PDA

View Full Version : Sorry but P51's



Pages : [1] 2

No3 Spit
07-25-2005, 05:55 PM
It's become very noticable that FM has that 85 Gallon Tank filled first. At 25% fuel the aircraft has empty wing tanks. Considering this tank caused the aircraft CoG issues, it is unlikely to have been setup this way at all.

Speed would seem to be very slow when compared to some other FM types 109 G10 and G14.

Mustang III is faster but doesn't pull away from a G10 or G14.. G6AS(AI ACE)? Yet it was chosen to chase the V1.

Buzzsaw has produced some facts which support the above. I'd like to see some sympathy for the P51 FM. It wasn't only an escort fighter have a look at some 3 Squadron RAAF history, 112 Sqd RAF - Italy.

Spit

A.K.Davis
07-25-2005, 06:31 PM
CG effects of fuel load are not modelled, only contribution to total weight of aircraft. Fuel guages readings for multiple tanks, tank selection, etc. are screwy on all aircraft with multiple tanks. The sim only considers there to be one source of fuel that is drained globally. If this has changed, it has not been noted.

No3 Spit
07-25-2005, 06:38 PM
Thanks,

You seem know about the FM's, perhaps you could explain them, with particular reference to this aircraft type. Why is it represented in this way?

3.JG51_BigBear
07-25-2005, 07:06 PM
Limitations of the game engine would be my guess.

A.K.Davis
07-25-2005, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by No3 Spit:
Thanks,

You seem know about the FM's, perhaps you could explain them, with particular reference to this aircraft type. Why is it represented in this way?

Well, your assumptions about how it is represented are fundamentally flawed, so I'm not sure how to answer that.

GR142-Pipper
07-25-2005, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
Limitations of the game engine would be my guess. If what you say is true then the next immediate question would be to determine what causes one aircraft to suffer from the limitations of the game engine while others clearly don't? Both types (109 and P-51) are single engine fighter aircraft. The only thing that seems to separate the two is programming code.

GR142-Pipper

FritzGryphon
07-25-2005, 10:04 PM
What exactly is wrong with P51?

I don't see how it is penalized by fuel CoG shifting not being modeled. They probably used the most benign CoG, not the worst, for FM calculations.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-25-2005, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
What exactly is wrong with P51?

I don't see how it is penalized by fuel CoG shifting not being modeled. They probably used the most benign CoG, not the worst, for FM calculations.

I totally agree. I don't think any aircraft is being penalized, the plane's flight performance is probably determined by what the optimal cetner of gravity would be given that the plane is filled with a certain percentage of its fuel capacity.

StG77_Stuka
07-25-2005, 11:08 PM
You are all wrong, comparatively speaking, FMs are determined by Olegs mood on the day of patch releases.

Maple_Tiger
07-26-2005, 04:45 AM
Yes Spit, the 109 AI are almost impossible to catch while flying the D model.

Have you tride attacking with atleast a 1500m alt advantage?

edgflyer
07-26-2005, 06:26 AM
There are alot of problems with the P51 flight model. But no matter what we write or prove nothing will change. If there is no prblem then how come a B25 can out turn and out manuver this plane. FM programming. I am not sure why Oleg and team do not want to model this fine aircraft correctly but I am sure glad that the real P51 in real life does not perform like this one does in the game otherwise I would be dead already.
1. The P51 does not loose every bit of energy halfway through a turn. Maybe only about 15% to 20% at the most.
2. Fly spit or Yak and go into a fast dive and then pull up. Notice how lenient the black out feature is. Now go into a dive with the P51 and instant blackout.
3. Maximum speed of P51 437 @ 25k. Spitfire is only 355 but the spit can outrun it.

The list goes on and on but like I said it does not matter. Oleg does not seem to like this plane so what you have is what you have instead of a correctly modeled airplane. Even if this was the most advanced plane of its time and the performance on it was far better than anyother during the time, Oleg does not like it and he will model it the way he wants to even if it is not correct.
It is a shame that the Russians and the Luftwaf have planes that they can fly and be proud of in this game but us American flyers have dead weight. It is a shame that the US gets represented the way it does in this game and the only reason Oleg even sent this product to the US is to make money. I just wish he would represent things correctly.

By the way, I am not going to throw up a bunch of specs and stuff to prove it. Let me just say that I speak from knowing.

By the way, one thing I can say, the guns are perfect for strength right now. Thank you for that Oleg.

WOLFMondo
07-26-2005, 06:50 AM
edgflyer, the blackouts been discussed for ages, its down to the overly responsive elavators and not because P51 pilots are more suceptable to blackouts.

"3. Maximum speed of P51 437 @ 25k. Spitfire is only 355 but the spit can outrun it."

What sort of information is that? Which Spitfire MK? Mk1? sounds like it to me, we don't have a MK1 in the game. Even the VB is quicker at that height and the IX is pushing over 400 there.

" If there is no prblem then how come a B25 can out turn and out manuver this plane."

The B25 can probably out turn the P51 at slower speeds at lower heights because of the lift the wing generates, the P51 was never a great turner but its light years ahead in terms of responsivness to the B25 both in real life and in this simulator.

P51's are like 190's or P47's. Team planes, not 1 on 1 planes. They need space to move and space below them to take advantage of there superior speed.


Originally posted by No3 Spit:
Yet it was chosen to chase the V1.


Because in sustained level flight after a dive it could just about stay with the V1.

V1 interception was done in conjunction with radar and planes already in the air which would circle above the routes the V1's would take into the British coast. They where not that extensivly used against V1's however, more fighters and armed photo recon.

Mustangs where never great accelerators though.

GR142_Astro
07-26-2005, 06:51 AM
While it was once a decent fighter in this game, the P51 has been trimmed back until it's basically a nothing aircraft. Seems like it was much more accurate and could hold its own a few patches back.

And, history tells us that the P51 did MUCH more than hold its own. The aircraft was simply a terrific performer in every aspect except possibly stall-fighting on the deck. And even then there are plenty of accounts that even this was successfully done by skilled Mustang pilots.

Oleg and 1C have not modeled the P51 honestly.


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

Hoarmurath
07-26-2005, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
skilled Mustang pilots.


So, who do you think you are, Don Gentile reincarnate?

edgflyer
07-26-2005, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
edgflyer, the blackouts been discussed for ages, its down to the overly responsive elavators and not because P51 pilots are more suceptable to blackouts.

"3. Maximum speed of P51 437 @ 25k. Spitfire is only 355 but the spit can outrun it."

What sort of information is that? Which Spitfire MK? Mk1? sounds like it to me, we don't have a MK1 in the game. Even the VB is quicker at that height and the IX is pushing over 400 there.

" If there is no prblem then how come a B25 can out turn and out manuver this plane."

The B25 can probably out turn the P51 at slower speeds at lower heights because of the lift the wing generates, the P51 was never a great turner but its light years ahead in terms of responsivness to the B25 both in real life and in this simulator.

P51's are like 190's or P47's. Team planes, not 1 on 1 planes. They need space to move and space below them to take advantage of there superior speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by No3 Spit:
Yet it was chosen to chase the V1.


Because in sustained level flight after a dive it could just about stay with the V1.

V1 interception was done in conjunction with radar and planes already in the air which would circle above the routes the V1's would take into the British coast. They where not that extensivly used against V1's however, more fighters and armed photo recon.

Mustangs where never great accelerators though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me when the last time you flew a P51 and then tell me I am wrong. If you want to feel the performance of a P51 then get into a YAK 3P or LA-7 and you will have a more accurate appreciation of what the P51 can do.

Willey
07-26-2005, 07:44 AM
http://forum.freenet.de/statics/smilies/40052.gif http://forum.freenet.de/statics/smilies/40052.gif http://forum.freenet.de/statics/smilies/40052.gif

VVS-Manuc
07-26-2005, 07:51 AM
QUOTE]

Tell me when the last time you flew a P51 and then tell me I am wrong. If you want to feel the performance of a P51 then get into a YAK 3P or LA-7 and you will have a more accurate appreciation of what the P51 can do.[/QUOTE]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ZG77_Nagual
07-26-2005, 08:53 AM
LOL - the P51 - as is - is one of the uber planes in this simm. If you have trouble in it you need to work on your tactics. It is very easy - other a/c - such as the 109, require more skill.

A.K.Davis
07-26-2005, 09:45 AM
Given the lack of information provided, and the misplaced assumptions that seem to be informing the complaints, I can only guess that they expect the P-51 to be both the fastest plane in the sim at all altitudes and also have the tightest turning circle.

GR142_Astro
07-26-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
skilled Mustang pilots.


So, who do you think you are, Don Gentile reincarnate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I never thought about it but I guess I could be. Too bad I wasn't 22 in 1944 eh? The fact remains that the Mustang has been wrongfully trimmed. However, keep on believing what you want and I'll keep READING.

Slickun
07-26-2005, 10:56 AM
Mustangs where never great accelerators though.

Sorry. The 25 lb boost P-51B/C/Mustang III's out-accelerated every other US plane by a wide margin. Over 5 ft/sec/sec, starting at 250 mph on the deck. Blows everything else away, including 25 lb boost Mustang IV's, P-38L late with 3450 hp, and the P-47M.

lrrp22
07-26-2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mustangs where never great accelerators though.

Sorry. The 25 lb boost P-51B/C/Mustang III's out-accelerated every other US plane by a wide margin. Over 5 ft/sec/sec, starting at 250 mph on the deck. Blows everything else away, including 25 lb boost Mustang IV's, P-38L late with 3450 hp, and the P-47M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agreed. Fully loaded Mustangs with 260+ gallons of internal fuel and limited to +18 lbs boost were mediocre accelerators. Lighter loaded Mustangs at increased boost were much, much better. A +25 lbs/81" boost Mustang III with empty fuselage tank has ~25% better power loading than a fully fueled P-51D at +18 lbs/67" boost.

WOLFMondo
07-26-2005, 12:49 PM
i thought from a standing start the p38 was the best accelerator of all the ww2 era us prop planes, excluding the bearcat.


Originally posted by edgflyer:
Tell me when the last time you flew a P51 and then tell me I am wrong. If you want to feel the performance of a P51 then get into a YAK 3P or LA-7 and you will have a more accurate appreciation of what the P51 can do.

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

AerialTarget
07-26-2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
this was the most advanced plane of its time and the performance on it was far better than anyother during the time

Wrong! I have always resented the fact that the P-51 is given the limelight instead of the P-38, which outperformed it in almost all areas in real life (including turn, climb, roll, stall speed and characteristics and, depending on model and altitude, speed).

In addition, I have always wanted the P-51 to be "toned down" in the game; several patches ago, it was a "uber duber uberplane," just like the La-7, and outperformed the P-38 in every single area. It turns out, my wish came true - and now I wish it hadn't. I'm on your side, really. Although I think you have a greatly overinflated opinion of the P-51, I cannot see how it can possibly be correctly modelled. It is a truly miserable airplane in the game, something no one ever called it in real life. In the game, it is as much of a suicide ship as the old P-38 Lighnting. A Me-109 can outrun it and outturn it at most altitudes.

Note that I'm not talking about the British boosted version. I'm talking about the factory versions.

No3 Spit
07-26-2005, 05:41 PM
Well orginally I posted as discussion for the FM.

A straight question to the guy that responded, no flame.

I and many others would be interested to know what is known about the games FM

What is an FM's make up, in laymans terms.

(for example I'm told; Oleg uses an engine package which is used in planes with that engine type..."Merlin pack in Spits" is it the same for a Packard Merlin in the P51 what mods are made? " Alison Packages"?

Handling package : What mods are made between laminar flow wings and non laminar wings?- leading to my question on speed

Stalling how is that determined - in an FM is CoG used - leading to my original question on CoG representing fluselage fuel tank....is that the reason the aircraft is prone to stall?

Not asking for technical information on programming secrets, just like to know why a particular aircraft is modelled in the particular way it is represented in the game.

Spit

I also think that Buzzsaw's various posts on the P51 are interesting and bring into the discussion a number of interesting observations based on actual flight testing. If correct they would be worth noting in the fine tuning of this particular aircraft.... if fine tuning is part of the FM Process?

lrrp22
07-26-2005, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:

Wrong! I have always resented the fact that the P-51 is given the limelight instead of the P-38, which outperformed it in almost all areas in real life (including turn, climb, roll, stall speed and characteristics and, depending on model and altitude, speed).

The USAAF disagreed with you, AT. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

.

p1ngu666
07-26-2005, 10:46 PM
things u should know
p51 was fast in level fight
p51 started life as a low alt plane with a alison engine
p51 wasnt that great a turner
p51 had a average climb rate ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif thats where the spit and 109 really have the advantage over the p51 in combat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif)

p51 was a great fighter for certain tasks, but poor at others. great escort fighter, and low level photo recon, poor interceptor, weak roc, weak armament (no cannons.. or with cannons no high alt performance..)

onwhine dogfighting is intercepting, in coops ull see the strengths of the p51 more

p1ngu666
07-26-2005, 10:48 PM
oh, if the p51 is really bad u should tell oleg it was partly designed by a ex messershimt employee, as we know 109s where teh best fighter of teh ww2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
07-27-2005, 12:31 AM
it was a junkers employee wasn't it pingu.

AerialTarget
07-27-2005, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
The USAAF disagreed with you, AT.

