that is 109K-4,Spit9HF,TA152), though no problem P51D can outdive from these planes very easily, and outrun them at low altitudes, so I consider P51D very same and effective plane to fly.. you just need the patience to fly it right, if you don't have it you are asking in the wrong place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

horseback
11-02-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Estocade85:
Huh what does beef have to do with aviation lolz!? "Beef" has long been used as a slang substitute for "complain" or "complaint" in the American dialect.

It dates back well before the 1984 "Where's the beef?" Wendy's commercial slogan, possibly back to the American Civil War, when unscrupulous merchants would sell canned meats of dubious origin as 'beef' to Army quartermasters, leading to much complaining, or "beefing", by the troops.

Hence, it could be said that the original poster was beefing about the Mustang's FM.

Now aren't you sorry you asked?

cheers

horseback

mynameisroland
11-02-2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Good points! IMHO the Mustang MKIII is the best fighter in this sim at the moment. P51D is close behind but only up high.

It does require accuracy but its performance at all altitudes, its controls, stability, view are all very good. Its got great cockpit layout, a mirror (I value it!), holds allot of fuel, great zoom climb, excellent high speed climb rate, near FW190 roll rate, high structural integrity, amaizing dive acceleration, high cruise speed, good efficient radiator (it rarely overheats) make it one of the best fighter planes of WW2 and this simulator.

The only thing going against it is its ugly.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

When I fly in an Fw 190 A8/9 or D9 on a Western European map and I see a gaggle of enemy fighters. I ignore the P38's, P47's and Spitfires and I pick out the Mustangs first. Once the Mustangs are damaged or shot down you can pretty much engage the other fighters on your own terms. Mustang are more dangerous as their performance is closer to the Fw than any of the other three and they can manuver with it at high speed. The Fw holds one major advantage over the Mustang and that is its greater firepower which means in a dog fight the Fw 190 needs fewer opportunities to kill the Mustang than the other way around. Many times I have won a 50/50 fight against other late war AC including the La7 due to having better armament and more ammunition.

WOLFMondo
11-02-2005, 08:53 AM
The Mustang MkIII and Dora are very similar, probably more so than the Tempest and Dora which are classic adversaries.

Jaws2002
11-02-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Snuffly:
So I took it online and the server I happen to come across had some high altitude flying going on at about 2500m I decided I was going to kick some ****.

bull



You barely finnished the take off procedures at 2500m http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
High altitude starts with the vapor trail.

MLudner
11-02-2005, 07:54 PM
Allright, now y'all have been a-tellin' little ol' me that the Mustang kindly sucks down low, but that she's a real beaut if'n ye keep 'er up on high, say 'bout 6,000 of them there meters.

Goin' on that there advice, today I took a Mustang up at 7500 of them ol' meter thingies and done took on an Ace in Bf-109G10, an' it didn't work 'tall like ye uns done said it would, now.

Well, that is, unless you consider 'bout 220 MPH an improvement over 340 MPH.

I couldn't keep up none with that ol' 109G10 none, neither. Never even got a shot 'im. He dived, an' I'd dive on after 'im, an' 'e'd pull away like there weren't nothin' to it. He'd up an' climb, an' I'd climb 'long behind 'im an' watch him get further an' further away; all that ol' German did was flick cigarette butts at me an' laugh. I found that a might bit annoyin'!
Even goin' straight I did nothin' but eat his exhaust.
Eventually I just flew on back to base an' landed after shakin' 'im off a few times down low. I done figgered this track would make my point. Then I watched it tonight. Part of it was right, but it showed that ol' 109G10 done a-sneaked on up on me like a polecat on a sleepin' hen! Then it showed 'im a-shootin' me down.

Now, I scratched my head and said to myself: "Well, I'll be ding-danged, but that there ol' German didn't get any more shootin' done at me than I did at him!"

Now, I know I said I'd create tracks to post, an' I am a-tryin', but my ol' computer don't like to admit it when he done got beat or tied an' lies through his yellow, ol' teeth like the lyin' dog that he is.

I might jus' need to take 'im on out to the ol' woodshed out back there.

Waldo.Pepper
11-02-2005, 08:55 PM
Page IX (in the preface to Shaw fighter combat book.)

"I didn't turn with enemy pilots as a rule. I might make one turn€"to see what the situation was€"but not often. It was too risky."

General John C. Meyer Vice-Chief of Staff, USAF 26 Victories, WW-II and Korean Conflict and MUSTANG PILOT!

lrrp22
11-02-2005, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Page IX (in the preface to Shaw fighter combat book.)

"I didn't turn with enemy pilots as a rule. I might make one turn€"to see what the situation was€"but not often. It was too risky."

General John C. Meyer Vice-Chief of Staff, USAF 26 Victories, WW-II and Korean Conflict and MUSTANG PILOT!

Waldo,

That's because Meyer was a smart pilot, not because he thought his airplane turned poorly. You can bet he would have avoided turn fights if he was flying a Spitfire too.

It's ironic that you chose a quote from John Meyer to prove that the P-51 was a poor low altitude/turn fighter. After all, it was Lt Col John Meyer that shot down an Fw 190 while his gear was still retracting into the wheel wells on 1 Jan 45. He was leading the 487th FS on a New Year's morning patrol as three Gruppen of JG 11 jumped them on take off. From a take-off roll with full fuselage tanks, the 487th managed to get airborne and make claims for 23 of the German fighters without loss to themselves.


.

Waldo.Pepper
11-02-2005, 11:18 PM
I contend he was a smart pilot as well. One who realized the limitations of his aircraft. And yes I agree that he would have done that regardless of the plane he flew. After all there is no good reason to place your life at greater risk, which turning will do, regardless of your plane.

Sharpe26
11-03-2005, 02:10 AM
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 Waldo.Pepper:
Page IX (in the preface to Shaw fighter combat book.)

"I didn't turn with enemy pilots as a rule. I might make one turn€"to see what the situation was€"but not often. It was too risky."

General John C. Meyer Vice-Chief of Staff, USAF 26 Victories, WW-II and Korean Conflict and MUSTANG PILOT!

Waldo,

That's because Meyer was a smart pilot, not because he thought his airplane turned poorly. You can bet he would have avoided turn fights if he was flying a Spitfire too.

It's ironic that you chose a quote from John Meyer to prove that the P-51 was a poor low altitude/turn fighter. After all, it was Lt Col John Meyer that shot down an Fw 190 while his gear was still retracting into the wheel wells on 1 Jan 45. He was leading the 487th FS on a New Year's morning patrol as three Gruppen of JG 11 jumped them on take off. From a take-off roll with full fuselage tanks, the 487th managed to get airborne and make claims for 23 of the German fighters without loss to themselves.


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're misquoting something here. From what I've read, this was a head to head encounter and, more importantly, the 487th had warning. Again from what I've read a patrol of Thunderbolts from the 366th fighter group had left about fifteen minutes earlier. that patrol radioed a warning, allowing the Mustangs to get of the ground as the attack approached.

I'm really thinking now that high altitude and speed are two of the cornerstones of flying the Mustang.

ImpStarDuece
11-03-2005, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Allright, now y'all have been a-tellin' little ol' me that the Mustang kindly sucks down low, but that she's a real beaut if'n ye keep 'er up on high, say 'bout 6,000 of them there meters.

Goin' on that there advice, today I took a Mustang up at 7500 of them ol' meter thingies and done took on an Ace in Bf-109G10, an' it didn't work 'tall like ye uns done said it would, now.

Well, that is, unless you consider 'bout 220 MPH an improvement over 340 MPH.

I couldn't keep up none with that ol' 109G10 none, neither. Never even got a shot 'im. He dived, an' I'd dive on after 'im, an' 'e'd pull away like there weren't nothin' to it. He'd up an' climb, an' I'd climb 'long behind 'im an' watch him get further an' further away; all that ol' German did was flick cigarette butts at me an' laugh. I found that a might bit annoyin'!
Even goin' straight I did nothin' but eat his exhaust.
Eventually I just flew on back to base an' landed after shakin' 'im off a few times down low. I done figgered this track would make my point. Then I watched it tonight. Part of it was right, but it showed that ol' 109G10 done a-sneaked on up on me like a polecat on a sleepin' hen! Then it showed 'im a-shootin' me down.

Now, I scratched my head and said to myself: "Well, I'll be ding-danged, but that there ol' German didn't get any more shootin' done at me than I did at him!"

Now, I know I said I'd create tracks to post, an' I am a-tryin', but my ol' computer don't like to admit it when he done got beat or tied an' lies through his yellow, ol' teeth like the lyin' dog that he is.

I might jus' need to take 'im on out to the ol' woodshed out back there.

First of all your mixing IAS (Indicated Air Speed) with TAS (True Air Speed). IAS will drop further and futher behind TAS as altitude increases because the atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner and the airflow is comparatively less.

If you are pulling 250 mph at 7-8000m then your ground speed is well up near 350 mph.

Secondly, the G-10 is one of the fastest 109 variants in the game, secondly only to the K. Dont be fooled by the designation number, it performs MUCH better at altitude than the G-14, G-6 or any other combination of. It is a match for the Mustang at almost all altitudes.

At 7500m the P-51 has about a 20-30 kph speed advantage and a small climb advatage over the G-10. It has a much better wing at high altitude though, so it will pick up speed better, turn and zomm climb better.

JG5_UnKle
11-03-2005, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by Sharpe26:
I'm really thinking now that high altitude and speed are two of the cornerstones of flying the Mustang.

Sshhhh! Don't let them all know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ViktorViktor
11-03-2005, 04:07 AM
John C. Meyer has also been quoted as saying that he was lousy deflection shooter, and so concentrated mainly on setting up no-deflection shots. This could be a reason why he didn't like dogfighting, not because the P-51 couldn't hack it.

By the way, I read all about the rivalry between the 4th and the 56th (fighter groups?) of the 8th Air Force when I was a kid. About how the 56th had shot down many more aircraft than the 4th, even though the 4th had more experience, many 4thers having flown the Spitfire in Eagle Squadrons. It was hammered into me that the main difference here was that though both units flew the P-47, they flew it in different ways. The 4th tried to fly the Jug like a Spitfire, and when they got burned doing it, blamed it on the P-47. The 56th on the hand, having no previous experience, learned to fly it optimally.

But when the 4th converted to Mustangs (the 56th didn't), they became the dominant fighter group in the 8th Air Force. They ended up shooting down more aircraft than any other in the 8th Air Force. Wasn't the difference here that the P-51 could be flown like a Spitfire, unlike the Jug ? If so, then doesn't this imply that the P-51 was a good dogfighter in it's own right ?

mynameisroland
11-03-2005, 04:41 AM
If you start fight at co Energy with a 109 you will have a problem. You need an advantage to compensate the lesser manuverabilty, climb and acceleration of the Mustang when compared to a 109 G10. When we say fight at high altitudes we generally mean fly at a higher altitude than your opponent and try and keep the fight high up. If you drop down to 1000m stay fast so you can climb high again or run away if you get in trouble.

Image a Wildcat vs a Zero one on one co altitude. What do you do? That is maybe too extreme an example but as soon as you treat enemy aircraft with respect and fight them using a speed and height advantage the sooner you will do well. The Mustang is probably one of the best fighters in game at keeping a speed advantage it is so clean that if you fly it correctly and dont waste your speed you will be a very difficult target.

Even If Im in a Spitfire against a Stuka or a 109 against a Sturmo I will treat them with respect because if you fly sloppily you will give them a chance to shoot you down. You should get yourself online as soon as possible and try flying the Mustang against Russian aircraft on furball servers or against Bf 109's and Fw 190's on realistic servers. Then you will see what I mean http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Ibis
11-03-2005, 05:15 AM
402 also requires a change in stick input settings be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

carguy_
11-03-2005, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by Snuffly:
When we used to fly in the 3.04m patch and everything was at least "good"

You mean it suited you,right?



My main plane I would fly online and offline was the P-51, I managed to work with it and learned how to fly it with perfection.

You must be joking.


I remember a few times I used to actually beable to stay on a spitfires six, by performing basic and complex maneuvers.
There was even some times when I shot down a couple la-7's.

Nothing special.P51 ownz them both in certain conditions.



BUT when 4.01 hit!!! The plane just would not turn, climb, dive or anything, I took it offline and tried desperately to fight off the quick stalls, and poor handling.

Pretty weird.When 4.01 came I was shocked with all the bouncing P51 makes and I don`t believe it really did either.However,the plane climbs like a rocket over 340km/h.Handling above the speed is great but bouncing really ruins it.



Even when I took it up high, it still did very poorly. (isnt the p-51 recognized for the best high altitude fighter?)

In my dictionary 'high' starts @6500m.




I flew up to 3000m, started to dive on a 109 and eased on the stick and cut my throttle so I wouldnt get too much speed or black out. As I dove in on him and was levelling out onto his 6 I eased my throttle up to 100% and was gaining on him quick.As I was about to pull the trigger, he pulled a hard left and to my suprise at this altitude, as I started to make a left with him, I stalled.

Are you sure,you`re not a n00b?


I got pissed and just started complaining that they will never get the p-51 right... Thats not the only time either btw.

A typical "I can`t do it so I`ll blame others" mindset.Nothing to see here.




So what p-51 issues do you have?

1.50cal are synced.
2.Oversensitive elevator makes deflection shots far too hard.

geetarman
11-03-2005, 06:37 AM
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 Waldo.Pepper:
Page IX (in the preface to Shaw fighter combat book.)

"I didn't turn with enemy pilots as a rule. I might make one turn€"to see what the situation was€"but not often. It was too risky."

General John C. Meyer Vice-Chief of Staff, USAF 26 Victories, WW-II and Korean Conflict and MUSTANG PILOT!

Waldo,

That's because Meyer was a smart pilot, not because he thought his airplane turned poorly. You can bet he would have avoided turn fights if he was flying a Spitfire too.

It's ironic that you chose a quote from John Meyer to prove that the P-51 was a poor low altitude/turn fighter. After all, it was Lt Col John Meyer that shot down an Fw 190 while his gear was still retracting into the wheel wells on 1 Jan 45. He was leading the 487th FS on a New Year's morning patrol as three Gruppen of JG 11 jumped them on take off. From a take-off roll with full fuselage tanks, the 487th managed to get airborne and make claims for 23 of the German fighters without loss to themselves.


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes all true and amazing. Although most of what I have read indicates that the Merlin Mustang was, gulp, an "average" fighter at lower alts, there is no denying that Meyer's squadron that morning wiped the floor with the Lufties, flying their most up to date planes.

The Germans caught them taking off and still got hosed! The had numeric and positional advanage as well as a huge energy advantage.

All kills are confirmed as the groundcrews simply walked up to the wreckage of the German planes and started counting. There is a website somewhere with the encounter reports from the fight. Amazing reading. It also becomes obvious from these reports that the US guys were literally "mixing it up" with the G10's and Doras at 1,000' or so.

geetarman
11-03-2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Sharpe26:
<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 Waldo.Pepper:
Page IX (in the preface to Shaw fighter combat book.)

"I didn't turn with enemy pilots as a rule. I might make one turn€"to see what the situation was€"but not often. It was too risky."

General John C. Meyer Vice-Chief of Staff, USAF 26 Victories, WW-II and Korean Conflict and MUSTANG PILOT!

Waldo,

That's because Meyer was a smart pilot, not because he thought his airplane turned poorly. You can bet he would have avoided turn fights if he was flying a Spitfire too.

It's ironic that you chose a quote from John Meyer to prove that the P-51 was a poor low altitude/turn fighter. After all, it was Lt Col John Meyer that shot down an Fw 190 while his gear was still retracting into the wheel wells on 1 Jan 45. He was leading the 487th FS on a New Year's morning patrol as three Gruppen of JG 11 jumped them on take off. From a take-off roll with full fuselage tanks, the 487th managed to get airborne and make claims for 23 of the German fighters without loss to themselves.


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're misquoting something here. From what I've read, this was a head to head encounter and, more importantly, the 487th had warning. Again from what I've read a patrol of Thunderbolts from the 366th fighter group had left about fifteen minutes earlier. that patrol radioed a warning, allowing the Mustangs to get of the ground as the attack approached.

I'm really thinking now that high altitude and speed are two of the cornerstones of flying the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sharpe your recollection is faulty

MLudner
11-03-2005, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

First of all your mixing IAS (Indicated Air Speed) with TAS (True Air Speed). IAS will drop further and futher behind TAS as altitude increases because the atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner and the airflow is comparatively less.

If you are pulling 250 mph at 7-8000m then your ground speed is well up near 350 mph.

Secondly, the G-10 is one of the fastest 109 variants in the game, secondly only to the K. Dont be fooled by the designation number, it performs MUCH better at altitude than the G-14, G-6 or any other combination of. It is a match for the Mustang at almost all altitudes.

At 7500m the P-51 has about a 20-30 kph speed advantage and a small climb advatage over the G-10. It has a much better wing at high altitude though, so it will pick up speed better, turn and zomm climb better.

Uh, yeah, well you might not be aware of this Mein Freunde, but I do have some flight training IRL. I do understand the difference between True and Indicated Airspeed - though I can't remember the calculations off the top of my head anymore, I will admit, but I am not yet personally convinced this game does.
My first attempt at saving a track yesterday led to the first time in a long time where an AI pilot in a one-on-one duel killed me.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
How, one might ask? In the initial head-on I evaded the AI's attempt at an attack. I then checked my Air Speed Indicator, it indicated a speed of just over 200 MPH. Now, I thought, that would be the Indicated Air Speed, but at this altitude the True Air Speed will be significantly faster than that (BTW: I had made no hard maneuvers, evading the head-on involved only a minor swerve to one side - left, if I remember correctly). So, I turned. Not a tight one, for the 109 was flying pretty much straight away and there was no need. At lower altitude - or higher speed - that turn would have been no where near edge of stall. BUT, it was that time. The Mustang went into a violent stall and while I was fighting through spin recovery the 109 turned and shredded me.
I tell you, I was a sorry sight sitting there in air like that with only the stick in my right hand and the throttle in my left surrounded by the glinting confetti that used to be a P-51D20NA, blinking.
Now, if my TAS was somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 MPH that stall never would have happened, because that turn rate would not have been much tighter than a B-17's. I was surprised when it happened; no sooner had I started hearing the warning sounds than WHOOSH!, over she went.
That's the kind of thing that happenes when your TAS is around 200 MPH.

The next time around I treated my IAS as my TAS and did not stall, managed a push because I could not keep up with the 109 and so never got a shot at him. Then I ran out of time and so I headed for Smolensk where the 109 made a few more attempts to attack that I foiled, then gave up and went home while I landed.

When I get an accurately saved group of tracks one will show me P-51 versus Bf-109G10, then 109G10 versus P-51. What you will notice is that whichever the AI Ace is flying is the faster plane.

HellToupee
11-03-2005, 05:56 PM
What does TAS matter? IAS is more important as far as manovering goes. Air is thinner TAS at hieght maybe faster but she wont handle the same.

Kuna15
11-03-2005, 07:01 PM
Mustang is a really good plane in PTO against majority of the late war Japanese planes.
I have selected 4 ace A6M5c's on 50% fuel vs me in Mustang_D also 50% and started on 1000m no advantage.
I avoided head on and went in high speed climb around 400kph.

It takes quite a while tho, but I reached about 8,5k eventually and turned to Zeros they were all choking up there -- it was a real child's play. The only thing that stopped me to destroy all four is the fact that I run out of ammo (unusage of rudder during gun passes reduced my gun accuracy). Only one Zero survived, although with decent number of .50cal holes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Like Bearcat said, if the P-51D meets it's historical opponents that plane can hold it's own.

MLudner
11-03-2005, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
What does TAS matter? IAS is more important as far as manovering goes. Air is thinner TAS at hieght maybe faster but she wont handle the same.