No, the United States Army Air Force never claimed that the P-51 could outperform the P-38 in all or most areas. The P-51 was simply a better ship from a logistical point of view, and logistics is what wins wars. But the fact remains that the P-38 was a better performing airplane. In short, if you put two aces of roughly equal skill against each other, one in a Lightning and one in a Mustang, the Thirty Eight is probably going to win. Of course, if it's the British boosted Mustang like the one in the game, the P-51 has more of a chance. But it still can't turn inside the P-38 or outclimb it, and it is only a little better at level speed.

JG5_UnKle
07-27-2005, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
things u should know
p51 was fast in level fight
p51 started life as a low alt plane with a alison engine
p51 wasnt that great a turner
p51 had a average climb rate ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif thats where the spit and 109 really have the advantage over the p51 in combat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif)

p51 was a great fighter for certain tasks, but poor at others. great escort fighter, and low level photo recon, poor interceptor, weak roc, weak armament (no cannons.. or with cannons no high alt performance..)

onwhine dogfighting is intercepting, in coops ull see the strengths of the p51 more

Agree, lot's of people get bizarre ideas from DF server encounters.

Try fighting a 109 at 10,000M and tell me the pony is undermodelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

DarthBane_
07-27-2005, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by StG77_Stuka:
You are all wrong, comparatively speaking, FMs are determined by Olegs mood on the day of patch releases.

Exactly, and this is his game, its ok with me

Bearcat99
07-27-2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by DarthBane_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG77_Stuka:
You are all wrong, comparatively speaking, FMs are determined by Olegs mood on the day of patch releases.

Exactly, and this is his game, its ok with me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

........................... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
07-27-2005, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oh, if the p51 is really bad u should tell oleg it was partly designed by a ex messershimt employee, as we know 109s where teh best fighter of teh ww2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Amazing how thigns changes in this ubizoo.

Before FB release and a bit after the whiners roaming this forum all accorded to say that Oleg was a biased communist nostalgic.

Now he is a goose stepper nazifan loving everything comming from germany. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

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

Tomorow he will be an alien fan, loving only flying saucers from vega, an biasing those from alpha centaurii?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

... Just kidding ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
07-27-2005, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:

No, the United States Army Air Force never claimed that the P-51 could outperform the P-38 in all or most areas. The P-51 was simply a better ship from a logistical point of view.



Complete Bull.

The USAAF Generals and Pilots in Europe universally preferred the P-51 to the Lightning.

In Rollrate throughout the spectrum, top speed, turnrate at medium and high speed, and energy bleed, the Mustang was superior.

In theory, the turbochargers on the Lightning should have given it great performance at altitude, in practice they were a nightmare, completely mechanically unreliable.

The P-51 was superior in all aspects except steady state climb, and turn at stall speed, and when the Mustang was low fuel, its climbrate improved more proportionately than the P-38. Also at when at stall speed, although the P-38 with full flaps could outturn the Mustang, at that speed the Lightning rolled like a whale in mud and could be easily outmaneuvered by a 109 or 190 which used scissors maneuvers.

The combat record of the P-51 versus the P-38 is clear. The P-51 rated much higher on the number of aircraft shot down per aircraft fielded.

The P-38 did well in the Pacific, because the Japanese aircraft were so slow and because it predominantly operated at much lower altitudes. In Europe, where it was faced with fast German aircraft, with much better high speed maneuverability, (at least the 190) it did poorly.

It is an irony, that the aircraft which the USAAF rated the worst in air to air combat in Europe, now is becoming the preferred mount in IL-2/PF.

p1ngu666
07-27-2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
things u should know
p51 was fast in level fight
p51 started life as a low alt plane with a alison engine
p51 wasnt that great a turner
p51 had a average climb rate ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif thats where the spit and 109 really have the advantage over the p51 in combat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif)

p51 was a great fighter for certain tasks, but poor at others. great escort fighter, and low level photo recon, poor interceptor, weak roc, weak armament (no cannons.. or with cannons no high alt performance..)

onwhine dogfighting is intercepting, in coops ull see the strengths of the p51 more

Agree, lot's of people get bizarre ideas from DF server encounters.

Try fighting a 109 at 10,000M and tell me the pony is undermodelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed, i havent flown it up high in 4.01, but in 3.x was really good up high, curiously stable aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Buzzsaw-
07-27-2005, 08:12 AM
Salute

Even at lower altitudes, the P-38 did not do well versus even aircraft like the IAR 81's of the Romanian Airforce.

Page which details a disastrous day for a couple of Lightning Groups which attack Ploesti:

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/vizanti/vizanti.htm

OldMan____
07-27-2005, 08:27 AM
CG doe schange when fuel is consumed. But it changes as if all fuel was in a single spot in plane. That is how weight is added to a vehicle in any game. A point (the ceneter of CG of teh added object) receives all weight. If you have a plane with a single fuel tank.. that will behave more or less like in real life. But planes with 2 or more tanks far appart from each other will behave like if they had a SINGLE huge fuel tank at CG point of combination of all fuel tanks.

Modelling each fuel tank separately would add a hell of CONTENT MANAGEMENT work and quite some extra coding for special cases wheraa plana A has a consumption pattern different from plane B etc...

Buzzsaw-
07-27-2005, 08:32 AM
Salute

Even the late war P-38L's did not do as well as the P-51's or P-47's.

If you look at the comparative records of the P-38 and P-47 groups of the USAAF 9th Airforce, (the tactical support Airforce for the Americans in Europe) and look specifically at the encounters during the Ardennes battles, you can see that the P-38 Groups had the worst kill/loss record, worse even than the P-47's, and considerably worse than the 8th Air Force P-51 Groups.

A.K.Davis
07-27-2005, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
CG doe schange when fuel is consumed. But it changes as if all fuel was in a single spot in plane. That is how weight is added to a vehicle in any game. A point (the ceneter of CG of teh added object) receives all weight.

How does the CG change then? You are describing a static CG which has weight added to or subtracted from it. Fuel weight, not CG shift is the determining factor, AFAIK.

Buzzsaw-
07-27-2005, 08:55 AM
Salute

On the center of gravity issue re. the P-51:

We don't know how Oleg models this.

However, we can see the gauges, and we can also note the fact that the game P-51 can rip off its wings at quite low speeds, something which was only a problem with the historical P-51 when the fuselage tank was full.

Also the stall pattern of the P-51 seems to be that of an aircraft which has its behind the seat tank filled.

ZG77_Nagual
07-27-2005, 09:29 AM
Buzz - for the record http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have to disagree with you on the 38 vs mustang argument. Upshot of my readings has been the p38 took alot more flying than the mustang - but the versions that were the mustang's contemporary - as a/c in skilled hands - were fully as or more capable.

Again - the mustang was cheaper - and quicker to learn of course.

Your statement about generals and pilots 'universally preferring the mustang over the 38' is patently untrue. For much of the tenure of the 38 there was no mustang - but that aside - it would be fair to say a majority - but you can find plenty of opinions that favor the 38.

Big debate - and when all is said and done it's a matter of opinion - but had to chime in anyway.

ICDP
07-27-2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

On the center of gravity issue re. the P-51:

We don't know how Oleg models this.

However, we can see the gauges, and we can also note the fact that the game P-51 can rip off its wings at quite low speeds, something which was only a problem with the historical P-51 when the fuselage tank was full.

Also the stall pattern of the P-51 seems to be that of an aircraft which has its behind the seat tank filled.

Have you tested the wing break since 4.01, it is no longer as bad as it was. It does still happen but only if you are crass with the controls at high speed, same with the Fw190's and the Ki84's.

JG52Karaya-X
07-27-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by No3 Spit:
Speed would seem to be very slow when compared to some other FM types 109 G10 and G14.

Mustang III is faster but doesn't pull away from a G10 or G14.. G6AS(AI ACE)? Yet it was chosen to chase the V1.

Sorry but the Mk.III does about 630-640km/h at groundlevel in contrast to the 570-590km/h the late 109 type get to (depending on the specific type). The Mk.III can disengage at will from practically any propeller driven axis-plane.

If you're observation comes from offline practice then that's because the AI still cheats and does some very strange things. If you have any remaining doubts go online with a friend and try it...

AerialTarget
07-27-2005, 03:12 PM
Buzzsaw, I will not argue with you. It is not because my statements are untrue, but because it is clear to me that you cannot be convinced. I would give it a go anyway, but I don't think we Allies need to be in-fighting just now. We both agree that the P-51 is undermodelled now, but since you don't know much about the P-38, you don't see that it is undermodelled as well. So be it. Arguing over which one was better at what in real life isn't going to help, as the only way we could possibly get them to their real standards is by providing data for the two ships, independently, and sending it to Oleg. And, for the P-38, at least, this is being done.

Of course, if we did have perfectly realistic models (which couldn't happen no matter how good our data and how good the physics engine), we could solve this little spat with guns. Whee hee! That would be fun.

BigKahuna_GS
07-27-2005, 03:28 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Buzz--The P-51 was superior in all aspects except steady state climb, and turn at stall speed, and when the Mustang was low fuel, its climbrate improved more proportionately than the P-38. Also at when at stall speed, although the P-38 with full flaps could outturn the Mustang, at that speed the Lightning rolled like a whale in mud and could be easily outmaneuvered by a 109 or 190 which used scissors maneuvers.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Which model of P38 are we talking about here? And as for roll rate and turn, I guess you forgot about differential throttling and the Clover Leaf Manuever. Having 2 engines to steer with and inducing torque to roll or turn or having no torque during rapid application of power was a huge advantage for the P38. Trying to follow a 38 into a slow speed partial cloverleaf where Jeff Ethell describes the P38 as "rotating on a pole" would cause any other plane following to go into a torque induced power stall.

A very common P38 comment was that the P38 really shined at low altitude manuevers and pilots felt very confident in it's abilities.

The P38 losses at the Polesti raid had more to with tactics and getting jumped by superior numbers. As I recall they were on a strike mission carring iron bombs low on the deck when jumped- not a good position to be in. They were picked up on radar and the P38 force was split one attacking the oil fields and the other fighter cover.

The P38 strike package had to contend with 4-109 groups and 1-IAR80/81 group plus heavy flak and the return trip home facing more fighters again after already being damaged by flak. Sounds like bad mission planning and a suicide run to me.


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Buzz--The combat record of the P-51 versus the P-38 is clear. The P-51 rated much higher on the number of aircraft shot down per aircraft fielded.
The P-38 did well in the Pacific, because the Japanese aircraft were so slow and because it predominantly operated at much lower altitudes. In Europe, where it was faced with fast German aircraft, with much better high speed maneuverability, (at least the 190) it did poorly.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________



That is interesting because the P38's in the MTO did very well against those same very fast german fighters. In fact Stienhoff while flying in the MTO against all types of allied fighters called the P38 Lightning the Best US fighter over the P51/P47.

From the P38J-25 on:

The P38 had the best high speed roll rate of any WW2 prop fighter
The P38 had the best max climb rate out all US aircraft.
The P38 could out turn the P51
The P38 could out stall fight the P51
The P38 had dive recovery flaps to assist with manuevering at any speed along with combat flaps
The P38L had a greater range and payload than the P51
The P38 had twin engine reliability to get you back home

The P38 was the perfered mount in the Paficic vs P47/P51. Also you forgot to add that not all Japanese planes were slow--the Franks, Georges and Tony series fighters were very fast and manueverable. They all climbed very well also.

Betty bomber raids to Biak and New Guinea came in at 25-30,000ft with top cover Zekes at angles 33k. In order to intercept theses bandits P38 would have to fly above the Zeke top cover--that meant above 33k and similar altitudes as in the ETO.

There was many stories of P51 pilots mixing it up with Ki84's at high alt and before they knew it they were at 10,000ft looking for an escape route.

Before we forget the 2 leading US Aces flew the P38; Bong 40 kills & McGuire 38 kills not to shabby a performance for the worst plane in the USAAF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The P38 also shot down more enemy A/C in the PTO & MTO vs the P51/P47.

P38 negatives:

Cost more to bulid per plane
Used twice the fuel
Harder to master
compressibility- lower mach than P51

The P51 had a higher critical mach and could dive faster, it was also faster at sea level and some mid altitudes were fairly even. The P38L had a faster top end than the P51D 440+ vs 437(close). The 25lb boost Mustang was faster all the way around but still could not climb as well as the P38 or manuever as well.

Interesting debate though.

___

lrrp22
07-27-2005, 03:28 PM
The Mustang III is/was drastically faster than the P-38L_Late at virtually all altitudes below 23,000 ft or so.

At +22 lbs boost and fully loaded, P-51B-15-NA 43-24777's best ROC was nearly 4400 FPM. The Mk III at +25 lbs boost gets around 150 HP more than at +22 lbs boost.


Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
The USAAF disagreed with you, AT.

No, the United States Army Air Force never claimed that the P-51 could outperform the P-38 in all or most areas. The P-51 was simply a better ship from a logistical point of view, and logistics is what wins wars. But the fact remains that the P-38 was a better performing airplane. In short, if you put two aces of roughly equal skill against each other, one in a Lightning and one in a Mustang, the Thirty Eight is probably going to win. Of course, if it's the British boosted Mustang like the one in the game, the P-51 has more of a chance. But it still can't turn inside the P-38 or outclimb it, and it is only a little better at level speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ICDP
07-27-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Buzzsaw, I will not argue with you. It is not because my statements are untrue, but because it is clear to me that you cannot be convinced. I would give it a go anyway, but I don't think we Allies need to be in-fighting just now. We both agree that the P-51 is undermodelled now, but since you don't know much about the P-38, you don't see that it is undermodelled as well. So be it. Arguing over which one was better at what in real life isn't going to help, as the only way we could possibly get them to their real standards is by providing data for the two ships, independently, and sending it to Oleg. And, for the P-38, at least, this is being done.