So, should it perform better or worse at altitude? Proportionately, how much more speed do you need at 26,000 ft in order to make a turn? My IAS never exceeded - level - 240 MPH and in order to avoid stalls I had to make the most gentle, easy turns. But, then, so was the 109 pretty much.

But, in the main my point is that so far I have not gotten faster than 109G10's of 190D9's at even high altitude. They are out climbing me, out diving me and out running me from tree top height to way above the clouds.

I do entertain the possibility that it is me, by the way, and I'm just not seeing it on my own. Today's attempt at a track failed, as well; computer showed me plowing into the ground while I chased the 109G10 after the fight descended from 20,000 ft ASL to the deck.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

MLudner
11-03-2005, 07:16 PM
First of all your mixing IAS (Indicated Air Speed) with TAS (True Air Speed). IAS will drop further and futher behind TAS as altitude increases because the atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner and the airflow (Through the PITOT tube) is comparatively less.

If you are pulling 250 mph at 7-8000m then your ground speed is well up near 350 mph.

Secondly, the G-10 is one of the fastest 109 variants in the game, secondly only to the K. Dont be fooled by the designation number, it performs MUCH better at altitude than the G-14, G-6 or any other combination of. It is a match for the Mustang at almost all altitudes.


They entered service in the order G6 - G14 - G10 - K4.

At 7500m the P-51 has about a 20-30 kph speed advantage and a small climb advatage over the G-10. It has a much better wing at high altitude though, so it will pick up speed better, turn and zomm climb better.[/QUOTE]

Yes indeedy, according to Wilson about 10 MPH. And, IRL, yes; in game, not to my experience.

BTW: NOT poking fun at you. I'm trying to point out that I know more than you believe I do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HellToupee
11-03-2005, 07:20 PM
It should perform worse at altitude all planes should theres a reason why high alt spitfires and ta152 had extended wings.

The only thing that should change is your relative performace, tho ur plane will perform worse that of ur opponent should perform worser still. Tho with stalling, the 109 at the moment and other slat planes are very hard to stall, and will probly keep the edge in manovering. Fighting vs ai they can climb and fly much faster than the plane can actually do it seems.

Xiolablu3
11-03-2005, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
After all, it was Lt Col John Meyer that shot down an Fw 190 while his gear was still retracting into the wheel wells on 1 Jan 45. He was leading the 487th FS on a New Year's morning patrol as three Gruppen of JG 11 jumped them on take off. From a take-off roll with full fuselage tanks, the 487th managed to get airborne and make claims for 23 of the German fighters without loss to themselves.


.

I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao.

MLudner
11-03-2005, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

First of all your mixing IAS (Indicated Air Speed) with TAS (True Air Speed). IAS will drop further and futher behind TAS as altitude increases because the atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner and the airflow is comparatively less.

If you are pulling 250 mph at 7-8000m then your ground speed is well up near 350 mph.

Secondly, the G-10 is one of the fastest 109 variants in the game, secondly only to the K. Dont be fooled by the designation number, it performs MUCH better at altitude than the G-14, G-6 or any other combination of. It is a match for the Mustang at almost all altitudes.

At 7500m the P-51 has about a 20-30 kph speed advantage and a small climb advatage over the G-10. It has a much better wing at high altitude though, so it will pick up speed better, turn and zomm climb better.

Uh, yeah, well you might not be aware of this Mein Freunde, but I do have some flight training IRL. I do understand the difference between True and Indicated Airspeed - though I can't remember the calculations off the top of my head anymore, I will admit, but I am not yet personally convinced this game does.
My first attempt at saving a track yesterday led to the first time in a long time where an AI pilot in a one-on-one duel killed me.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
How, one might ask? In the initial head-on I evaded the AI's attempt at an attack. I then checked my Air Speed Indicator, it indicated a speed of just over 200 MPH. Now, I thought, that would be the Indicated Air Speed, but at this altitude the True Air Speed will be significantly faster than that (BTW: I had made no hard maneuvers, evading the head-on involved only a minor swerve to one side - left, if I remember correctly). So, I turned. Not a tight one,

MLudner
11-03-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

First of all your mixing IAS (Indicated Air Speed) with TAS (True Air Speed). IAS will drop further and futher behind TAS as altitude increases because the atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner and the airflow is comparatively less.

If you are pulling 250 mph at 7-8000m then your ground speed is well up near 350 mph.

Secondly, the G-10 is one of the fastest 109 variants in the game, secondly only to the K. Dont be fooled by the designation number, it performs MUCH better at altitude than the G-14, G-6 or any other combination of. It is a match for the Mustang at almost all altitudes.

At 7500m the P-51 has about a 20-30 kph speed advantage and a small climb advatage over the G-10. It has a much better wing at high altitude though, so it will pick up speed better, turn and zomm climb better.

Uh, yeah, well you might not be aware of this Mein Freunde, but I do have some flight training IRL. I do understand the difference between True and Indicated Airspeed - though I can't remember the calculations off the top of my head anymore, I will admit, but I am not yet personally convinced this game does.
My first attempt at saving a track yesterday led to the first time in a long time where an AI pilot in a one-on-one duel killed me.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
How, one might ask? In the initial head-on I evaded the AI's attempt at an attack. I then checked my Air Speed Indicator, it indicated a speed of just over 200 MPH. Now, I thought, that would be the Indicated Air Speed, but at this altitude the True Air Speed will be significantly faster than that (BTW: I had made no hard maneuvers, evading the head-on involved only a minor swerve to one side - left, if I remember correctly). So, I turned. Not a tight one, for the 109

VW-IceFire
11-03-2005, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
After all, it was Lt Col John Meyer that shot down an Fw 190 while his gear was still retracting into the wheel wells on 1 Jan 45. He was leading the 487th FS on a New Year's morning patrol as three Gruppen of JG 11 jumped them on take off. From a take-off roll with full fuselage tanks, the 487th managed to get airborne and make claims for 23 of the German fighters without loss to themselves.


.

I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually its not BS its actually history and it goes to show you that events in war can turn in the strangest of ways possible.

Here's a great site that gives a fairly well researched account of what happened.

http://352ndfg.com/Y-29/main.htm

The story as told by this site:


As the JG11 approached Asch, 8 P47's of the 390th were just forming up over Asch to head out over the Ardennes in search of German armor. As the 390th finished forming up they spotted flak bursts over the Ophoven field. At this same moment Lt Col. John Meyer was just beginning to roll down the runway. He also saw the flak bursts and radioed the tower to inquire; the tower had nothing to report. Heading for Ophoven to investigate, the 390th was surprised to see a large formation of FW190's and Me109's approaching Asch from the northeast at 1500 ft. The 8 P47's of the 390th jettisoned their bombs and external tanks and attacked, causing confusion among the German attackers and breaking up the formation. This turned out to be a key blow to the JG11, without which the mustangs of the 487th may not have so easily taken to the air. The 390th claimed 7 enemy aircraft in this attack taking a loss of only one.

Meanwhile Meyer was lifting off with the rest of the 487th behind him. As he rose from the runway he found himself faced with the oncoming JG11. With a full load of fuel in his fuselage tank, making low altitude maneuvering difficult, and gear still retracting he fired at an oncoming FW190 scoring hits and sending the enemy aircraft crashing into the field. Meyer went on to claim a second Fw190 before the battle was over.

The battle over Asch went on for 30 minutes. 11 pilots of the 487th claimed 23 victories while sustaining no losses, and just three aircraft damaged in the air. I will leave the adventures of each pilot to be told by them through their personal combat logs and memoirs. Please see the list of pilots below and follow the link to each pilot to see their picture and read their story. Please understand that I have not yet found all of the pilot's pictures, combat logs or memoirs. I will continue the search for as long as it takes. If you know of where I might locate some of this missing information please let me know.


Losses and post battle numbers:


The 390th and 487th defended the airbase at Asch so well that only one Mustang was damaged on the ground and no casualties were reported. The actions of the 487th in taking off under fire and performing so well at such a disadvantage earned the unit the only Distinguished Unit Citation given to a fighter squadron in the Northwestern European theater of operation.

The total estimated losses of the JG11 range from 24 to 40. Given the credited victories of the 487th (23), 390th (7), 391st (2), and ground gunners (7) along with at least one aircraft destroyed by friendly flak in route, the number of 40 seems to hold up. However, there was undoubtedly some double counting of victories claimed and some victories that were not confirmed. But more Important then the numbers was the loss of experienced Luftwaffe leaders and pilots. None of JG11's flight leaders returned from this mission.


This event is popularly known as the Legend of Y-29. If you do a Google search for that particular label you will find references to this event in all sorts of places including quotes from the pilots involved.

lrrp22
11-03-2005, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
After all, it was Lt Col John Meyer that shot down an Fw 190 while his gear was still retracting into the wheel wells on 1 Jan 45. He was leading the 487th FS on a New Year's morning patrol as three Gruppen of JG 11 jumped them on take off. From a take-off roll with full fuselage tanks, the 487th managed to get airborne and make claims for 23 of the German fighters without loss to themselves.


.

I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Laugh your *** off all you want- in light of the voluminous documentation, it only makes you look silly.

Even if the claims were double that of the actual JG11 losses (they weren't), the fact remains that 12 fully-loaded Mustangs laid a MONUMENTAL *** whoopin' on a formation many times its size which began the attack at an extreme tactical advantage. Not bad for an airplane that many here would like to believe was helpless at low altitudes, huh?

.

lrrp22
11-03-2005, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Sharpe26:

I think you're misquoting something here. From what I've read, this was a head to head encounter and, more importantly, the 487th had warning. Again from what I've read a patrol of Thunderbolts from the 366th fighter group had left about fifteen minutes earlier. that patrol radioed a warning, allowing the Mustangs to get of the ground as the attack approached.




Not a misquote, Sharpe. In a clinical sense, I guess you could describe it as a sort of head-to-head engagement: it's just that Meyer and the 487th were still on the runway for most of the first pass.


The 487th FS received a Distinguished Unit Citation for this action, the only individual squadron in the Europe to be so honored.

.