Of course, if we did have perfectly realistic models (which couldn't happen no matter how good our data and how good the physics engine), we could solve this little spat with guns. Whee hee! That would be fun.

Hmmmmm! Please don't start this **** about the P51 being undermodelled. It can reach its listed speeds at all altitudes and can roll better at medium speeds than it should. I have been flying it quite a bit and it is excellently modelled in PF. Don't claim its undermodelled without at least testing it against real test data, which it more than meets in all areas (climb, roll, speed and dive). This **** about undermodelled is usually as a result of someones "gut feeling" rather than actual testing.

Badsight.
07-28-2005, 12:22 AM
i dont think its the P-51 thats the problem

as ICDP pointed out it hits its correct speeds

to me , its that the Spitfire & P-51 are harder to throw around & handel in a DF than Bf-109s , & this is getting Spit & Mustang users shot down . remember most combat online is nothing like Real Life

& the fact that most kills are made thru opponents mistakes rather than you out-flying your opponent , . . . . . . . . then you get the easy-to-handel planes at a big advantage , usually

FritzGryphon
07-28-2005, 02:12 AM
Re: Wing ripping.

According to devicelink data, all planes rip wings at 14G.

Speed makes no difference, nor airplane type or any other factors. Consistantly 14G over 6 aircraft types I tried.

So this means, in the P-51, you can go 800km/h IAS, and do 13.5G, and keep your wings. Needless to say, beyond the structural limits (and those of most other planes).

Kwiatos
07-28-2005, 03:05 AM
In my opinion P-51 has very good FM in PF:

- average turn rate at slow speed
- average roll rate at slow speed
- good turn rate at high speed
- good roll rate at high speed
- average climb rate
- good high alt performance
- good dive


Dont know if wing broke at high speed is correct but only worse thing in P-51 in 4.01 is its 0,50 cal not effective vs Fw190 and Bf109.

ICDP
07-28-2005, 05:40 AM
Here are the results for P51B performance test in PF 4.01

Real Data = RD

Top Speeds
Sea Level(RD): 359mph. PF 359mph
20,000ft (RD): 419mph. PF 423mph
24,000ft (RD): 442mph. PF 443mph
29,100ft (RD): 450mph. PF 444mph

So the PF 4.01 P51B matches real test data extremely well for top speeds.

Climb data using military power (100% throttle) to 20,000. Fuel 50%

(RD with full ammo and 180gals of fuel) 6.6 minutes
PF from brake release: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 50%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.4 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 50% fuel)
PF from brake release: 7.2 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 75%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 75% fuel)

I don't know if the real test was done from brake release so I tried both. Also in PF I cant select the correct amount of fuel (180 US gallons). I conducted 4 tests using both 50% and 75% fuel load and I tsted both loads from brake release and from SL. Overall the climbrate seems to be very accurate for 100% throttle in the P51B since I was able to match the real ROC at SL (3,400 ft/.min) and 20,000 (2500 ft/.min).

Rollrates

I tested the P51B rollrates according the the NACA rollrate chart (50lbs stick force).

MPH...NACA...PF
180...63.....72
220...78.....82
260...90.....101
300...94.....95
340...93.....83
380...88.....76

The P51B in PF is slightly overmodelled at slower speeds perfect at 300mph but slightly undermodelled in roll at higher speeds.

Overall the P51B in PF is modelled very accurately, it reaches its top speeds, climb rate and rollrates very well compared to real data. So no I have to totally dissagree with some of the opinions on this thread that the P51 in PF is undermodelled.

It is advisable to test against real data (as I have spent quite a few hours doing) before making totally unwarranted claims due to "feel".

Kwiatos
07-28-2005, 05:49 AM
As i said and as we see FM of P-51 is very good moddled in PF.
Only thing is that Bf109 is overmoddeled is some aspect and there cause so big disadventage for P-51 pilot when fight with Bf109.

Bf 109 in PF is actually overmoddeled in:

- to slow stall speed for moddel from G-2 to K-4
- no acceleration stall in hard manevrous and hard turn
- manual prop pitch cheat will allow to get impossible rpms for engine - these cause big bost in turn rate at slow speed and climb turn
- tough DM for 0,50 cal fire

I think we Bf109 will need BIG CHECK AND FIX IN FM!!!

p1ngu666
07-28-2005, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Here are the results for P51B performance test in PF 4.01

Real Data = RD

Top Speeds
Sea Level(RD): 359mph. PF 359mph
20,000ft (RD): 419mph. PF 423mph
24,000ft (RD): 442mph. PF 443mph
29,100ft (RD): 450mph. PF 444mph

So the PF 4.01 P51B matches real test data extremely well for top speeds.

Climb data using military power (100% throttle) to 20,000. Fuel 50%

(RD with full ammo and 180gals of fuel) 6.6 minutes
PF from brake release: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 50%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.4 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 50% fuel)
PF from brake release: 7.2 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 75%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 75% fuel)

I don't know if the real test was done from brake release so I tried both. Also in PF I cant select the correct amount of fuel (180 US gallons). I conducted 4 tests using both 50% and 75% fuel load and I tsted both loads from brake release and from SL. Overall the climbrate seems to be very accurate for 100% throttle in the P51B since I was able to match the real ROC at SL (3,400 ft/.min) and 20,000 (2500 ft/.min).

Rollrates

I tested the P51B rollrates according the the NACA rollrate chart (50lbs stick force).

MPH...NACA...PF
180...63.....72
220...78.....82
260...90.....101
300...94.....95
340...93.....83
380...88.....76

The P51B in PF is slightly overmodelled at slower speeds perfect at 300mph but slightly undermodelled in roll at higher speeds.

Overall the P51B in PF is modelled very accurately, it reaches its top speeds, climb rate and rollrates very well compared to real data. So no I have to totally dissagree with some of the opinions on this thread that the P51 in PF is undermodelled.

It is advisable to test against real data (as I have spent quite a few hours doing) before making totally unwarranted claims due to "feel".

thanks for the test http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

kwiatos also hit the nail on the head too i think

ICDP
07-28-2005, 09:13 AM
I agree that the stall speed of the 109G2 - K4 is suspect. why should these heavier verions have a lower/similar stallspeed than the 109F2!

It should be noted though that the lack of high speed High AoA snap stall is due to the slat problem in 4.01. It is a bug that effects ALL slatted fighters in the sim. It seems to have become very common to level this critisicm only at the 109.

The manual prop pitch exploit/cheat definately needs fixed. This is an issue that should be addressed at the same time as improving the overall CEM mode. It is NOT possible to overrev any of the CSP prop fighters, this is NOT realisitc.

geetarman
07-28-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
i dont think its the P-51 thats the problem

as ICDP pointed out it hits its correct speeds

to me , its that the Spitfire & P-51 are harder to throw around & handel in a DF than Bf-109s , & this is getting Spit & Mustang users shot down . remember most combat online is nothing like Real Life

& the fact that most kills are made thru opponents mistakes rather than you out-flying your opponent , . . . . . . . . then you get the easy-to-handel planes at a big advantage , usually

Bingo - the 51 and Spits are royal PITA's to handle. The 109 almost rides on rails. Ever read the account of the test flight of 109G Black Six? See what the pilot thought of the lateral stability of the most common 109. The PF 109 does not exhibit that at all.

Flying Black 6

Republished with kind permission of Paul Coggan from Warbirds Worldwide #21




The Bf109 is a fascinating aircraft. It was produced in greater numbers than any other fighter aircraft, and was the main single-engined fighter opponent of the Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain. Ever sinec I first flew a Spitfire I had a great desire to fly the '109. I soon had the opportunity to fly a Hispano HA-1112M1L Buchon and this made me even more curious about what a real Bf109 was like to fly.

John Allison did not have to ask me twice if I would like to be the other pilot to fly the Bf109G-2 that had been rebuilt by Russ Snadden and his team at RAF Benson. I still feel very privileged to be able to fly this aircraft so when I was asked to write an article for Warbirds Worldwide on flying it, how could I refuse!

The Bf109G has conventional elevators, ailerons, and rudder. Pitch trim is achieved by a variable incidence tail plane, and there is a ground adjustable fixed tab on the rudder and on the aileron for yaw and roll trim. The wing trailing edge incorporates manually operated simple flaps and radiator cooling is controlled by split flaps on the trailing edge which droop with the main flaps to increase flapped area. The outboard half of each wing leading edge incorporates an independent automatic slat, which extends at low speed or in hard manoeuvres. The main undercarriage legs retract outwards and when fully lowered the mainwheels feature a marked toe-in, i.e. the wheels are closer together at the front than at the rear. I believe that this unusual characteristic is caused by the problems of fitting the wheel well and undercarriage leg pintle into the wing due to the position of the main spar. The tailwheel is lockable from the cockpit. The engine is a Daimler-Benz DB605, driving a VDM variable pitch propeller which rotates clockwise when viewed from behind.

On approaching the aircraft it looks sleek, compact, and quite small compared to other World War II fighters. These characteristics are emphasised by the cockpit, which is small, cramped, and neither the seat nor rudder pedals are adjustable. Once the canopy is closed, there is very little headroom either. I am 6feet 3 inches tall, and to the question "How do I fit in it?" all I will say is that 'where there is a will there is a way!' However, the cockpit of this particular airframe is almost totally original, the only significant difference being that the gunsight has been removed and a Becker VHF radio and standby magnetic compass fitted in its place. This degree of originality adds much to the feel and character of this airframe and sets it apart from many rebuilt warbirds that have modernised cockpits, a practice that I dislike greatly. It must be added that this original cockpit has all of the labelling in German, airspeed in kilometres per hour (kph) and altitude in Kilometres. Manifold air pressure is in atmospheres (ata), 1 atmosphere being 30 inches of mercury.

Starting the engine requires one or two willing helpers standing on the starboard wing root to wind up the inertia starter with a crank-handle. The engine is then primed with about 10 strokes of a Ki-gas type pump, the fuel pump switched on and the starter handle pulled which engages a clutch connecting the inertia starter to the engine; hopefully the engine starts! There are two points about this starting procedure. Firstly, you cannot overprime the engine. Secondly it is not feasible to take the aircraft away from Duxford without the groundcrew!

Taxying is achieved using differential braking via rudder pedal mounted toe brakes. The aircraft is reluctant to turn sharply and my technique is to apply full rudder in the required direction of turn to give me better leverage and to then stamp on the toe brake. This is aided by pushing the stick fully forward to unload the tailwheel, an action which is totally unnatural to someone used to the Spitfire! However, the '109 is tail heavy and the tail never lifts. It is during taxying that the very poor forward field of view is first realised. You can see virtually nothing within 30 or 40 degrees either side of the nose, definitely worse than anything that I have ever flown.

Take off is made with 1 degree nose up tailplane trim, 20 degrees of flap lowered and always with the tailwheel locked. After lining up the throttle is smoothly opened to 1.1 ata, controlling the moderate left swing with rudder. Once the take-off power is set and the aircraft is directionally under control, the tail is gently raised just clear of the ground. The aircraft lifts off at around 150 kph with slight back pressure on the stick. This may sound simple, but is one of the most difficult tasks in flying the '109. If any swing is allowed to develop the toe-in on the outside wheel turns the aircraft even more i.e. it is directionally unstable. It will then roll about the outside wheel, leading to the classic ground loop. This problem is accentuated because the forward field of view is so poor that it is difficult to detect any swing starting. The only saving grace is that the lockable tailwheel gives some directional stability, and so it is kept on the ground for as long as possible. The gyroscopic effect of the propeller and loss of directional stability from the tailwheel once the tail is raised is marked, hence the tail is raised very gently and only slightly.

Once airborne, engine handling is markedly different from similar British and American engines, due to the lack of a constant speed unit on the propeller. The operating philosophy is that the engine has a running line of optimum rpm for a given manifold pressure; 2000 rpm at 1.0 ata, 2300 rpm at 1.15 ata (max. continuous) and 2600 rpm at 1.3 ata (30 minute limit). These rpm are also the minimum for the manifold pressure without overboosting the engine. The pilot sets the manifold pressure with the throttle, and engine rpm is controlled either automatically (when it is governed to the running line) or manually. Manual control is by a rocker switch on the throttle and this varies the propeller blade pitch. Once set, the propeller runs with fixed pitch, RPM increasing with increasing airspeed and vice versa. Cockpit of blade pitch is on a clock. For example, 12:00 is set for take-off and 11:45 for landing. Initially, we always flew the aircraft with manual RPM control, until we were happy with the automatic control functioning. In a display, 1.15 ata is set and RPM controlled manually to 2400-2500 to prevent overboosting. This requires a setting of around 11:05 at high speeds such as for loop entries, and an increase to around 11:20 over the top of a loop. This results in a lot of head-in-cockpit time and propeller adjustment during a display, greatly increasing the workload.

The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g. Pitch trim changes with speed are moderate, and the tail plane trim wheel mounted abeam the pilots' left hip is easy to use. For a display, I run it at 420-450kph in trim, and then do not retrim. This causes no excessive stick forces during the display. Overall the aircraft is straightforward to handle in pitch.

Roll performance is similar to a Hurricane or elliptical wing tipped Spitfire. A full stick roll through 360 degrees at 460kph takes 4 to 4.5 seconds without using rudder, and needs a force of around 20 lbf. One interesting characteristic is that rolls at lower speeds entered at less than 1g, such as a roll-off-the-top or half Cuban, have a markedly lower roll rate to the right than to the left. Therefore, I always roll left in such manoeuvres.

There are two problem areas in yaw control with the '109. Firstly, directional stability is low and marked slip ball excursions occur with any changes of speed or power. Also, there is moderate adverse aileron yaw (right yaw when left aileron is applied, and vice versa). The rudder force to centralise the slip ball is low, but constant rudder inputs are required during manoeuvres to minimise sideslip. If the slip ball is not kept central, the lateral force on the pilot is not uncomfortable and no handling problems occur, but it looks very untidy in a display. At the top of a left wing-over, you are very cross-controlled, with left aileron and lots of right rudder applied. This lack of directional stability makes it hard work to fly the aircraft accurately and neatly, although there are no safety problems. However, it must have made accurate tracking for a guns 'kill' very difficult. I suspect that many '109 kills were made at very close range! It also says a great deal about the shooting skills of the Luftwaffe Aces. The second problem is the lack of a cockpit adjustable rudder trimmer. The fixed tab is set so that the rudder is in trim during the cruise, reducing footloads during long transits. However, for all other airspeed and power combinations, a rudder force must be applied. This is an annoying feature, and I am surprised that a rudder trim tab was never fitted to later models such as the Gustav.

The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis. I understand that the Bf109E rolled violently as the slats deployed, and I am curious to know the difference to the Gustav that caused this.

Back in the circuit, the '109 is straightforward to fly, except that it takes around 25 secs to lower the flaps, using a large wheel mounted next to the tail plane trim wheel and on the same shaft. A curving final approach is flown at 200kph, and once aligned with the runway the forward field of view is poor. The threshold is crossed at 175kph, the throttle closed, and the aircraft flared to the 3 point attitude. The '109 floats like a Spitfire and controls are effective up to touchdown. After touchdown, directional control is by using differential braking. The three point attitude is easy to judge, and although it bucks around on rough grass it does not bounce significantly on touchdown. however, the landing is not easy. From approaching the threshold up to touchdown the forward view is very poor, and it is difficult to assess drift. if the aircraft is drifting at touchdown, the toe-in on the wheel towards which it is drifting causes a marked swing, and you are working very hard to keep straight and avoid a ground loop. Each landing is a challenge, and just a bit unpredictable. Hard runways have higher friction than grass surfaces, and so the wheels dig in even more if drifting on touchdown, making ground-loops more likely on runways than on grass. The possibility of drifting on touchdown increases with a crosswind, and so for these two reasons, we are only flying the Gustav off grass and with a 10kt crosswind limit. I have flown the Buchon off the runway, and landed with a 10kt crosswind on concrete, but it is something that I would never do out of choice!

The Buchon flies very much the same as the Gustav, although directional stability is even worse. The biggest differences are engine handling and cockpit noise levels. The Buchon is very noisy due to the high exhaust stacks of the Merlin, the low exhausts of the DB605 giving a considerably quieter cockpit.

In summary, the Bf109G is a demanding aircraft to fly. The workload is high maintaining directional control on take-off and landing, although in flight the stalling and pitch characteristics are god. I would advise anyone planning to fly a '109 to get lots of experience and confidence in other large piston-engined taildraggers first. However, if its peculiarities are understood and the take-off and landing limits are strictly adhered to the '109 can be operated perfectly safely. I treat the '109 with greater respect than anything else that I fly, but the challenge of trying to fly it well gives me greater satisfaction and enjoyment than probably any other aircraft. But I am never satisfied- I now have an ambition to fly an Emil; the Bf109E.

WW Dave Southwood.



(I would like to thank Paul Coggan, former Editor and Publisher of Warbirds Worldwide and now with Aeroplane, for his kind permission to republish this 1992 article by Dave Southwood on flying the magnificent Messerchmitt Bf109G-2 W.Nr. 10639. -LMR)

No3 Spit
07-28-2005, 05:15 PM
Thanks Geeterman,

A nice read on Black 6 and a particular favourite 109 for No3 Squadron buffs of course.

A point I make is empathy and all discussions revert back to the FM of the 109 as opposed to Western fighters. IMO there is great empathy torwards the 109 series and less torwards western fighters. It might have started on the Eastern Front, but thats not were the sim is now or where its headed next.

Still no one tells us about the FM's?

Yet the FM's are being decided or are decided for the BoB.

Are we going to see range and fuel comsuption as limiting factors in that sim?

What are the axis going to do with their twenty minutes of combat flying?...........

Whose Spitfire MkIa are you going to model, The British version of how that plane flew or the German version of that aircraft.......or are we just going to get a Merlin pack inserted against the DB pack in this game?

Buzzsaw-
07-28-2005, 06:20 PM
Salute

I didn't say the P-51's performance was undermodelled.

My point was that the stall behaviour and wing shedding resembles that of an aircraft with the behind the seat fuselage tank full.

It is true that the P-38 could do a lot of things at low speed, in the turn arena. But as far as rolling performance is concerned it was not very good. If you look at the pilot comments in AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND, that is very apparent.

As far as the USAAF brass and its opinion of the P-38, actions speak very loudly.

The P-38 was removed as quickly as possible from its role as a high altitude air superiority escort, and placed in the ground attack role. This despite the fact that it had the range to operate over targets in Eastern Germany or Czecheslovakia, unlike the P-47, which could not. (that was why the P-47 was switched to ground attack)

In the Ploesti episode I link, only one of the Lightning Groups was carrying bombs. The 1st Fighter Group was flying escort, and its casualties were very high as well.

ElAurens
07-28-2005, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:

Flying Black 6

Republished with kind permission of Paul Coggan from Warbirds Worldwide #21





Back in the circuit, the '109 is straightforward to fly, except that it takes around 25 secs to lower the flaps, using a large wheel mounted next to the tail plane trim wheel and on the same shaft.

WW Dave Southwood.



(I would like to thank Paul Coggan, former Editor and Publisher of Warbirds Worldwide and now with Aeroplane, for his kind permission to republish this 1992 article by Dave Southwood on flying the magnificent Messerchmitt Bf109G-2 W.Nr. 10639. -LMR)


25 seconds to lower the flaps...

Obviously something is amiss in the 109s in our little game...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

A.K.Davis
07-28-2005, 06:47 PM
If we are going to go into the realm of realistic flap operation, we're going to have to start discussing a lot of aircraft.

ElAurens
07-28-2005, 09:04 PM
Lets!

Actually the reason I called that out was because of the unrealistic way that 109s decelerate in the game.

Grey_Mouser67
07-28-2005, 09:21 PM
There isn't a plane in the game that matches historical numbers...but in terms of speed, I'd say the P-51 is pretty close...better than most and I like it.

Its qualitative handling is fairly poor imho...I liked the way the plane flew in AEP...if felt like it was gliding around the sky...if only we could get that back with the good speed modelling cause there were issues with that model.

The Mustang did in fact rule the sky above 20,000 ft. We don't see turn and climb rates at those altitudes, but the Mustang dominated Luftwaffe aircraft above 20,000 ft and I'd say that it would dominate the J model Lightning in that realm also. The Mustang could outclimb the 109's...I'm talking G models above 20K also.

The L model lightning comparison is a little hard to make imho because by the time the L model came out, it just wasn't used for air to air. I suspect in a dogfight below 20K it probably would win alot of those battles with the Mustang...but I'd still take a Mustang at high altitude.

A couple of small things I'd like to see changed in the Mustang...I think it could reach its rated speed with the radiator open...not sure how real life tests were conducted but it should suffer less drag from radiator open than other enhancing its speed advantage by a few mph running wide open...in addition, it may have been best in class in terms of drag so its energy retention should be outstanding...it is good but relative to its enemies, I don't see this...in otherwords, if a Mustang and a 109 enter a dive and level out, the 109 should decelerate a faster rate than the Mustang. I've never really tested it, but my online experience would indicate that there would be negligible advantage if any relative to its contemporary enemies.

Last thing...if I understand aerodynamics correctly...rate of turn at high altitude is much less a function of wing area and begins to lean more heavily on the power of the engine...so at high altitudes, the turning radius of high altitude planes like the Mustang, Ta, Spit, Jug and lightning should improve relatively speaking because their power to weight ratio is better...I think this is modelled to some degree but it is hard to test and like some other things I find some anomolies in the game.

Archangel2980
07-28-2005, 09:28 PM
*HEAD EXPLODES*

Badsight.
07-28-2005, 09:32 PM
please , the Mustang is in its element at high alt

the AEP Mustang could do 700 Kph IAS , i mean how BS is that !

& the meredith effect on the Mustangs radiator was also present on the Bf-109s radiators , & it worked when the Radiator was close to closed , not anywhere near fully open

at high alt the Bf-109 cant catch the Late38 or any Mustang they are waaay faster , if the Pony had wing cannon instead of MGs - it would be my main ride

p1ngu666
07-28-2005, 10:21 PM
just did a coop, height 5-6k, p51 cruised really sweetly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

btw p38s turbochargers ment it would probably keep outclimbing the p51...

AerialTarget
07-29-2005, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
It is true that the P-38 could do a lot of things at low speed, in the turn arena. But as far as rolling performance is concerned it was not very good. If you look at the pilot comments in AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND, that is very apparent.

Ah? Was that with or without aileron boost? Moreover, was that experienced fighter pilots who used differential power, or were they average pilots who knew well how to manage their aircraft's engines and perform within their envelope, but not how to "push the envelope?"

Incidentally, the areas I feel that the Mustang (and just about all American aircraft) are undermodelled in are turn and energy retention. According to a recent sustained turn test on this forum, the He-111 outturns the P-51. That's a problem, folks.

FA_Whisky
07-29-2005, 01:10 AM
Incidentally, the areas I feel that the Mustang (and just about all American aircraft) are undermodelled in are turn and energy retention. According to a recent sustained turn test on this forum, the He-111 outturns the P-51. That's a problem, folks.


I thats where the "problem" is. The P51 series is moddeled very well. It are the other planes that lack their historical flaws. Like the very low stall speed on the later 109's.
There is just one thing i think that needs fixing on the P51 model. Ecceleration(its very poor even with tanks empty) and energy retention.

ICDP
07-29-2005, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
25 seconds to lower the flaps...

Obviously something is amiss in the 109s in our little game...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

It seems that many aircraft are using combat flaps at the flick of a switch which is totally unrealistic. I have discussed this point via e-mail with Oleg and it isn't getting fixed, or can't be fixed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Kwiatos
07-29-2005, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
25 seconds to lower the flaps...

Obviously something is amiss in the 109s in our little game...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

It seems that many aircraft are using combat flaps at the flick of a switch which is totally unrealistic. I have discussed this point via e-mail with Oleg and it isn't getting fixed, or can't be fixed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If ou have good contact with Oleg M. maby you try speak with him about stall speed of 109 later moddels, manual prop pitch cheat, and no acceleration stall in planes with slots (bf109, LA, LAgg, Mig3) ??

ICDP
07-29-2005, 05:16 AM
Sorry Kwaitos, at the time I was pointing out via the standard e-mail address an unhistorical use of combat flaps at any speed. The fact that most of these aircraft had manualy operated flaps taking up to 20-25 seconds to deploy is lost in PF.

Aaron_GT
07-29-2005, 07:09 AM
Actually the reason I called that out was because of the unrealistic way that 109s decelerate in the game.

You can get the P51 to decelerate quickly too by messing with a combination of the throttle and prop pitch. I use it to (along with sideslip) to land hastily when coming in hot when pursued by a bandit. The sideslip probably accounts for more of the extra drag, though, although sideslipping at high speed can be a bit dangerous, as well as less effective.

geetarman
07-29-2005, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Incidentally, the areas I feel that the Mustang (and just about all American aircraft) are undermodelled in are turn and energy retention. According to a recent sustained turn test on this forum, the He-111 outturns the P-51. That's a problem, folks.


Good post. I fly the 51 regualrly, and like how it flys, warts and all. It's powerful but bucks alot! Hard to control at high speeds, easy during cruise. Gunnery should be hard at high speeds! Constant trim/rudder needed on a Mustang. Very true to life. The Mustang doesn't need fixing. It's just that some other planes are not hitting THEIR problems as they should.

I thats where the "problem" is. The P51 series is moddeled very well. It are the other planes that lack their historical flaws. Like the very low stall speed on the later 109's.
There is just one thing i think that needs fixing on the P51 model. Ecceleration(its very poor even with tanks empty) and energy retention. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kwiatos
07-31-2005, 04:08 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 FA_Whisky:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Incidentally, the areas I feel that the Mustang (and just about all American aircraft) are undermodelled in are turn and energy retention. According to a recent sustained turn test on this forum, the He-111 outturns the P-51. That's a problem, folks.