Badsight.
11-04-2005, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao. you know whats really bad about this for the German pilots ? as they raced back home their own concentrated AAA in the area opened up on them flying low

they were slaughtered

more German fighters were shot down by their own AAA gunners than were lost in combat to the enemy that day , like 75% of losses

carguy_
11-04-2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao.

Heheh in the game is is quite impossible to acheive something like this and although I wouldn`t discount the legend mentione above cuz life brings weird things.It is too close to impossible to make me believe such a fairy tale though.
To perform a fight like this, those P51 should have been able to fly like La7 and have master pilots...or maybe all FW190 drivers suddenly ran out of fuel?

Yeah and .50cal penetrates Tiger armor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

geetarman
11-04-2005, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao. you know whats really bad about for the German pilots ? as they raced back how the concentrated AAA gunners in the area opened up on them flying low

they were slaughtered

more were shot down by their own AAA gunners than were lost in combat that day </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes - apparently many Germans, from all the Gruppes involved, were victims of friendly AAA

geetarman
11-04-2005, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao.

Heheh in the game is is quite impossible to acheive something like this and although I wouldn`t discount the legend mentione above cuz life brings weird things.It is too close to impossible to make me believe such a fairy tale though.
To perform a fight like this, those P51 should have been able to fly like La7 and have master pilots...or maybe all FW190 drivers suddenly ran out of fuel?

Yeah and .50cal penetrates Tiger armor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More American propoganda, I suppose.

TC_Stele
11-04-2005, 03:19 PM
P-51D is not meant for online dogfighting servers, pure and simple. All the fights take place at low or medium levels and the Stang just doesnt do well in that realm. Even in the full real operation servers the Stang can't perform at its peak at those altitudes. I think the maps are too small for it.

I think too many people are excluding too many factors and come to the conclusion that the mustang should be dominating at every level. The online gaming servers don't provide for it. Now if we had some long range 6+ hour escorting going on at high altitudes with the bombers then we'd probably see a different story. You're trying to put a whale in a pond and hoping that it'll survive. Now if you were to always put some of the other fighters in the Stang's high altitude, constant moving realm then it might not fair so well.

Your best shot is probably with the P-51B or Mustang III, but even then don't expect it to rule the online server skies.

p1ngu666
11-04-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao. you know whats really bad about this for the German pilots ? as they raced back home their own concentrated AAA in the area opened up on them flying low

they were slaughtered

more German fighters were shot down by their own AAA gunners than were lost in combat to the enemy that day , like 75% of losses </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

they lost a fair number on the way TO target from friendly AA. presumeably the gunners thought that any plane was allied and shot it, and there where alot of german planes, tho they often flew in large numbers (groups) at the end, kinda like in ww1. also highlights the issues the newbie pilots had, they may have been decent in combat, but they couldnt really navigate (they where guided in by ju88 nightfighters, who wherent that good themselves)

they couldnt fly on instruments either (but i cant either really)

the best at low level navigation is surely the mossie crews, acurate, and more impressivly dead on time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Xiolablu3
11-04-2005, 06:08 PM
Maybe it happened, but not in such simple terms.

Maybe the P51's got airbourne at the end of the attack and chased down the FW190's on their return trip, Ammo spent they could only avoid.

Maybe, like pingu said, the Fw190's lost a lot to other sources like AAA, not just the p51's

Maybe there were lots of other allied units int he area who DID loose some planes and this is focusing on one unit.

MAybe the Fw190's didnt attack p51s as there were bigger bombers/planes on the runway.

I'm just getting the point across that in such simple terms as 'the p51's got airbourne and shot down 23 FW190's which attacked them for no loss' I dont believe for a second.

Along with other factors, I may believe it, but not as its presented in this thread.

Badsight.
11-04-2005, 07:11 PM
the legend of Y-29 january 1st 1945 is well knowen & more importantly well documented

you & Carguy should READ THIS (http://352ndfg.com/Y-29/main.htm)

Operation Bodenplatte

11th Jagdgeschwader attacked the Asch airbase known as Y-29

they were halted by 12 Mustangs just ready for takeoff , 8 P-47s raced to help at the same time

Grey_Mouser67
11-04-2005, 09:24 PM
I find it rather annoying that there are folks that assume the P-51 was this or that because that is how it is modelled in the game.

The P-51 was a world beater above 20,000 ft and very good down low. It was a dominant fighter and yes it could turn, it was fast, it had marvelous E retention and in the real world, its guns were very effective....the B model Mustang did most of the damage to the Luftwaffe. It was a great plane in the real world and a below average plane in this sim riddled with good but not great E retention, poor stall characteristics, instability, sync'd guns, and relatively mediocre turn rates.

If you were flying for the Luftwaffe in 44, you would not want to meet a Mustang no matter what altitude! They got their reputation for a reason...it is because US pilots decimated the Luftwaffe in short order in early 44 during a time when there was plenty of fuel, aircraft and pilots...and they did it over Germany.

Bottom line is this sim does not reflect reality. The developer, Oleg, as much as I respect him for his game has done great injustice to many American aircraft in damage modelling, E and dive modelling, weapons and handling characteristics. Just because this game has the Mustang as a pig in mud doesn't mean it was that way in real life...it wasn't. They still fly around today...not hard to tell how one flies...

SpartanHoplite
11-04-2005, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I find it rather annoying that there are folks that assume the P-51 was this or that because that is how it is modelled in the game.


I agree. There does seem to be some reverse engineering of things going on around here.

I also don't put much credit to the line of argument that goes " the P-51 isn't designed for the small dogfight maps. It would be a different story if the map allowed for huge flight times / distances, and then the P-51 would shine ". How is that so? Regardless of how long the P-51 had to fly in escort, they were still fighting Bf-109s and Fw-190s, with relatively fresh pilots at that, over a relatively small area (probably no bigger than the smallest map).

P-51 might have some strengths as is, but in my non-expert opinion, just having the range to be able to show up over Berlin wouldn't have meant a lot if the P-51 was as unforgiving and one-dimensional as it is in the game currently - they'd have been chewed to pieces by the Luftwaffe.

SH

MLudner
11-04-2005, 09:48 PM
Badsight, you is wrong! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

(Finally I get to use that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

From: Bodenplatte by John Manrho and Ron Putz, page 273

Luftwaffe losses on 1 Jan 45
47% to ALLIED ADA
23% to Allied fighters
5% to GERMAN ADA
5% to Accidents
5% to either Allied ADA or Fighters (Exact cause unknown, but one or the other)
3% to Mechanical difficulties
1% to Running out of fuel
11% Unknown causes

Over Asch the Allied fighters downed more than ADA.

Their numbers are based on a ship by ship tally and eye witness accounts. Most of the Unknown causes were likely a mix of fighter attacks that were not seen by the LW pilots, or ADA hits, but they will stem from all causes, really; just no one saw what happened.

MLudner
11-04-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
After all, it was Lt Col John Meyer that shot down an Fw 190 while his gear was still retracting into the wheel wells on 1 Jan 45. He was leading the 487th FS on a New Year's morning patrol as three Gruppen of JG 11 jumped them on take off. From a take-off roll with full fuselage tanks, the 487th managed to get airborne and make claims for 23 of the German fighters without loss to themselves.


.

I dont beleive this one bit...Whatever sources you can bring up....It smells of BS.

Let me get this straight, a big flight of FW190's (must have been big if they lost 23) attacked an airfield of P51's as they were taking off and the Fw190's lost 23 planes to the mustangs none?

Lmao. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOU is real, really, really wrong!

The dogfight over Y-29 near Asch is a very well documented event. Sorry, Old Bean, but the USAAF claims match quite well to the German losses there whether you like it or not.

There were factors that led to that result. For one thing, by that stage of the war most LW pilots are incompletely trained, having less than half the flight training USAAF or RAF pilots go through before entering service. Next: The German pilots were on a ground attack mission; they were trying to destroy targets on the ground and that is what most of them were concentrating on .... as ordered. The LW pilots were also under radio silence. They had scattered during the attack as each pilot went after targets he saw on the ground, losing their unit cohesion in the process.
The P-51's, on the other hand, had only one thing on their minds:
Shoot down the ***holes attacking their home! They were working together, flying in their Elements and Flights, attacking Bf-109's and FW-190's going this way and that during strafing runs.

After I read Bodenplatte I became convinced the Luftwaffe completely misplanned the operation and misflew the operation. Only in ONE, single case did a LW formation consider the need for top cover and assign a Gruppe to climb and orbit overhead during the attack to protect the ships strafing the targeted base. ALL of the rest just went in willy-nilly, the survivors mostly just straggling back to their base or somewhere else in Germany.

Whether or not you believe, of course, is utterly irrelevant really. Reality is, whether you like it or not.

heywooood
11-04-2005, 11:00 PM
So I took it online and the server I happen to come across had some high altitude flying going on at about 2500m I decided I was going to kick some ****.


You were just too 'high' methinks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 02:03 AM
I also don't put much credit to the line of argument that goes " the P-51 isn't designed for the small dogfight maps. It would be a different story if the map allowed for huge flight times / distances, and then the P-51 would shine ". How is that so? Regardless of how long the P-51 had to fly in escort, they were still fighting Bf-109s and Fw-190s, with relatively fresh pilots at that, over a relatively small area (probably no bigger than the smallest map).

The P51 down low (online dogfight height) in a typical online dogfight situation (1 on 1 or 2 on 1) is going to be like a Fw190 with slightly lower acceleration and poorer armament. This was true in WW2 as well. The thing to do is not to get into a 1 on 1 TnB with either the 190 or P51.

The same aircraft can behave very differently in a low level dogfight room or a coop with coordinating players at high altitude doing something more akin to a historical mission. Basically online dogfight servers are fun but not at all realistic as WW2 fighters didn't fight that way very often. The unobserved bounce was the normal mode d'employment.

geetarman
11-05-2005, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe it happened, but not in such simple terms.

Maybe the P51's got airbourne at the end of the attack and chased down the FW190's on their return trip, Ammo spent they could only avoid.