Good post. I fly the 51 regualrly, and like how it flys, warts and all. It's powerful but bucks alot! Hard to control at high speeds, easy during cruise. Gunnery should be hard at high speeds! Constant trim/rudder needed on a Mustang. Very true to life. The Mustang doesn't need fixing. It's just that some other planes are not hitting THEIR problems as they should.

I thats where the "problem" is. The P51 series is moddeled very well. It are the other planes that lack their historical flaws. Like the very low stall speed on the later 109's.
There is just one thing i think that needs fixing on the P51 model. Ecceleration(its very poor even with tanks empty) and energy retention. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea P-51 now is moddeling very good ( beside its 0,50 cal efeectivity vs 109 and 190)

The problem is that its main opponent Bf109 is too much overmoddeled in some areas. These cause to big adventage in combat for Bf109 pilots then should be.

Much better is relative performance between P-51 and Fw190 besides too weak 0,50 effectivnes.

HellToupee
07-31-2005, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
It is true that the P-38 could do a lot of things at low speed, in the turn arena. But as far as rolling performance is concerned it was not very good. If you look at the pilot comments in AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND, that is very apparent.

Ah? Was that with or without aileron boost? Moreover, was that experienced fighter pilots who used differential power, or were they average pilots who knew well how to manage their aircraft's engines and perform within their envelope, but not how to "push the envelope?"

Incidentally, the areas I feel that the Mustang (and just about all American aircraft) are undermodelled in are turn and energy retention. According to a recent sustained turn test on this forum, the He-111 outturns the P-51. That's a problem, folks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

boosted alerons dont help at low speed where u can already move alerons to full diflection, different throttle settings will also result lotas tourqe so u dont get ur nice zero torque stall stuff.

LStarosta
07-31-2005, 05:40 PM
You are all wrong. There is nothing wrong with the P51 or the .50 cals.

Now I can't wait for Oleg to unpork the 109.

Why the f*ck he neutered the MK108 is beyond me.

JG5_UnKle
07-31-2005, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
You are all wrong. There is nothing wrong with the P51 or the .50 cals.

Now I can't wait for Oleg to unpork the 109.

Why the f*ck he neutered the MK108 is beyond me.

At last, a voice of reason!

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

No3 Spit
07-31-2005, 06:21 PM
So we are back to the orginal question of empathy?

Is it likely to get all other aircraft FM's adjusted or some empathy with the P51

p1ngu666
07-31-2005, 09:44 PM
in a coop i had a dogfight vs 109g14, i was faster.. he was better at everything with a nice margin...
was low level stuff btw..

AerialTarget
07-31-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
boosted alerons dont help at low speed where u can already move alerons to full diflection

That makes sense logically, but for some reason the numbers don't agree with you (similar to the "roll delay" balogna). Haven't you seen that NACA chart floating around lately?


Originally posted by HellToupee:different throttle settings will also result lotas tourqe so u dont get ur nice zero torque stall stuff.

Well, that's why you're careful when you do that. It's also why the Eighth Air Farce guys apparently never figured it out. Are you suggesting that differential power was not used by P-38 pilots to boost roll rate?

VND__Ghost
08-14-2005, 03:20 AM
Hi pilots!
I have one question about P-51 or british Mustang. When became operational Mustangs with 25lb boost? Thanks.

DangerForward
08-14-2005, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by VND__Ghost:
Hi pilots!
I have one question about P-51 or british Mustang. When became operational Mustangs with 25lb boost? Thanks.

I'm curious about that too. I think if the 25lb boost/Mustang IV were added to the game many of the complaints would go away. Fix the .50cal/DM and the rest go away. I find when I fly the Mustang against it's most common opponents(A8s and G6s) I do pretty well. Against the late war LW planes things are much tougher.

geetarman
08-14-2005, 09:32 AM
An 8AF P-51D pulling 72" of MP would be great (particularly below 20,000'). Alas, we'll probably never see it.

Try a MK.III. Although it has a reduced punch, I'm beginning to feel that, flown to it's strengths and limits, there's not much in the air that can best it between 10,000 - 23,000'.

VW-IceFire
08-14-2005, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by VND__Ghost:
Hi pilots!
I have one question about P-51 or british Mustang. When became operational Mustangs with 25lb boost? Thanks.
Roughly starting in April 1944. Well before D-Day.

I'm not clear on if only some squadrons made this change and then later changed it all across the board but it seems to be something they were at first cautious with and then very liberal about later.

The Mark IV interestingly enough saw most of its service post-war so most of the RAF's Mustangs were Mark III's.

CUJO_1970
08-14-2005, 12:03 PM
Despite having the favor and backing among many in the USAAF, and literally years of development work and resources poured into it by Lockheed - the P-38 ended up as a real dissapointment for the 8th AF.


For anyone that wants to know the truth about the P-38 in the 8th AF, I recommend 8th AF historian Roger Freeman's "Mighty Eighth War Manual"

In summary:

"By March (1944) VIII FC had become somewhat disillusioned with the P-38 because of the high number of abortives through mechanical failures on almost every mission...faced with continuing technical problems a decision was taken to convert all P-38 groups to P-51s."

Bearcat99
08-14-2005, 12:10 PM
The Mustang is too slow. It doesnt accelerate like it should. It doesnt dive like it should. There should be an adjustment for the supercharger. The wings shoulfd not fall off at the speeds that they do in a dive. The D should be able to carry rockets. I still fly the plane nonethe less because it is what it is and I am a Pony lover so I just deal. The following is from the P-51 manual.

http://x1.putfile.com/8/22513024776.jpg

http://x1.putfile.com/8/22513054542.jpg

http://x1.putfile.com/8/22513061599.jpg

http://x1.putfile.com/8/22513063367.jpg

http://x1.putfile.com/8/22513065149.jpg

http://x1.putfile.com/8/22513070985.jpg

CUJO_1970
08-14-2005, 12:12 PM
A side note about dive recovery flaps for the P-38 in Freemans book:

"It took the form of electrically extended dive flaps under the wings. The 479th Group recieved two aircraft with such flaps in August 1944...

"After some time flying with them they complained that the flaps continually broke down; one aircraft had needed repair nine times. The Group arranged to exchange these aircraft for two without flaps."

Slickun
08-14-2005, 12:47 PM
US P-51's in the 8th AF began using 72" map, adding about 100 hp above 67" map, as soon as 150 octane became available.

AFAIK, 145 or 150 octane was needed to safely pull more than the original 67" hg.

RAF Mustang squadrons operated at 25 pounds boost with 150 octane fuel. These A/C are completely different birds than 67" Mustangs.

The 9th and 15th AF Mustangs afaik, always operated at 67".

So, you had B/C/D Mustangs operating at 67, 72, or 81" map, as well as Allison powered Mustangs, all flying until VE day.

Reports seem to support the idea that PTO Mustangs on Iwo Jima used 145 octane fuel, and flew using the 25 pounds boost/80/81" map settings

25 pounds boost/80/81" map increase the hp available by about 300 hp, quite a boost on a relatively (for a US plane) light and low drag airplane.

FA_Whisky
08-14-2005, 01:17 PM
very interesting, page 14 of pages posted above:

Remember too, that there's nothing to be gained by using war emergency power below 5000 feet. Up to that altitude the throttle alone gives you more than enough power to exceed the operating limits of the engine

Does this mean that at sea level using WEP would boost the manifold pressure above 67"? And that WEP only was there to puch the manifold pressure back to 67" above 5000 feet untill the supercharger goes to high gear?

LeadSpitter_
08-14-2005, 02:12 PM
Its stall characteristics are just a bit high, accelaration is off a bit and dive accelaration and highspeed manueverability advantages are non existant, rather then change the p51d. The dora 109s and p38 have got to be brought to realistic fms, just like the spit had to of 3.04 and the corsair and ki84 of 3.0 out of the box along with each and every 2-4 ufos every patch has made.

geetarman
08-15-2005, 09:08 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slickun:


The 9th and 15th AF Mustangs afaik, always operated at 67".


I think there is an account by Robert Curtiss, a Med P-51 pilot (15th AF?), on the "Ace Stories" website that mentions pulling 72" in his Mustang during one of the ferry flights to Russia. Some evidence the higher-boost US P-51's were used outside of England.

geetarman
08-15-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
very interesting, page 14 of pages posted above:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Remember too, that there's nothing to be gained by using war emergency power below 5000 feet. Up to that altitude the throttle alone gives you more than enough power to exceed the operating limits of the engine


Good question. I do know that on the Mark III, you actually lose MP if going to a full 110% throttle setting at certain alts. Max MP occurs at 100%. I noticed it at alts above 25,000'.
Does this mean that at sea level using WEP would boost the manifold pressure above 67"? And that WEP only was there to puch the manifold pressure back to 67" above 5000 feet untill the supercharger goes to high gear? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tvrdi
08-15-2005, 09:19 AM
ur topic should say "Sorry, but P51 and Fw190A`s" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
08-15-2005, 09:49 AM
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 FA_Whisky:
very interesting, page 14 of pages posted above:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Remember too, that there's nothing to be gained by using war emergency power below 5000 feet. Up to that altitude the throttle alone gives you more than enough power to exceed the operating limits of the engine


Good question. I do know that on the Mark III, you actually lose MP if going to a full 110% throttle setting at certain alts. Max MP occurs at 100%. I noticed it at alts above 25,000'.
Does this mean that at sea level using WEP would boost the manifold pressure above 67"? And that WEP only was there to puch the manifold pressure back to 67" above 5000 feet untill the supercharger goes to high gear? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

slightly odd thing, perhaps they mean ones fitted without a abc or similer control box?

abc box took the pilots input but made sure it didnt go over limits. perhaps the control sticks travel was higher than was needed at low alt

also notice on the supercharger switch, it goes back to low when u let go of the button

Monty_Thrud
08-15-2005, 10:51 AM
I have to admit i dont fly the P51 series anymore due to the wingsnap, last time i did the wing fell off at about 410mph in a shallow dive at low level, whilst chasing a FW190 :blink

I've read many accounts of the RAF pilots loved and admired this Warbird...but none about them fearing the wings snapping off

Slickun
08-15-2005, 11:07 AM
Does anyone know how many victories Brit P-51's accounted for? I know there were aces in the type.

geetarman
08-15-2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
I have to admit i dont fly the P51 series anymore due to the wingsnap, last time i did the wing fell off at about 410mph in a shallow dive at low level, whilst chasing a FW190 :blink

I've read many accounts of the RAF pilots loved and admired this Warbird...but none about them fearing the wings snapping off

Give it another shot. I had the best engagement I've ever had online, yesterday, in a high speed fight with a Dora while in a MK.III. We went from 8,000' to 20,000' and back down over the course of 10 minutes. The average speed of the two aircraft was 270 mph! At those speeds, both planes were extremely responsive in pitch and roll. It was fantastic! I won by getting a lucky shot into his cockpit with my .50's as he went into a 350mph zoom climb that the Mustang followed without concern!

lrrp22
08-15-2005, 12:08 PM
geeterman

That's the second reference I've seen to the use of 72" Hg WEP by 15th AAF pilots- Curtis was with the 15th's 52nd FG. Robert E. Riddle of the 31st FG refers to 72" Hg WEP, as well. Do you have a link to Curtis's story?

I've asked 325 FG ace Art Fieldler what the max boost used by the 325th was but he didn't recall anything above 67" Hg. The 31st and 52nd FG's may have taken it upon themselves to run 72" on 100/130 grade. Or, maybe some 100/150 grade fuel did reach the MTO. I have also seen claims that some MTO RAF Sit IX's, referred to as 'Basta'(Italian for "more than enough") were run at increased boost on '150 octane' fuel.

edit: Art Fiedler has spoken with 31st FG Ace Bob Gobel regarding WEP- Bob doesn't have any recollection of using 72" WEP in the 31st.

From Lt. Robert E. Riddle of the 31st:



I stayed down on the deck just long enough to photograph two FW-190's burning on the ground but couldn't find the first one I thought had probably gone in. I didn't spend much time searching since it seemed a pretty unhealthy place for a lone gun-less P-51. I started back upstairs trying to figure out where I was. When red marker flak began bursting around me about 24,000 feet, I found out I was right near the target area. I looked at my clock and decided that everyone else had gone home since I'd been there an hour and the radio was very silent. But I put out a call for Playboy Squadron and found that Red Flight was only about ten minutes ahead. They turned around, picked me up and we came home - barely. My crew chief measured the gas in my tanks and just shook his head. But he smiled when he saw I hadn't broken the wire on my throttle quadrant that would have put me in <span class="ev_code_RED">full emergency boost at 72 inches of manifold pressure</span>. Strangely enough, I never broke that wire during my entire combat tour.


----------------------------------------


Originally posted by geetarman:

I think there is an account by Robert Curtiss, a Med P-51 pilot (15th AF?), on the "Ace Stories" website that mentions pulling 72" in his Mustang during one of the ferry flights to Russia. Some evidence the higher-boost US P-51's were used outside of England.

geetarman
08-15-2005, 01:57 PM
Irrp - my bad. The comment about Curtiss was wrong. I was referring to the same Biddle quote as the one you posted. Thus far, that is the only shred of evidence I've found concerning higher boosted USAAC P-51's outside the ETO.

FA_Whisky
09-29-2005, 03:39 AM
just for fun, BUMB

Maple_Tiger
09-29-2005, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
LOL - the P51 - as is - is one of the uber planes in this simm. If you have trouble in it you need to work on your tactics. It is very easy - other a/c - such as the 109, require more skill.