Maybe, like pingu said, the Fw190's lost a lot to other sources like AAA, not just the p51's

Maybe there were lots of other allied units int he area who DID loose some planes and this is focusing on one unit.

MAybe the Fw190's didnt attack p51s as there were bigger bombers/planes on the runway.

I'm just getting the point across that in such simple terms as 'the p51's got airbourne and shot down 23 FW190's which attacked them for no loss' I dont believe for a second.

Along with other factors, I may believe it, but not as its presented in this thread.

Really odd. Your posts and carguy's have me scratching my head. You're of the opinion that what the Mustang pilots claim to have accomplished did not occur. You realise that this is a very well documented account, right?

P.S. I believe one or two Thunderbolts were shot down as they raced in to take on the Germans as they approached the field. The pilot(s) bailed and walked back to base. No Mustangs were lost, although some landed with damage.

luftluuver
11-05-2005, 07:53 AM
Meyer's victory was Gefr. Gerhard Bohm of 9./JG11 in his Fw190, White 3.

sgilewicz
11-05-2005, 10:29 AM
ViktorViktor,
Just to set the record straight, the 4th FG had the highest total of enemy planes destroyed in the 8th AF BUT the 56th FG had the highest number of air to air kills and a substantially lower loss rate. All while flying P47s (another plane that just doesn't seem to get the treatment it deserves http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

horseback
11-05-2005, 11:36 AM
Actually, the USAAF's ETO air to air champ is the 9th AF's 354th FG, the Pioneer Mustang group, with 701 air to air victories scored from its first combat sorties on December 1, 1943 through VE Day (about 6 months after the 56th FG's combat debut, and the 4th's' two year headstart, including their RAF 'Eagle Squadron' time). This in spite of an extended stint in late '44 exclusively doing ground support missions in P-47s.

I agree with the earlier post about the Mustang as modelled in game having some serious flaws; as an Air Force brat in the 1950s & '60s, I saw Bob Hoover and other WWII veterans doing marvellous things at (obviously) low altitudes, a couple of times in company with Spitfires of varied Marks.

I also was fortunate enough to get a ride in the back seat of a D model (being the son of the tower crew's chief can have its advantages) with its fuselage tank removed, and I can testify that it didn't seem to 'bounce' or 'wobble', even when barely scraping over the sahuaro cactus southeast of Tucson at 300+ mph (you should have seen the roostertail of dust behind us). Say what you will about 'modified' aircraft, I doubt that replacing a fuel tank with a 120 lb teenager and the inclusion of more modern avionics could have significant effect on a high performance plane's flight charactoristics...

From what the pilots said (and remember, Hoover was shot down while flying a Spit), they felt that there wasn't much to choose between the Spit and the Mustang in a dogfight, although the Mustang's firepower and firing time ("you got a lot more shots," one veteran told me) were big points in its favor. Obviously, they thought that your aircraft would dictate your choice of tactics to a degree, but that the Mustang's strengths allowed its pilot more options, including the ability to break off combat and run for home much more easily.

It seems to me that the 109 and 190 might have similar problems, particularly when their pilots were much less skilled...

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
11-05-2005, 12:10 PM
yeah the entire operation showed how far the lw had dropped

Grey_Mouser67
11-05-2005, 12:37 PM
During Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe couldn't fly top cover because their whole plan was one of suprise, hoping to catch the US aircraft off guard and asleep from a New Years Eve hangover. Any high altitude flights would have been picked up and allied aircraft were in place in superior numbers.

It is convenient for people to use the excuse that the Luftwaffe had green pilots as a way of protecting their own reality about the aircraft's performance....reality is that the Luftwaffe DID have green pilots so maybe we'll never really know, but this does not plow the way for the inclusion of aircraft designed to mythical standards.

In fact, Oleg has probably done his most optimistic modelling with the wonder aircraft that never flew much like the Mig 3U, I-185, Bf-109Z etc...

The other reality is that the Luftwaffe stopped being a dominant force in 1940, despite flying and fighting over its home territory. There was a moment in 1942 when things were looking up and they did do extremely well over the Eastern front till late 43 but it was downhill from there and really, really quickly.

The Mustang should be a pilots plane...smooth, easy to control, nimble, fast, powerful, and yes those HMG's should be feared...nobody should be talking about them as being poorly armed....real pilots didn't! In terms of modelling, the plane should turn a bit better, but much more stall resistant, require lots of trim input and have good control dampening like the Fw to make it a steady aircraft. It should be faster than just about everything it is fighting at all altitudes and hold E much longer than any of its opponents. It should have a much smaller speed penalty with its radiator open and dive better in terms of acceleration and decelaration. On servers featuring pilots of similar skill, it aught to have one of the best kill ratio's as its performance is good in all categories and great in a handful of the most important!

Xiolablu3
11-05-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe it happened, but not in such simple terms.

Maybe the P51's got airbourne at the end of the attack and chased down the FW190's on their return trip, Ammo spent they could only avoid.

Maybe, like pingu said, the Fw190's lost a lot to other sources like AAA, not just the p51's

Maybe there were lots of other allied units int he area who DID loose some planes and this is focusing on one unit.

MAybe the Fw190's didnt attack p51s as there were bigger bombers/planes on the runway.

I'm just getting the point across that in such simple terms as 'the p51's got airbourne and shot down 23 FW190's which attacked them for no loss' I dont believe for a second.

Along with other factors, I may believe it, but not as its presented in this thread.

Really odd. Your posts and carguy's have me scratching my head. You're of the opinion that what the Mustang pilots claim to have accomplished did not occur. You realise that this is a very well documented account, right?

P.S. I believe one or two Thunderbolts were shot down as they raced in to take on the Germans as they approached the field. The pilot(s) bailed and walked back to base. No Mustangs were lost, although some landed with damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its easy really, don't believe it happened in such simple terms.

If a large number of any plane attacked a number of other planes as they were taking off, I cant see how the attacking planes (whether they be FW190's, I16s, Yaks whatever) could miss every single p51 and then proceed to get shot down in large numbers, and score no kills.

Are you saying that the FW190's were specifically attacking the p51's as they took off? If so, they must have been the worst pilots in the history of mankind.

We have just heard about some p47's which were there too, what else was around?

MLudner
11-05-2005, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
During Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe couldn't fly top cover because their whole plan was one of suprise, hoping to catch the US aircraft off guard and asleep from a New Years Eve hangover. Any high altitude flights would have been picked up and allied aircraft were in place in superior numbers.

It is convenient for people to use the excuse that the Luftwaffe had green pilots as a way of protecting their own reality about the aircraft's performance....reality is that the Luftwaffe DID have green pilots so maybe we'll never really know, but this does not plow the way for the inclusion of aircraft designed to mythical standards.

In fact, Oleg has probably done his most optimistic modelling with the wonder aircraft that never flew much like the Mig 3U, I-185, Bf-109Z etc...

The other reality is that the Luftwaffe stopped being a dominant force in 1940, despite flying and fighting over its home territory. There was a moment in 1942 when things were looking up and they did do extremely well over the Eastern front till late 43 but it was downhill from there and really, really quickly.

The Mustang should be a pilots plane...smooth, easy to control, nimble, fast, powerful, and yes those HMG's should be feared...nobody should be talking about them as being poorly armed....real pilots didn't! In terms of modelling, the plane should turn a bit better, but much more stall resistant, require lots of trim input and have good control dampening like the Fw to make it a steady aircraft. It should be faster than just about everything it is fighting at all altitudes and hold E much longer than any of its opponents. It should have a much smaller speed penalty with its radiator open and dive better in terms of acceleration and decelaration. On servers featuring pilots of similar skill, it aught to have one of the best kill ratio's as its performance is good in all categories and great in a handful of the most important!


Uh, (Still need a head-scratching icon, but barring that - http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The inexperience and lack of training of Late War Luftwaffe pilots is anything but a convenient excuse; it's reality, and it seriously hampered their operations as the war was ending. Bodenplatte was rife with examples of it.
Amusingly though, even with the lack of training a LW pilot in 1944 - 45 was still getting more than twice the flight instruction of VVS pilots, and something around 3 times the training of Japanese pilots in the time frame.
Your statements about the Eastern Front are flawed. On the Eastern Front the LW was simply overwhelmed: ALL the way to the very end of the war they out-performed the VVS in air-to-air combat on average (There are exceptions, a VVS Guards Regiment is pretty much as good as anybody and better than many). The problem was the Luftwaffe was overstretched and overwhelmed: It was literally fighting a war on 4 fronts (EF / MTO / NW Europe / Reich's Defense) against 4 different airforces (VVS / USAAF / RAF / RCAF), only two of which it could have matched numerically on its own one on one (RAF & RCAF). On the EF wherever the LW met the VVS it almost entirely went the Luftwaffe's way ... but it was like trying to stop Niagra Falls by tossing a handful of pebbles into the river above:
Good luck.

They were trying for surprise. That does not mean you can't have assets assigned to top cover. The Jagdgeschwader that did it had the gruppe assigned that mission fly on the deck with everyone else until they arrived at the objective. The gruppe assigned that mission then climbed to 1,500 meters and orbited over head. Amusingly, it was one of the places where it was not needed as no allied fighters arrived to intercept the raid. That would have been useful over Asch, but JG11 did not think of it (Inexperience on the part of JG11's leaders, the JG that did was a unit that had more experienced leadership in its ranks and THEY thought of it and knew it might be needed).

Had I planned that op no Bf-109's or FW-190D9's would have been assigned ground attack missions. I would have assigned those missions to Ju-88's, He-111's and other medium and light bombers, and FW-190A series units. The 109's and Doras would have flown on the deck with their charges until reaching the objective, then climbed to 1,500 meters and covered the strike aircraft. They then would have returned to the deck to escort them back. One of the problems with the raid was that all attacks were STRAFING runs, no bombs or rockets were employed (Except for one FW190A unit, which had some rockets). This limited the damage they did (Yes, I know Eindhoven got plastered), left the runways intact (One of the first things that should have happened was that aircraft assigned the role should have cratered the runways as severely as possible to keep alert flights on the ground and hamper any attempt at pursuit from the base as well as all flight ops in the immediate future). Strafing attacks are not as destructive as bombing and rocketing attacks. Basically, while there was much damage it was insufficient and could have been far worse.