Lol,

Not if you your in the QMB. It's very easy to down the P-51D while flying a G-10 - nothing to it. On the other hand, you can bairly manage to catch the G-10 when flying the P-51d lol.

danjama
09-29-2005, 05:50 AM
Im with maple. Mustang is too slow. Trimmed, WEP, Correct Pitch blah blah blah, it just dont cut it.

Zjoek
09-29-2005, 06:04 AM
I've read many accounts of the RAF pilots loved and admired this Warbird...but none about them fearing the wings snapping off

Well I got some WW2 documentaries (Warbirds of WW2). In the P51 film a pilot (don't remembe who...) comments on the fact that you had to watch out that your wings wouldn't snap IIRC...

Could be just one pilot... But food for thought...

If I get my PF running well I'm gonna give the P51 a thorough workout... See if I can make it work...

Aaron_GT
09-29-2005, 08:28 AM
Im with maple. Mustang is too slow. Trimmed, WEP, Correct Pitch blah blah blah, it just dont cut it.


So, you had B/C/D Mustangs operating at 67, 72, or 81" map, as well as Allison powered Mustangs, all flying until VE day.

This is the confusion, I think. The P51B and C we have in the game is modelled with 67". The performance is pretty much fine for 67" but some of the common performance figures floating about that people compare to are for 72". We also have a Mustang III at +25lb boost. The Mustang III/+25 performances also seem to be ok. Perhaps what we need are some P51s running at the middle boost?

Von_Rat
09-29-2005, 10:09 AM
i keep seeing statments that 109s stall speed is to low. maybe it is, but i haven't seen any numbers proving it.

even if it is, id like to see some data about other planes stall speeds. since everybody seems to be going on feeling here, its my feeling that alot of planes stall speeds are to low, not just 109.

ICDP
09-29-2005, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
Im with maple. Mustang is too slow. Trimmed, WEP, Correct Pitch blah blah blah, it just dont cut it.

Just out of curiosity what speeds are you getting in the P51? Use the standard testing procedures and post your results here. Frankly having a "gut feeling" doesn't cut the mustard. If you have a legitimate problem with P51 speeds you need to post your results because I am matching the real data VERY closely in my tests.

Here are the results for P51B performance test in PF 4.01. This test is also posted on page 3 of this thread but obvioulsy it didn't make an impression as we are still getting totally worthless posts based on nothing but "gut feeling".

Real Data = RD

Top Speeds
Sea Level(RD): 359mph. PF 359mph
20,000ft (RD): 419mph. PF 423mph
24,000ft (RD): 442mph. PF 443mph
29,100ft (RD): 450mph. PF 444mph

So the PF 4.01 P51B matches real test data extremely well for top speeds.

Climb data using military power (100% throttle) to 20,000. Fuel 50%

(RD with full ammo and 180gals of fuel) 6.6 minutes
PF from brake release: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 50%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.4 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 50% fuel)
PF from brake release: 7.2 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 75%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 75% fuel)

I don't know if the real test was done from brake release so I tried both. Also in PF I cant select the correct amount of fuel (180 US gallons). I conducted 4 tests using both 50% and 75% fuel load and I tsted both loads from brake release and from SL. Overall the climbrate seems to be very accurate for 100% throttle in the P51B since I was able to match the real ROC at SL (3,400 ft/.min) and 20,000 (2500 ft/.min).

Rollrates

I tested the P51B rollrates according the the NACA rollrate chart (50lbs stick force).

MPH...NACA...PF
180...63.....72
220...78.....82
260...90.....101
300...94.....95
340...93.....83
380...88.....76

The P51B in PF is slightly overmodelled at slower speeds perfect at 300mph but slightly undermodelled in roll at higher speeds.

Overall the P51B in PF is modelled very accurately, it reaches its top speeds, climb rate and rollrates very well compared to real data. So no I have to totally dissagree with some of the opinions on this thread that the P51 in PF is undermodelled.

It is advisable to test against real data (as I have spent quite a few hours doing) before making totally unwarranted claims due to "feel".

On the subject of Bf109G10's outrunning P51's, well duh!!! The 109G10 was a very fast fighter and would be able to match or slightly exceed top speed of the P51 at low to mid altitudes. Even at higher altitudes the speed difference would be marginal at best.

fordfan25
09-29-2005, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
LOL - the P51 - as is - is one of the uber planes in this simm. If you have trouble in it you need to work on your tactics. It is very easy - other a/c - such as the 109, require more skill.

i disagree. p51 is one of the hardst fighters to fly well.

ICDP
09-29-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
LOL - the P51 - as is - is one of the uber planes in this simm. If you have trouble in it you need to work on your tactics. It is very easy - other a/c - such as the 109, require more skill.

i disagree. p51 is one of the hardst fighters to fly well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with Fordfan. To claim the Bf109 is in ANY WAY harder to fly than the P51 in 4.01 is a joke!

lbhskier37
09-29-2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Im with maple. Mustang is too slow. Trimmed, WEP, Correct Pitch blah blah blah, it just dont cut it.

Just out of curiosity what speeds are you getting in the P51? Use the standard testing procedures and post your results here. Frankly having a "gut feeling" doesn't cut the mustard. If you have a legitimate problem with P51 speeds you need to post your results because I am matching the real data VERY closely in my tests.

Here are the results for P51B performance test in PF 4.01. This test is also posted on page 3 of this thread but obvioulsy it didn't make an impression as we are still getting totally worthless posts based on nothing but "gut feeling".

Real Data = RD

Top Speeds
Sea Level(RD): 359mph. PF 359mph
20,000ft (RD): 419mph. PF 423mph
24,000ft (RD): 442mph. PF 443mph
29,100ft (RD): 450mph. PF 444mph

So the PF 4.01 P51B matches real test data extremely well for top speeds.

Climb data using military power (100% throttle) to 20,000. Fuel 50%

(RD with full ammo and 180gals of fuel) 6.6 minutes
PF from brake release: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 50%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.4 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 50% fuel)
PF from brake release: 7.2 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 75%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 75% fuel)

I don't know if the real test was done from brake release so I tried both. Also in PF I cant select the correct amount of fuel (180 US gallons). I conducted 4 tests using both 50% and 75% fuel load and I tsted both loads from brake release and from SL. Overall the climbrate seems to be very accurate for 100% throttle in the P51B since I was able to match the real ROC at SL (3,400 ft/.min) and 20,000 (2500 ft/.min).

Rollrates

I tested the P51B rollrates according the the NACA rollrate chart (50lbs stick force).

MPH...NACA...PF
180...63.....72
220...78.....82
260...90.....101
300...94.....95
340...93.....83
380...88.....76

The P51B in PF is slightly overmodelled at slower speeds perfect at 300mph but slightly undermodelled in roll at higher speeds.

Overall the P51B in PF is modelled very accurately, it reaches its top speeds, climb rate and rollrates very well compared to real data. So no I have to totally dissagree with some of the opinions on this thread that the P51 in PF is undermodelled.

It is advisable to test against real data (as I have spent quite a few hours doing) before making totally unwarranted claims due to "feel".

On the subject of Bf109G10's outrunning P51's, well duh!!! The 109G10 was a very fast fighter and would be able to match or slightly exceed top speed of the P51 at low to mid altitudes. Even at higher altitudes the speed difference would be marginal at best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no place for real data and testing in whines, what are you thinking posting this!

Kuna15
09-29-2005, 10:28 AM
Basically Bf-109 is fighter capable of P-51 speeds more or less, but more stable (much more I have to say) and more manouverable.
P-51 has advantage only in turn on very high speed, but unfortunately that is insufficient.

Bf-109 has also way more better RoC.

In our sim.

BFawlty
09-29-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Archangel2980:
*HEAD EXPLODES*

Ditto!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

BF

Kuna15
09-29-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
it just dont cut it.

Don't know how was the RL situation but http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif as far as FB 401 is concerned.

Hetzer_II
09-29-2005, 10:45 AM
I´m not sure.. but i can remeber that Hartman and some other german aces thought that the 109 was better below 5000 Meters.. And so its like in our game... take the fight up to 8000 Meters.. there is where the 51 shines and where it can almost do everything with a 109.. its faster up there, its more maneuverable up there.... no problem if you fight were this bird belongs or if you fly low use smart tactics... And for wings snapping offf... i fly the 51 a lot since 4.02.. but i never lost a wing...be gentle..

horseback
09-29-2005, 11:02 AM
The issue with the Mustang (indeed, with all American planes not operated extensively by the Soviets) in this game is not that it fails to hit its numbers, but that it handles like a pig on ice. American fighters were considered as a group to be smooth handling, stable gun platforms, readily lending themselves to accurate shooting.

In this game, the opposite is true for the top front line American fighters.

The slightest change in throttle setting or speed requires gross trim adjustments to keep the 'ball' centered (and the ball often contradicts the 'vector pipper' we have in the Wonder woman view--Nobody pop a vein, I could see that by viewing my recorded tracks, being a member in good standing of the Orthodox Cockpit-Only Sect since acquiring TIR3).

While the Mustang was considered to be a 'trim aircraft', it was held to be less so than the P-40, which enjoys a much more benign handling FM in the game. Coupled with the undermodelling of the HMGs (not just the M2 .50, it appears to me that all HMGs lack their RL hitting power) solid AP rounds' kinetic power in this sim with the odd recoil effect caused by the exactly simultaneous firing of wing mounted guns, the Mustang lacks the stability in flight and the real life hitting power it actually enjoyed.

Hitting the numbers is nice, but next to useless if you can't keep the pipper on the target for the 3 or 4 seconds (or about twice as long as historically needed) to take down a fighter.

cheers

horseback

StellarRat
09-29-2005, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
There are alot of problems with the P51 flight model. But no matter what we write or prove nothing will change. If there is no prblem then how come a B25 can out turn and out manuver this plane. FM programming. I am not sure why Oleg and team do not want to model this fine aircraft correctly but I am sure glad that the real P51 in real life does not perform like this one does in the game otherwise I would be dead already.
1. The P51 does not loose every bit of energy halfway through a turn. Maybe only about 15% to 20% at the most.
2. Fly spit or Yak and go into a fast dive and then pull up. Notice how lenient the black out feature is. Now go into a dive with the P51 and instant blackout.
3. Maximum speed of P51 437 @ 25k. Spitfire is only 355 but the spit can outrun it.

The list goes on and on but like I said it does not matter. Oleg does not seem to like this plane so what you have is what you have instead of a correctly modeled airplane. Even if this was the most advanced plane of its time and the performance on it was far better than anyother during the time, Oleg does not like it and he will model it the way he wants to even if it is not correct.
It is a shame that the Russians and the Luftwaf have planes that they can fly and be proud of in this game but us American flyers have dead weight. It is a shame that the US gets represented the way it does in this game and the only reason Oleg even sent this product to the US is to make money. I just wish he would represent things correctly.

By the way, I am not going to throw up a bunch of specs and stuff to prove it. Let me just say that I speak from knowing.

By the way, one thing I can say, the guns are perfect for strength right now. Thank you for that Oleg.

Why do so many of you disagree with this guy? Apparently you didn't read his post carefully. It sounds like he has flown the P-51 in combat. Either that or he is a total faker. I'd be careful in being so quick to critize his points unless you have equal experience.

VW-IceFire
09-29-2005, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgflyer:
There are alot of problems with the P51 flight model. But no matter what we write or prove nothing will change. If there is no prblem then how come a B25 can out turn and out manuver this plane. FM programming. I am not sure why Oleg and team do not want to model this fine aircraft correctly but I am sure glad that the real P51 in real life does not perform like this one does in the game otherwise I would be dead already.
1. The P51 does not loose every bit of energy halfway through a turn. Maybe only about 15% to 20% at the most.
2. Fly spit or Yak and go into a fast dive and then pull up. Notice how lenient the black out feature is. Now go into a dive with the P51 and instant blackout.
3. Maximum speed of P51 437 @ 25k. Spitfire is only 355 but the spit can outrun it.

The list goes on and on but like I said it does not matter. Oleg does not seem to like this plane so what you have is what you have instead of a correctly modeled airplane. Even if this was the most advanced plane of its time and the performance on it was far better than anyother during the time, Oleg does not like it and he will model it the way he wants to even if it is not correct.
It is a shame that the Russians and the Luftwaf have planes that they can fly and be proud of in this game but us American flyers have dead weight. It is a shame that the US gets represented the way it does in this game and the only reason Oleg even sent this product to the US is to make money. I just wish he would represent things correctly.

By the way, I am not going to throw up a bunch of specs and stuff to prove it. Let me just say that I speak from knowing.

By the way, one thing I can say, the guns are perfect for strength right now. Thank you for that Oleg.

Why do so many of you disagree with this guy? Apparently you didn't read his post carefully. It sounds like he has flown the P-51 in combat. Either that or he is a total faker. I'd be careful in being so quick to critize his points unless you have equal experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I would disagree with two points.

1) No Spitfire present in-game can out run a Mustang.

2) Lenient blackout? I have two words: elevator effectiveness.

So I find it hard to believe the rest of the arguments when two things which are quite wrong in my opinion are also stated in the way that they are.

I like the Mustang, I think it has its problems, and I wonder if maybe there is room to improve, but I don't care what plane it is or what state its in...lets be realistic about it and not one sided.