I am basing the above on attack operation doctrine I developed as a teenager for my own fictional AEROPA (The acronym for my airforce) in a nation running game my friends and I were playing. For example: On the first day of WWIII the AEROPA launched a sudden predawn raid against all of the opposing airforces. The raids flew in on the deck. Interceptors (EX series aircraft designed to fly high and fast whose primary role was air superiority) were assigned to escort each raid and flew in squadron formations on the flanks and rear of the strike aircraft (IN series ships, designed for reliabilty, firepower and payload) on the deck. Upon arrival at the objective the EX-XIIB's climbed and orbited the raid. Below, the first flights of IN-XIVD's & E's to attack were the flights assigned to runway cratering and they cratered the runways and taxiways in the first wave, the next wave was ADA supression, then the main attack began as all flights then bombed everything in sight there after. With bombs and rockets expended they then strafed anything else they could find until they ran out of targets or ammo, whichever came first. One opposing airforce saw it coming and had aircraft in the air when the raids arrived. This led to much air-to-air combat over their bases, but my losses were low because the EX-XII's on escort succeeded in staving off the opposing fighters.
I was 16 when that war was played out.

I would disagree that German aircraft in the game are over-modelled (Except when AI are flying them), but I am - at least now - inclined to agree that the Mustang is under-modelled (At least when humans are flying them). I am trying to assemble proof right now.

Badsight.
11-05-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
READ THIS (http://352ndfg.com/Y-29/main.htm)

Operation Bodenplatte yes easy to make it sound like a total A-kicking , but the numbers are real

of course the situation wouldnt have been as simple as it can be explained , damm lucky the T-Bolts were in the area . to me that right there shows how confusion is so effective

MLudner
11-05-2005, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe it happened, but not in such simple terms.

Maybe the P51's got airbourne at the end of the attack and chased down the FW190's on their return trip, Ammo spent they could only avoid.

_______________________________________________
The Mustangs were taking off as the attack began.
_______________________________________________

Maybe, like pingu said, the Fw190's lost a lot to other sources like AAA, not just the p51's

_______________________________________________
They did, but over Asch their losses were mostly to the P-51's and P-47's.
_______________________________________________


Maybe there were lots of other allied units int he area who DID loose some planes and this is focusing on one unit.
_______________________________________________
Some allied fighters were lost in air-to-air combat, but not at Asch. Heinz Bar, exempli gratia, flying a FW-190D9 with JG26 shot down 2 Tempests or Typhoons (One or the other). Several other German pilots made claims, and their claims mostly match-up well with Allied losses.
_______________________________________________


MAybe the Fw190's didnt attack p51s as there were bigger bombers/planes on the runway.

_______________________________________________
That was a big part of what happened, Read my response to you previous...
_______________________________________________

I'm just getting the point across that in such simple terms as 'the p51's got airbourne and shot down 23 FW190's which attacked them for no loss' I dont believe for a second.

_______________________________________________
Sober-up.
_______________________________________________

Along with other factors, I may believe it, but not as its presented in this thread.


Its easy really, don't believe it happened in such simple terms.

If a large number of any plane attacked a number of other planes as they were taking off, I cant see how the attacking planes (whether they be FW190's, I16s, Yaks whatever) could miss every single p51 and then proceed to get shot down in large numbers, and score no kills.

Are you saying that the FW190's were specifically attacking the p51's as they took off? If so, they must have been the worst pilots in the history of mankind.

________________________________________________
No, he wasn't. In fact, they were not. The Mustangs, on the other hand, were attacking as they took off. One 190 was shot down as it passed across the nose of the P-51 Squadron's CO as he was taking off; his gear and flaps were STILL retracting when he downed the luckless 190. AND, the Luftwaffe pilots - on average - were the THIRD worst in the world at this stage of the war.
________________________________________________

We have just heard about some p47's which were there too, what else was around? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

________________________________________________
The P-51's that were taking off as the raid began.
________________________________________________

horseback
11-05-2005, 03:14 PM
The 'Blue-Noses' were a crack unit. Meyer and the recently lost (at that time) George Preddy were hardly the only aces the unit produced, and they had set a high standard for the whole group.

The P-47s were circling over the base in preparation for ground attack missions, and the first Mustangs (not fully loaded with fuel for an escort, but set up for a morning CAP, just in case of an attack. In all likelihood, their fuselage tanks were empty, and their wing tanks may not have been completely full, regardless of the website account--Meyers was a future 4 star general, commanding the entire USAF in the 1970s. He was never accused of being stupid, nor of tolerating it from those under his command), when the flak bursts fired at the approaching German force from JG 11 were sighted over a neighboring field. The P-47s went to investigate, and upon seeing the German formation, (they stifled their squeals of delight and) dropped their tanks and bombs to engage the unsuspecting FWs and 109s.

This spoiling attack threw the inexperienced Germans into confusion. JG 11 was primarily a bomber interceptor unit, and unaccustomed to low level operations, especially in such large formations at this point in the war. In any case, when the first German a/c arrived over the airfield, the first Mustangs were taking off, a wholly unexpected event.

Coming in at around 500m, the Germans were not able to spot the planes on the flight line in time to line up for an attack on them; their plan had been to catch the American aircraft in their revetments and dispersal areas around the airfield. Therefore, the two forces bypassed each other quickly, and the Americans, forewarned by the P-47s, were better prepared for the headon pass with their distracted opponents, whose attention was split between looking for ground targets on the field's edges and keeping an eye out for the P-47s to come back around on them.

It was very much a situation where everything that could go wrong did go wrong for the Germans. They were thoroughly outmatched. In the military, there is hardly a worse tactical situation than having your surprise attack surprised in front of lots of spectators. There were literally hundreds of witnesses on the ground, and the loss figures for the German units involved closely match the American claims.

What Xiolablu3 believes or not has no effect on the truth. It's apparent that some people are a little too deeply invested in the game's flight models rather than investigating things for themselves, particularly when there is no disagreement about numbers, dates and times, and they paint a very different picture of how things went...

cheers

horseback

MLudner
11-05-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The 'Blue-Noses' were a crack unit. Meyer and the recently lost (at that time) George Preddy were hardly the only aces the unit produced, and they had set a high standard for the whole group.

The P-47s were circling over the base in preparation for ground attack missions, and the first Mustangs (not fully loaded with fuel for an escort, but set up for a morning CAP, just in case of an attack. In all likelihood, their fuselage tanks were empty, and their wing tanks may not have been completely full, regardless of the website account--Meyers was a future 4 star general, commanding the entire USAF in the 1970s. He was never accused of being stupid, nor of tolerating it from those under his command), when the flak bursts fired at the approaching German force from JG 11 were sighted over a neighboring field. The P-47s went to investigate, and upon seeing the German formation, (they stifled their squeals of delight and) dropped their tanks and bombs to engage the unsuspecting FWs and 109s.

This spoiling attack threw the inexperienced Germans into confusion. JG 11 was primarily a bomber interceptor unit, and unaccustomed to low level operations, especially in such large formations at this point in the war. In any case, when the first German a/c arrived over the airfield, the first Mustangs were taking off, a wholly unexpected event.

Coming in at around 500m, the Germans were not able to spot the planes on the flight line in time to line up for an attack on them; their plan had been to catch the American aircraft in their revetments and dispersal areas around the airfield. Therefore, the two forces bypassed each other quickly, and the Americans, forewarned by the P-47s, were better prepared for the headon pass with their distracted opponents, whose attention was split between looking for ground targets on the field's edges and keeping an eye out for the P-47s to come back around on them.

It was very much a situation where everything that could go wrong did go wrong for the Germans. They were thoroughly outmatched. In the military, there is hardly a worse tactical situation than having your surprise attack surprised in front of lots of spectators. There were literally hundreds of witnesses on the ground, and the loss figures for the German units involved closely match the American claims.

What Xiolablu3 believes or not has no effect on the truth. It's apparent that some people are a little too deeply invested in the game's flight models rather than investigating things for themselves, particularly when there is no disagreement about numbers, dates and times, and they paint a very different picture of how things went...

cheers

horseback

Excellent extrapolation on what everyone else has been trying to tell him.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

SpartanHoplite
11-05-2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also don't put much credit to the line of argument that goes " the P-51 isn't designed for the small dogfight maps. It would be a different story if the map allowed for huge flight times / distances, and then the P-51 would shine ". How is that so? Regardless of how long the P-51 had to fly in escort, they were still fighting Bf-109s and Fw-190s, with relatively fresh pilots at that, over a relatively small area (probably no bigger than the smallest map).

The P51 down low (online dogfight height) in a typical online dogfight situation (1 on 1 or 2 on 1) is going to be like a Fw190 with slightly lower acceleration and poorer armament. This was true in WW2 as well. The thing to do is not to get into a 1 on 1 TnB with either the 190 or P51.

The same aircraft can behave very differently in a low level dogfight room or a coop with coordinating players at high altitude doing something more akin to a historical mission. Basically online dogfight servers are fun but not at all realistic as WW2 fighters didn't fight that way very often. The unobserved bounce was the normal mode d'employment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm certainly no expert on the P-51. But Bud Anderson (in what I'm sure is an oft quoted section of his book, "To Fly and Fight, Memoirs of a Triple Ace") said:

"[The Mustang] was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like Hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low, thanks to a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to pursue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime. It was crucial to keep it it trim but, as we gained experience with the plane, that became automatic. We sensed it was special, even before we measured it against what the enemy pilots were flying."

I definitely wouldn't describe this patch's Mustang as "forgiving", or able to turn on a dime (at any altitude). Other pilots who flew it seem to be similarly glowing in their praise, as well.

Of course, pilot's account mean nothing, since we all know not one WW2 pilot was capable of objectivity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SH

Aaron_GT
11-05-2005, 04:55 PM
and it could turn on a dime.

Most of what Anderson said is pretty much what I said too, or things not relevant to low level dogfight rooms (such as large fuel capacity).

The AFDU rated the likes of the Spitfire well ahead of the P51 in turning ability in a dogfight, but even then that is an approximate measure. At high speeds and high altitudes the P51 has a good turn relative to the opposition. It also has a pretty good instantaneous turn (in the sim too) for 1/8th to 1/4 of a turn - the sort of turn you need to hang on to a target before disengaging to conserve energy. What the P51 wasn't good at in real life, or in the sim, is low speed, low level, sustained turns which online dogfights can often degenerate into. Pilots shouldn't expect the P51 to do well in that sort of dogfight. It is not a form of dogfighting that tended to be used at the end of WW2 and it doesn't play to the strengths of the P51. If you are fighting 190s then you will be on even terms as the 190 doesn't turn well like that either. The 109 may well outpace a P51 in a slow turn, and on servers with a wider plane choice it isn't prudent to try and turn with a Yak or a Spitfire.

Stanger_361st
11-05-2005, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and it could turn on a dime.

Most of what Anderson said is pretty much what I said too, or things not relevant to low level dogfight rooms (such as large fuel capacity).

The AFDU rated the likes of the Spitfire well ahead of the P51 in turning ability in a dogfight, but even then that is an approximate measure. At high speeds and high altitudes the P51 has a good turn relative to the opposition. It also has a pretty good instantaneous turn (in the sim too) for 1/8th to 1/4 of a turn - the sort of turn you need to hang on to a target before disengaging to conserve energy. What the P51 wasn't good at in real life, or in the sim, is low speed, low level, sustained turns which online dogfights can often degenerate into. Pilots shouldn't expect the P51 to do well in that sort of dogfight. It is not a form of dogfighting that tended to be used at the end of WW2 and it doesn't play to the strengths of the P51. If you are fighting 190s then you will be on even terms as the 190 doesn't turn well like that either. The 109 may well outpace a P51 in a slow turn, and on servers with a wider plane choice it isn't prudent to try and turn with a Yak or a Spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mustang Lover that I am. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

ImpStarDuece
11-05-2005, 06:36 PM
There was a saying in the ETO:

"The Mustang won't do what the Spitfire will, but it will do it over Berlin"

The fundamental trade-off here is dogfight performance for range and speed. The Mustang was bigger, heavier and had a smaller wing area than the Spitfire, with the same powerplant. But it could also travel further on less gasoline, fly and cruise faster on the same power and dive and roll better.

I find it hard to believe that people think the plane is badly done by in the game. When you look at the fundamental characteristics of the design; size, drag profile, wing types, engine performance its no stretch to see that the Mustang is going to have problems dealing with fighters with much better powerloading, far lower wingloading and similar horsepower.


90% of all the fights that occur in this game, whether online or not, don't approach the situations that the Mustang fought in during WW2. There is little or no teamwork, almost as little anticipation of squadmates moves, no command and control structures and no real effort of players to fight as a unit. Perhaps its important to remember that, like the 190, the Mustang performs best as a team player. The USAAF produced perhaps the finest group of teams to take to the sky, something that bears no relation to how we operate this game.

You dont have the organisational frame work, command structure or proper team tactics that real pilots used.

VW-IceFire
11-05-2005, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Maybe it happened, but not in such simple terms.

Maybe the P51's got airbourne at the end of the attack and chased down the FW190's on their return trip, Ammo spent they could only avoid.

Maybe, like pingu said, the Fw190's lost a lot to other sources like AAA, not just the p51's

Maybe there were lots of other allied units int he area who DID loose some planes and this is focusing on one unit.

MAybe the Fw190's didnt attack p51s as there were bigger bombers/planes on the runway.

I'm just getting the point across that in such simple terms as 'the p51's got airbourne and shot down 23 FW190's which attacked them for no loss' I dont believe for a second.

Along with other factors, I may believe it, but not as its presented in this thread.
I think you should go back to my post on the previous page. I've posted the story as it has been told and historically confirmed.

That day the Luftwaffe lost plenty of aircraft to their own AAA, some to Allied AA, and some to allied fighters. At Y-29, the USAAF pilots got lucky. The P-47s heading out for the morning tank busting patrol saw the AAA open up against the German planes, saw the planes, dropped their bombs and drove straight into the attack. This gave enough time for the Mustangs to get rolling for takeoff.

One of the Mustang pilots was lucky enough that a FW190 was right in his sights so he opened fire, having forgotten or not had enough time to even raise his undercarriage. The FW190 was hit and crashed.

Allied losses were incredibly light and the Luftwaffe attack in this area was a failure. Although Boddenplatte was slightly more of a sucess elsewhere (such as against the Eindhoven Typhoon wing which was hit badly) it was ultimately bad for the Luftwaffe in the end due to the losses of equipment and experienced pilots.

I believe it was Galland that thought it was a useless squandering of resources as he had hoped to confront the Allied bomber stream with the aircraft used for Boddenplatte and cause so many losses as to disrupt or force the USAAF to abandon deep penetration strikes in Germany.

But all of this...including what happened at Y-29 has little to do with performance specifications of the P-51.

I think the P-51 was best when it first arrived on the scene in patch 1.21 and 1.22. Its steadily lost some of its best attributes. Although its a good plane, I feel it somewhat lacking. It has to be flown with exacting care...

Badsight.
11-05-2005, 07:17 PM
we got ponys with AEP

in the AEP beta i got just over 700 indicated at 7K

IAS

SpartanHoplite
11-05-2005, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and it could turn on a dime.

Most of what Anderson said is pretty much what I said too, or things not relevant to low level dogfight rooms (such as large fuel capacity). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay. Well, anyway, I for one don't have strong opinions about the Mustang's in-game turning ability, climb rates, dive rates, DM, 50 cals, or whatever. I just think it is far from "forgiving" - it is probably one of the most demanding planes in the game.

For me, it doesn't need to outperform any particular plane - it just seems to stall, spin and get away from pilots very easily, and probably easier than any other plane. Anyway, whatever. As I've said, I'm no expert - just going on what I've read, so I'm taking everyone's comments into consideration. It just doesn't seem to vibe with what I've read.

SH

p1ngu666
11-05-2005, 11:25 PM
its all about the handling, and transiant performance imo...
i bet the p38 doesnt perform much different to when it was dire, but it HANDLES SO SO much better, i love flying it now, before it was only a matter of time before it bit u, and boy it bit hard.

now the p51 is like that...

its not just the p51 tho, alot of planes are edgy or really difficult now, some spits, some yaks, in a a6 i scissored and got slow with a yak9T, and ud think the yak would have pwned me, but nope, he struggled alot.

there a few uber red rides, like la series, little torque, really hard to stall too, i out turned some guy in a zero with combat flaps in a 5fn..

friend told me to use flaps in a spit, which is franky rediculous when all your trying todo is outturn a 190...

p1ngu666
11-05-2005, 11:34 PM
oh i didnt know they didnt have bombs, guess its kinda like aces of teh warclouds attack!

and there wasnt many bomber aircraft left in lw, or crews, they had be cut down just like every other bomber forces, just not replaced, actully they where often transfered to fighter/fighter bombers

Aaron_GT
11-06-2005, 04:41 AM
I just think it is far from "forgiving" - it is probably one of the most demanding planes in the game.

The USN comments from various pilots on the P51 don't seem to have suggested it was quite as forgiving as Anderson did, and the comments on the Spitfire suggest the Spitfire was especially forgiving.

For me in the game the P51 low speed handling lies between the Spitfire and the 190 (I find the 190 basically impossible to fight with). You can't pull the sort of turns in the P51 safely that you can in the Spitfire, but you risk some really nasty departure in the 190 doing the same thing.

At high speed, especially in a dive, the P51 feels a lot safer than a Spitfire. Trying to swoop in from high altitude in a Spitfire to BnZ is a hairy experience, the joystick starts shaking, and so on. And then when you level out you can't retain anything near the energy you can doing the same in the P51. The P51 excells at high speed controllability compared to the Spitfire.

lrrp22
11-07-2005, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
There was a saying in the ETO:

"The Mustang won't do what the Spitfire will, but it will do it over Berlin"



ImpStar,

Actually, that's a latter-day mis-quote of Chuck Yeager who said that (I'm paraphrasing) the Mustang could do anything the Spitfire could do, but it could do it for 7 hours. Obviously that's a gross generalization, but it reinforces the fact that the Mustang was every bit as deadly as other fighters in the ETO. Power to weight isn't everything. For instance, the late 109's excellent power to weight ratio didn't help it much at high speeds due to limits of the airframe. It was a fighter that could reach high speeds, but it wasn't a high speed fighter.

And BTW, the Spitfire was the only late-war aircraft in the ETO that had substantially better wing-loading than the P-51. In fact, the Mustang's wingloading is above average compared to late 109's, 190's, P-47's, Tempests, Typhoons, etc. Lift loading appears to be right on track, as well- and don't forget the Mustang's excellent combat flaps- they deployed quickly and easily and could be used at virtually any speed.

Yeager is also frequently (mis)quoted as saying the the D-9 was the best prop fighter he flew. What he said is that it was the best German prop fighter of the war.

lrrp22
11-07-2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

The P-47s were circling over the base in preparation for ground attack missions, and the first Mustangs (not fully loaded with fuel for an escort, but set up for a morning CAP, just in case of an attack. In all likelihood, their fuselage tanks were empty, and their wing tanks may not have been completely full, regardless of the website account...


There is no reason to dismiss the references to full fuselage tanks. Even if the fuselage tanks likely weren't filled to the entire 85 gallon capacity, you can be sure the wing tanks were full. Fighting with fuel in the fuselage tank was difficult, but not impossible if you knew what to expect. Like you said, the 487th may have been the most experienced fighter squadron in the USAAF at that point.