ICDP
09-29-2005, 05:07 PM
Well said Icefire.

You would think that the P51 is the only aircraft that is used to see the whines on this forum. It is not the only aircraft with stability problems, has anyone flown the F2A2 or IAR81 recently. The two fighters I mention above have much more torque and handling problems than the P51 but they aren't as popular so are easy to forget.


It really is so much easier to just come here and whine about the P51 without actually doing some research. We even have people whining that they were outtrun by a Bf109G10. Just shows how much they really know about relative performance. They honestly believe that the Bf109 should simply fall apart as soon as a Mustang shows up!!!

VW-IceFire
09-29-2005, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Well said Icefire.

You would think that the P51 is the only aircraft that is used to see the whines on this forum. It is not the only aircraft with stability problems, has anyone flown the F2A2 or IAR81 recently. The two fighters I mention above have much more torque and handling problems than the P51 but they aren't as popular so are easy to forget.


It really is so much easier to just come here and whine about the P51 without actually doing some research. We even have people whining that they were outtrun by a Bf109G10. Just shows how much they really know about relative performance. They honestly believe that the Bf109 should simply fall apart as soon as a Mustang shows up!!!
Yes we call that the "Mustang Effect". All Luftwaffe pilots should prompty shut their engines off and bail out on sighting of said plane. Thats a bit over the top but we've got a few here who think that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The reality of the situation is that all Luftwaffe pilots should do that...but only on sighting of the Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have done a couple of tests recently and the numbers for top speeds seem to be about right. Seeing as I can't get the rated top speed in any plane at the moment (yes I KNOW what IAS and TAS are thanks) it seems to be about right. So the speed seems about right.

We'll be arguing about HMG's till the sun explodes so we'll leave that one alone.

Nose wandering and instability can be...or at least can be for me...fixed through control settings.

So all in all its not a bad plane in some quantitative and a couple of qualitative tests. I haven't a clue how the real thing flies because I've never been up in one but it seems to suffer all the good and bad things that other aircraft in its class do.

Kuna15
09-29-2005, 08:38 PM
I am aware that this is a game and game can not give exact simulation of real life.

IMHO if American pilots had these aircraft like in game and their oponents aircraft were strong like in game I feel really sorry for US pilots.

Enough said.

fordfan25
09-29-2005, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
I am aware that this is a game and game can not give exact simulation of real life.

IMHO if American pilots had these aircraft like in game and their oponents aircraft were strong like in game I feel really sorry for US pilots.

Enough said.


i have to agree on most of the fighters in the 1943/1944 selection. i do feel that the p-38 LATE is well depected as long as you take the LATE off the name and call it the p-38L. i think the turn rates are more or less correct but the stabilty is fubar as is the dive rates and the FM in the DW equiped fighters is silly weak. actually i think the FM's are screwy as a whole but thats just my opinion nothing else. again for TARGERT i will repat so he does not havve to quote me saying "yes your opinion or got trak" it is in my opinion. lol just funnin with you TAG we all know you cant help it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kuna15
09-29-2005, 09:11 PM
Yes. We can all post our impressions. Whether we spent hours of testing prior to that or not.

There are very very few tests posted on these forums that are really unbiased and comprehensive.

By comprehensive I mean relative comparison (overall performance) of several contemporary types.

I mean what is the point to have exact clone (by overall performance) of some fighter in game, when his adversary maybe isn't modelled so accurate. Well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

fordfan25
09-29-2005, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
Yes. We can all post our impressions. Whether we spent hours of testing prior to that or not.

There are very very few tests posted on these forums that are really unbiased and comprehensive.

By comprehensive I mean relative comparison (overall performance) of several contemporary types.

I mean what is the point to have exact clone (by overall performance) of some fighter in game, when his adversary maybe isn't modelled so accurate. Well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

i dont know ask the la-7 guys LMAO

GR142-Pipper
09-29-2005, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
The B25 can probably out turn the P51 at slower speeds at lower heights because of the lift the wing generates, the P51 was never a great turner but its light years ahead in terms of responsivness to the B25 both in real life and in this simulator. If it's true in this game that a B-25 can out turn a P-51 at ANY speed/height it's nothing short of farcical.

GR142-Pipper

ImpStarDuece
09-29-2005, 10:06 PM
Why? Short Stirling pilots reported that at low enough speeds they could out-turn Hurricanes. Its all a question of lift and aspect ratios.

GR142-Pipper
09-29-2005, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
LOL - the P51 - as is - is one of the uber planes in this simm. If you have trouble in it you need to work on your tactics. It is very easy - other a/c - such as the 109, require more skill. It's not that the P-51 is difficult to fly...it just doesn't perform. Furthermore, to be successful in the P-51 (as modeled in this game) requires a great deal more skill than the 109 does (IMHO, of course). The P-51 in this game is a relative dog and it's 50's don't do much. One Mk 108 hit on the P-51 and it's mostly finished.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-29-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Why? Short Stirling pilots reported that at low enough speeds they could out-turn Hurricanes. Its all a question of lift and aspect ratios. Respectfully, this is like saying a B-17 could out turn an F4F. It's just not believeable.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-29-2005, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
I agree that the stall speed of the 109G2 - K4 is suspect. why should these heavier verions have a lower/similar stallspeed than the 109F2!

It should be noted though that the lack of high speed High AoA snap stall is due to the slat problem in 4.01. It is a bug that effects ALL slatted fighters in the sim. It seems to have become very common to level this critisicm only at the 109.

The manual prop pitch exploit/cheat definately needs fixed. This is an issue that should be addressed at the same time as improving the overall CEM mode. It is NOT possible to overrev any of the CSP prop fighters, this is NOT realisitc. Agreed. The more interesting question is why has this situation allowed to remain for so long? Again, no accident.

GR142-Pipper

ColoradoBBQ
09-29-2005, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
LOL - the P51 - as is - is one of the uber planes in this simm. If you have trouble in it you need to work on your tactics. It is very easy - other a/c - such as the 109, require more skill. It's not that the P-51 is difficult to fly...it just doesn't perform. Furthermore, to be successful in the P-51 (as modeled in this game) requires a great deal more skill than the 109 does (IMHO, of course). The P-51 in this game is a relative dog and it's 50's don't do much. One Mk 108 hit on the P-51 and it's mostly finished.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All you need to know is how to manage your energy to fly this plane.

GR142-Pipper
09-30-2005, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
LOL - the P51 - as is - is one of the uber planes in this simm. If you have trouble in it you need to work on your tactics. It is very easy - other a/c - such as the 109, require more skill. It's not that the P-51 is difficult to fly...it just doesn't perform. Furthermore, to be successful in the P-51 (as modeled in this game) requires a great deal more skill than the 109 does (IMHO, of course). The P-51 in this game is a relative dog and it's 50's don't do much. One Mk 108 hit on the P-51 and it's mostly finished.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All you need to know is how to manage your energy to fly this plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Proper energy management is an assumed expectation. The P-51 is simply WAY outperformed as well as out-gunned by the 109 given the present state of the 50 cals. With evenly matched pilots and as modeled in this game, 109's should comfortably handle their P-51 adversaries and usually do anyway...even with lesser 109 drivers.

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
09-30-2005, 12:52 AM
If it's true in this game that a B-25 can out turn a P-51 at ANY speed/height it's nothing short of farcical.

He said at low speeds. It might be possible at low speeds. The P51 has a relatively low drag wing that equally is low lift at slow speeds which means that tight turns at slow speeds are difficult for it. But it is this same property that gives it such good high speed characterisitics.


Respectfully, this is like saying a B-17 could out turn an F4F. It's just not believeable.

RAF bombers tended to be more nimble than most and the Stirling was more nimble than most RAF bombers. The Stirling had a very thick wing which generated a lot of lift at low speeds. The favoured tactic of the Stirling when attacked by an Me 110 nightfighter was to turn out of its way, allowing its guns to be brough to bear on the 110, but not vice versa. (For the Lancaster it was the corkscrew, and I am not sure what Halifax crews did).

Aaron_GT
09-30-2005, 12:56 AM
Proper energy management is an assumed expectation. The P-51 is simply WAY outperformed as well as out-gunned by the 109 given the present state of the 50 cals.

A 109G with 1 20mm and 2 13mm should be about on a par with the P51B in terms of armament. In terms of performance the P51B should have an edge (although the margin isn't huge) at high speeds, but with the 109 having the performance advantage (better turn and acceleration) below around 200mph. Basically keep things fast and the 109 should be beatable. I fly the P51 a fair bit and if kept fast it seems to do ok against 109s but it is very easy to get suckered into getting low and slow, and then you are at a huge disadvantage.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2005, 12:57 AM
One Mk 108 hit on the P-51 and it's mostly finished.

That's how it should be, though.

Aaron_GT
09-30-2005, 12:59 AM
Maximum speed of P51 437 @ 25k. Spitfire is only 355 but the spit can outrun it.

355 would be about right for a Spitfire at sea level, not TAS at 25k. I can't remember the figures for earlier Spitfires but the Spitfire XIV could fly a little faster than the P51 at 25,000 ft. The versions of Spitfire we have in the game, though, should not and cannot fly faster than the P51 at 25.000 ft.

Badsight.
09-30-2005, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One Mk 108 hit on the P-51 and it's mostly finished.

That's how it should be, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL ! TELL ME ABOUT IT

this game has let some think a Mk-108 hit on a fighter was somehow survivable I SWEAR !

as far as the Mustang is concerned , personally , i see it has a SMALL window of performance where it can operate against FB Bf-109s , & its easy to get outside of that window & when it does its at a firm dis-advantage against the Bf-109's in this game

GR142-Pipper
09-30-2005, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One Mk 108 hit on the P-51 and it's mostly finished.

That's how it should be, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed. I was trying (rather poorly) to state by analogy that it takes but one hit by the 108 and countless hits by the 50s to achieve the same result. That is not how it should be from the P-51's perspective.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-30-2005, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Proper energy management is an assumed expectation. The P-51 is simply WAY outperformed as well as out-gunned by the 109 given the present state of the 50 cals.

A 109G with 1 20mm and 2 13mm should be about on a par with the P51B in terms of armament. In terms of performance the P51B should have an edge (although the margin isn't huge) at high speeds, but with the 109 having the performance advantage (better turn and acceleration) below around 200mph. Basically keep things fast and the 109 should be beatable. I fly the P51 a fair bit and if kept fast it seems to do ok against 109s but it is very easy to get suckered into getting low and slow, and then you are at a huge disadvantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In all but very brief mostly non-maneuvering high speed encounters (drive by's), the P-51 in this game is at a huge disadvantage.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-30-2005, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it's true in this game that a B-25 can out turn a P-51 at ANY speed/height it's nothing short of farcical.

He said at low speeds. It might be possible at low speeds. The P51 has a relatively low drag wing that equally is low lift at slow speeds which means that tight turns at slow speeds are difficult for it. But it is this same property that gives it such good high speed characterisitics.


Respectfully, this is like saying a B-17 could out turn an F4F. It's just not believeable.

RAF bombers tended to be more nimble than most and the Stirling was more nimble than most RAF bombers. The Stirling had a very thick wing which generated a lot of lift at low speeds. The favoured tactic of the Stirling when attacked by an Me 110 nightfighter was to turn out of its way, allowing its guns to be brough to bear on the 110, but not vice versa. (For the Lancaster it was the corkscrew, and I am not sure what Halifax crews did). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It doesn't matter how "nimble" the Sterling was. There's NO way it could out turn a Hurricane....simply no way. I really can't believe anyone would post something this inane.

GR142-Pipper

blindpugh
09-30-2005, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
I´m not sure.. but i can remeber that Hartman and some other german aces thought that the 109 was better below 5000 Meters.. And so its like in our game... take the fight up to 8000 Meters.. there is where the 51 shines and where it can almost do everything with a 109.. its faster up there, its more maneuverable up there.... no problem if you fight were this bird belongs or if you fly low use smart tactics... And for wings snapping offf... i fly the 51 a lot since 4.02.. but i never lost a wing...be gentle.. with 4.02!!!hmmmn when did that patch come out??????

OD_79
09-30-2005, 04:50 AM
I think on this bomber out turning a fighter issue some of you seem to be thinking of a fully loaded bomber with full fuel and bombload...of course like this it can't...but empty it of bombs and use some of the fuel and these things can move. You've got a huge wing that is meant to lift a huge weight that isn't there, you've got four engines providing a huge amount of power to sustain it, add to this low altitude where there is denser air and voila you have ideal conditions for such a feat. It might not be able to sustain it for long but it is possible.

OD.

ImpStarDuece
09-30-2005, 05:21 AM
I'll have to dig up the book that I found the story of the Stirling getting the better of the Hurricane. It was in one of those great "I was there, this is how it was" books that lots of veterans released in the mid 50s.

I think the pilot was up doing a aerial radio calibration and decided to have a little "fun" with one of the local training command pilots in a Hurricane. IIRC it was one of the later marks of Stirling, maybe a Mk V?

ElAurens
09-30-2005, 05:22 AM
I am fairly certain that the P61 Black Widow, which is roughly the size of a medium bomber, can out turn a P51. Size is not necessarily a determiner of turn rates...