Another thing to consider is that the 352nd was restricted to 67" Hg WEP due to the unavailability of 150 grade fuel to USAAF units on the Continent. Basically, those Mustangs were in what could only be considered the heaviest, lowest-powered configuration possible at that point of the war. Imagine what the 487th could have done with some lightly loaded Mustang III's at +25 lbs boost! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Again, despite what many here would like to believe, the Mustang was a very competent dogfighter- especially against late-war Luftwaffe fightes. Granted, it was no Spit IX when it comes to turn and climb, but no one claims the Spit IX was a poor dogfighter because it couldn't turn with the Zero at low speeds.

tomtheyak
11-07-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The only thing going against it is its ugly.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

You haven't seen Jim Beesly and Ed Shipley's Mustang Duo - they flew an incredible formation display at this ears Flying Legends...

http://www.airshows.org.uk/2005/airshows/legends/photographs/mustangs_tt_pe_1.jpg

Just awesome! And two GORGEOUS fillies too...

Anyway carry on...

Sharpe26
11-07-2005, 02:38 PM
btw, I recall reading something about one P51 being modified for carrier trials, and doing well again.

Oleg... (one can dream http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

one other thing though. I flew for the Fuhrer by Heinz Knoke is a well read book in this community. There's a story in there about how his gruppe bounced (yes you read it correctly) a squadron of Mustangs.

Knoke's group got nearly all of them for no loss. (IIRC though) I just goes to show you that a battle isn't as onesided as you think.

Grey_Mouser67
11-07-2005, 05:01 PM
There is really no one battle that should be wholly conclusive or indicative of how things were...there is just so much to the tactical situation that we'll just never know.

I think that Mustang pilots were not afraid to go a full circle with 109's and Fw's...few did more than that because they would probably die trying...not because they couldn't. I think the Mustang's more subjective characteristics are poorly modelled...the plane should be more stable, bleed E slower etc etc etc....either Oleg does not believe this or he just doesn't want to expend the energy or start another fight....I believe that the later two things drive more of his decisions that the previous one unfortunately.

horseback
11-07-2005, 05:25 PM
I read that episode from Knoke's book, and I seem to recall that he said that for once, they were able to get above, behind, undetected and upsun of the hated Mustangs in broken cloud cover.

This was an exceptional occasion, allowing Knoke's Staffel to make a perfect bounce on a bunch of complacent Yanks (the squadron in question was very green-less than 5 missions under their belts, as evidenced by the fact that they were stooging around in enemy airspace in one big eyecatching formation). I believe that they lost 8 or 10 of the 12 aircraft in the formation.

Squadron-sized bounces were rare, and strictly a matter of circumstance(ie, the other guy being real stupid combined with you being real lucky), not superior aircraft performance.

cheers

horseback

Bearcat99
11-07-2005, 06:17 PM
"I Flew for the Furher".. a very good read.

Slickun
11-07-2005, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by sgilewicz:
ViktorViktor,
Just to set the record straight, the 4th FG had the highest total of enemy planes destroyed in the 8th AF BUT the 56th FG had the highest number of air to air kills and a substantially lower loss rate. All while flying P47s (another plane that just doesn't seem to get the treatment it deserves http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

But a 9th AF FG had more air to air than the 56th. They flew Mustangs.

Sharpe26
11-08-2005, 08:18 AM
now now fellas no fussing about who got the most air to air kills.

I do know the 56th stands out for one thing. It flew the P47 for the entire length of the war.

Interesting character in the 56th at the time however is 'hub'Zemke. During a leave in the US he got to fly the Mustang. Impressed with its performance he wondered if it was going to be selected for the 56th. when it wasn't he transferred to another FG that WAS going to get the P51.

Slickun
11-08-2005, 08:28 AM
Zemke commanded FG's in the ETO that flew the P-47, P-51 and P-38.

I'll let someone else tell you what he said about each.

The 56th was a wonderful, unique, amazing organization.

sgilewicz
11-08-2005, 11:28 AM
Slickun,
Didn't know that a 9th AF group had the most A2A kills but I guess that makes sense as they were forward deployed. I thought that the 9th FGs transitioned to P47s since their primary function was ground support with P51s going to the 8th AF for the escort role. Was this across the entire 9th or were there still some FGs using P51s?

luftluuver
11-08-2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Slickun,
Didn't know that a 9th AF group had the most A2A kills but I guess that makes sense as they were forward deployed. I thought that the 9th FGs transitioned to P47s since their primary function was ground support with P51s going to the 8th AF for the escort role. Was this across the entire 9th or were there still some FGs using P51s?

The 354th FG (353rd, 355th, 356th FS) and the 363rd FG (380, 381, 382 FS) of the 9th AF flew P-51s. These units were part of XIX Tactical Air Command. Bases were Greenham Common, Boxted, Lashenden, Keevil, Rivenhall and Staplehurst.

One reference I have lists the 354th with 637 air kills.

lrrp22
11-08-2005, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Slickun,
Didn't know that a 9th AF group had the most A2A kills but I guess that makes sense as they were forward deployed. I thought that the 9th FGs transitioned to P47s since their primary function was ground support with P51s going to the 8th AF for the escort role. Was this across the entire 9th or were there still some FGs using P51s?


The 354th FG did led all USAAF ETO/MTO groups in air-to-air kills with 701 awarded, which is I think the official figure. The 354th transitioned to P-47's during November '44 but had their Mustangs returned during February '45.

The 363rd FG was converted to a Tactical Reconnaissance Group in September '44. The 10th and 69th TRG's were also assigned to 9th AAF, both of which flew a large number of F-6 Mustangs.

The 370th FG also flew Mustangs for the 9th AAF from March '45 to EOW.

Sharpe26
11-08-2005, 02:15 PM
The 354 th was the first Mustang group in the ETO hence the nick Pioneer Mustangs. when the powers that be in the 8th airforce realized its potential, they got seconded for escort duties. Oh and Donald blakeslee showed them around Europe for a little while.

There's at least one CMOH winner in the group also. A lieutenant Colonel by the name of Eagleston got that medal for protecting a combat box from 30 Luftwaffe aircraft. The bomber crews swore he got six. He got confirmation for three.

sgilewicz
11-08-2005, 02:19 PM
Irrp22, good stuff but why did the 354th and other groups in the 9th use the P51 if their primary task was mudmoving? Were they "high cover" groups for protecting the jugs? I'll never argue that the P51 was easier to use in A2A than the jug but for mudmoving it was not only less able, it was just a lot more dangerous to fly with everyone and their mothers shooting at you! Seems a curious choice of plane for the task, assuming they were using it for CAS and interdiction missions.

Sharpe26
11-08-2005, 02:43 PM
Sgilewicz,

Fighters of the Mighty Eight states the following:

Oddly enough when the first Mustangs reached England during the fall of 1943 they were not issued to the 8th airforce but went instead to the 354th FG of the 9th airforce. Naturally the 8th airforce cried foul and protested this decision vehemently but to no avail.

The apparent reason for this decision was that the original Mustang P51A had been used by RAf and the USAAF as a tactical aircraft and Army Airforce planners could not be persuaded to change the mission to escort duty.

I think you'll want to look up stuff like the Mustang Mk1 (p51A) and maybe even the A36 (invader?) to get an idea of the Mustang as a tactical aircraft.

lrrp22
11-08-2005, 02:56 PM
sgilewicz,

While the 354th remained very much a tactical FG during 1945, I think it focused more on fighter sweeps and high cover-type missions than other groups in the 9th AAF. The 354th scored aerial victories at a relatively high rate well into 1945 which seems to support this.

I do think that a tactical air superioty focus had something to do with the re-introduction of Mustangs, but I think the 354th's status as the "Pioneer Mustang" group carried a lot of weight in that decision, too. This has got me interested, I'm going to have to dig a bit deeper.


Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Irrp22, good stuff but why did the 354th and other groups in the 9th use the P51 if their primary task was mudmoving? Were they "high cover" groups for protecting the jugs? I'll never argue that the P51 was easier to use in A2A than the jug but for mudmoving it was not only less able, it was just a lot more dangerous to fly with everyone and their mothers shooting at you! Seems a curious choice of plane for the task, assuming they were using it for CAS and interdiction missions.

horseback
11-08-2005, 04:01 PM
Re: the CMH winner in the 354th FG.

Eagleston was one of the high scorers, but he was not the CMH winner. The CMH was awarded to former Flying Tiger Maj. James Howard, who brought his 6 CBI kills and combat experience with him as one of the group's early squadron COs. In January of 1944, he fought off a Zerstorer staffel single-handedly for over twenty minutes, getting 5 kills in the process, and protecting a B-17 formation from decimation.

He was the only USAAF fighter pilot in the ETO to be awarded the CMH.

cheers

horseback

tomtheyak
11-08-2005, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Re: the CMH winner in the 354th FG.

The CMH was awarded to former Flying Tiger Maj. James Howard, who brought his 6 CBI kills and combat experience with him as one of the group's early squadron COs. In January of 1944, he fought off a Zerstorer staffel single-handedly for over twenty minutes, getting 5 kills in the process, and protecting a B-17 formation from decimation.

He was the only USAAF fighter pilot in the ETO to be awarded the CMH.

cheers

horseback

The only wrong thing about that is the supposed 'kill' score. Howard claimed only 2 destroyed, 2 probables and 2 damaged. The crews of B-17s in the vicinity whos vocal celebration of this feat of gallantry got him nominated for the CMoH tried to have him claim 6(!) destroyed but he would not and stuck to his original claim. Subsequent press reports and no doubt the embellished accounts of the bomber crews are to balme for this inflation.

Still a very worthy effort and a very deserved award!

fighter_966
12-09-2005, 05:36 AM
Operation Bodenplatte was luftwaffes last desperate attack to gain airsuperioty back to germans. At this moment lufwaffe had lost most of
its veterans, counting out the experten squadron
most of Luftwaffes pilots were rookies according to
for example Hartmann.And allied pilots get better and better with better machines

Kwiatos
12-09-2005, 06:13 AM
The worst thing in P-51 is extremaly wobbling which cause very hard time to aiming. Even if you are behind enemy fighter is hard to shot him down beacuse aiming is horrible and 0,50 are not so deadly like 20 or 30 mm.

Thats way in these game planes like Spitfire (much slowier), BF 109 and Fw190 are better killer then P-51.