IMHO the most glaring fault of the whole 109 series is it's over simplified ground handeling.
109s are currently one of the easiest aircraft to drive around on the ground and land or take off in. This flys in the face of reality.

anarchy52
09-30-2005, 05:59 AM
I'm not a regular P-51 driver but I don't see P-51 as useless dog as some here say. I noticed a few things:
FM
On the deck P-51 is outperformed by late 109s in terms of acceleration and climb rate. The lower the alt and lower the speed 109's advantage increases. Also 51's engine overheats quickly while flying low & slow. It does better vs FW-190 as pony still has a margin in manuverability except roll rate at low speed (below 400km/h).
At roughly 5.5k pony turns into a beast. It has excellent speed, e-retention and climb. No FW can keep up, and 109's can barelly keep up for a while if under 6-6.5k. At 7k pony is noticably superior in most aspects.

Easy to take off and land. A bit less wobbling then 109 and easier to peel off the ground then 190A.

FM seems to be in accordance to books and anecdotes. I haven't noticed the dreadded instability people are raving about. I find the 109 / 190 more difficult to fly precisely. On a side note I found the ability to trim rudder and ailerons not as helpful as I thought it would be. Nice for flying long routes on lower power settings but more or less useless in combat.

DM/weapons
.50s are weaker then cannons and require you to hit pilot, engine or controls to achieve a kill in first pass. For each of my kills there were 3 that got away by diving away and either (crash) landed or got shot down by Spitfires.

Percieved ineffectivenes of fifties comes from several reasons:
a) FW-190 lack of visual damage (being on the recieving end I assure you damage is felt, even a few scattered .50s will degrade your performance and handling signifficantly which was not the case IRL)
b) bug in FW-190 DM concerning fuel tanks - although in the game leaking fuel tank is not really a problem as there is no fear of fuel vapour catching fire. It just leaks out rapidly or seals. Visual, that's all.
c) gun synchronisation, lack of shotgun effect
d) lack of radiator DM on ALL planes (coolant leak, oil leak were no.1 engine killer).

conclusion:
1) Don't give up your e
2) Don't fly alone
3) Don't get suckered low
5) Wait for BoB for more realistic DM and 4.02 for Zero-like 190s (if betas are any indication)
6) Most importantly remember that FW-190 is never alone

P.S. Excellent discussion on WWII arnament by experts:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=autogun&msg=2038.1

Xiolablu3
09-30-2005, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
While it was once a decent fighter in this game, the P51 has been trimmed back until it's basically a nothing aircraft. Seems like it was much more accurate and could hold its own a few patches back.

And, history tells us that the P51 did MUCH more than hold its own. The aircraft was simply a terrific performer in every aspect except possibly stall-fighting on the deck. And even then there are plenty of accounts that even this was successfully done by skilled Mustang pilots.

Oleg and 1C have not modeled the P51 honestly.


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

But most of what you sre saying is just opinions of US flyers who had a massive numerical advantage and were facing the last dregs of the Luftwaffe pilots. The Luftwaffe pilot of 1940-43 was very different to that of 1944-45.

Maybe it could 'hold its own' better a few patches back but how do you know its not more accurate now?

I'm not a P 51 expert but I'm sure Oleg has spoken to many P51 pilots when modelling the plane in this sim.

You need a pilot who has flown many types so he can compare, not JUST the P51 as he may say 'its the greatest fighter ever' but has never flown a German plane to compare it against!

Please try and forget the legend that this plane has become as this means little because of the situation. (Germany on its last legs) Facts are needed in this sim and I have seen little to make me think its seriously undermodelled. (Apart from US flyers complaining 'its not as good as it said on the American History channel!')

F19_Ob
09-30-2005, 08:01 AM
Remember that this is the first try with this new FM. It's very likely that the planes will be tuned, like with the old FM.
Post all issues in the bug thread in Olegs ready room so they may take a look at it.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HARRIER_401
09-30-2005, 08:25 AM
The P-51 D was a great plane until the 2.01 patch. It has always had the COG problem beacause it is modeled with the center tank filled with fuel. If you have ever read anything about a 51 this was the tank the pilots always used first. The D model should have the same performance as the Mk III. No plane should be able to touch it except a Ta 152 or a Dora and they would duel for the performance advantage at different alts. I have also posted in this guy Olegs ready room <span class="ev_code_RED">who is Oleg bye the way</span>for the rear view mirror and he wrote back say I was crazy it doesnt need one.It is a shame that this great plane is a pile of junk in a sim that so many people still fly and support but if things dont change I dont think that will last much longer.

ICDP
09-30-2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by HARRIER_401:
Blah Blah Blah... and other such BS

I see you haven't even flown the P51 in the sim or you would know you are talking sh!te. The fact that up until 2.01 the P51 was able to outturn the 109 at low speed and could climb far to quickly is lost on you. Maybe we should revert to the orginal FB Mustang, on initial release it was actually faster than the Me262. Actually it wouldn't matter if we did, people like you would still whine when they got shot down in a DF server.

blindpugh
09-30-2005, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HARRIER_401:
Blah Blah Blah... and other such BS

I see you haven't even flown the P51 in the sim or you would know you are talking sh!te. The fact that up until 2.01 the P51 was able to outturn the 109 at low speed and could climb far to quickly is lost on you. Maybe we should revert to the orginal FB Mustang, on initial release it was actually faster than the Me262. Actually it wouldn't matter if we did, people like you would still whine when they got shot down in a DF server. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Now-Now temper temper little boy -I,m old enough to remember them in the war.

ViktorViktor
09-30-2005, 09:41 AM
The only book I've ever read on the P38 was by Martin Caidin, that was in the 60's, but I remember him trying to explain why the P38 was such a bust in the European theatre, but a stud in the Pacific. To make it short, it was a matter of operational altitude/air temperature. The P38 generally operated at high altitudes in the ETO, and here it was found lacking. I also remember reading that P38 cockpits were much too cold at altitude, which led to a significant decrease in situational awareness /alertness, not to mention will-to-fight. (It must have been murder to sit in a P38 and be freezing your a** off for the whole 6 hours.) However, in the Pacific, combat didn't regularly occur at 20,000 feet,it occurred at a much lower altitude. Here there was no heating problem or frost on the windows, etc.

Wasn't the P38 eventually withdrawn from the ETO as an escort fighter, even though it had a greater range than the P47 ?

Correct me if I'm wrong (really, don't - I'm just being polite.)

ColoradoBBQ
09-30-2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
as far as the Mustang is concerned , personally , i see it has a SMALL window of performance where it can operate against FB Bf-109s , & its easy to get outside of that window & when it does its at a firm dis-advantage against the Bf-109's in this game

Every plane has a small performance advantage over their adversaries. It take a good pilot to use that small advantage and turn it into a major performance window.

Badsight.
09-30-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by HARRIER_401:
The P-51 D was a great plane until the 2.01 patch. AEP release v2.0 Mustang WAS A JOKE PLANE

as in OVERMODDELED

Von_Rat
09-30-2005, 02:01 PM
just by reading this thread i can tell, people are trying to fly the p51 way to low and way to slow.

does the p51 have some problems? of course it does, so do alot of other planes.

but if you fly it like its supposed to be flown,,,, as a HI ALTITUDE, HI SPEED FIGHTER,,, its a great plane.

Bremspropeller
09-30-2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
IMHO the most glaring fault of the whole 109 series is it's over simplified ground handeling.
109s are currently one of the easiest aircraft to drive around on the ground and land or take off in. This flys in the face of reality.

A "bug" I'm concerned about ever since in this game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

The 190 in contrast is pretty "edgy" on T/O in game while it is supposed to handle very nice.

danjama
09-30-2005, 03:19 PM
"P61 Black Widow, which is roughly the size of a medium bomber, can out turn a P51. Size is not necessarily a determiner of turn rates..."

Just thought id add that when i saw a P61 fly at duxford Legends in July, it was VERY versatile and turned very well, me and airmail were shocked at the size it was and how well it turned! Ask airmail if you dont believe me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I am beginning to think that maybe there is complications with the programming of the P51 that stop oleg from modelling it correctly, like oleg has said its a restrictive FM. If not, then i cant see why it snaps when u touch the elevatr up a bit, i mean any plane should be able to climb right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif and for that matter, any of its faults. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

GR142-Pipper
09-30-2005, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
But most of what you sre saying is just opinions of US flyers who had a massive numerical advantage and were facing the last dregs of the Luftwaffe pilots. The Luftwaffe pilot of 1940-43 was very different to that of 1944-45. It wasn't simply massive numerical advantage that established the P-51's record. The superb combination of airframe and Merlin engine as well as the skill of those flying it made the P-51 not only successful but legendary.


Maybe it could 'hold its own' better a few patches back but how do you know its not more accurate now? Because it can't do anything now. It's nearly as useless as the now totally useless anvil-like P-47.


I'm not a P 51 expert but I'm sure Oleg has spoken to many P51 pilots when modelling the plane in this sim. I doubt he even spoke to one. But speaking to pilots and modeling aircraft properly are two different things.


You need a pilot who has flown many types so he can compare, not JUST the P51 as he may say 'its the greatest fighter ever' but has never flown a German plane to compare it against! The evidence is overwealming that the P-51 was indeed a very great aircraft. The only places in which this is a matter of conjecture are on IL-2 forums.


Please try and forget the legend that this plane has become as this means little because of the situation. (Germany on its last legs) Facts are needed in this sim and I have seen little to make me think its seriously undermodelled. (Apart from US flyers complaining 'its not as good as it said on the American History channel!') Please quit trying to rewrite history to fit your misconceptions. The P-51 was a superb fighter. It's a zilch here in this game. The same is true for the P-47 as far as being useless is concerned. There is overwealming evidence to the contrary by countless acutal combat pilots that establishes the outstanding credentials of both of these planes as rooted in fact.

GR142-Pipper

danjama
09-30-2005, 04:13 PM
I agree with Pipper. Well put http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

horseback
09-30-2005, 05:08 PM
But most of what you sre saying is just opinions of US flyers who had a massive numerical advantage and were facing the last dregs of the Luftwaffe pilots. The Luftwaffe pilot of 1940-43 was very different to that of 1944-45. A grossly simplified and therefore incorrect statement. This over-romanticized, Euro-centric image of thousands of well trained American Mustang drivers remorselessly slaughtering German teenagers desperately throwing themselves into fighters that would have been vastly superior to the Mustangs if only the pilots had been properly trained makes me want to gag.

From December 1943 to April 1944, there were something like four or five fighter groups trickling into 8th AF service equipped with the Mustang, and only one of those groups was composed of veterans who had converted in-theater from the P-47.

Flying what was essentially an unproven combat design, going alone into territory dominated by veteran German units, these mostly green units pretty much decimated the opposition almost every time they encountered them. This was the period during which most of the Western experten (those pilots of 1940-43 you speak of; they didn't die of old age or retire to write aviation books) were lost over Germany, beaten by less experienced, albeit very well trained and led, pilots in aircraft at the very least the equals (in every way; I do not concede for a second this horses**t about the ineffectiveness of wing mounted HMGs) to the German fighters they faced.

Contemporary reports (reports made at that time, March-May 1944) from the veteran fighter pilots of the 4th FG made it very clear that they thought that they were now flying a superior fighter at all altitudes. Of course, the best of these guys had learned to beat the Germans in the heavy P-47, so maybe they had better than average skills. In any case, we're not talking about memoirs of eighty year old men. We are talking about the combat reports of military professionals at the peak of their abilities.

Still, you wouldn't get me to believe that they had learned immediately how to squeeze the maximum potential out of their mounts in less than 10 or 15 flights, so the 'edge' over the 109s and 190s flown by pilots much longer experienced in those types could not have been slight.

The largescale conversion of the 8th AF's Fighter Command to Mustangs was a direct result of the success of those few groups at the extreme ends of their aircraft's range against veteran pilots who had enjoyed great success against all comers up to that time.

The big numbers came after D-Day, when the military issue was already settled. Everything that came after that was Hitler and his fellow lunatics playing for time, sacrificing other peoples' lives for a fantasy (that whole Western Allies joining Germany to fight the Soviet Union thing). The war was over, and all that had yet to be settled was the final body count.

Every other plane in this sim is supposedly modelled so that 'factory flaws' are not present; hence, early war Soviet fighters have canopies you can see out of and the surface finish that the designers were only able to achieve with their hand-built prototypes. Similarly, late-war German fighters suffer from none of the Quality Assurance issues inherent in scattered manufacture at remote sites by slave labor. The first Mustang offered in FB was plagued with wing-loss problems originally ascribed to a production flaw caused at one production line at one factory for one batch. The initial P-47 could be out-rolled by the He-111. The counterrotating props of the P-38 had more torque than the imaginary 109z, whose props turned in the same direction (if they didn't please name the DB model number used for the counterclockwise turning prop). All of these aircraft now bounce around in the sky like 10-speed bicycles on a gravel road, while the 109 (and to a lesser extent, the 190) track as smoothly as Harley Davidsons on a new blacktop.

What was the name of that song? 'Things That Make You Go Hmm?'

thus endeth my rant

horseback

faustnik
09-30-2005, 05:58 PM
A grossly simplified and therefore incorrect statement. This over-romanticized,

You might be headed a little in that direction yourself with your last post Horseback. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

I will definately agree with you that anyone who doesn't think that the P-51 was a very effective fighter, at least the equal of any other prop plane it encountered, is ignoring the facts.

GR142_Astro
09-30-2005, 06:01 PM
"Every other plane in this sim is supposedly modelled so that 'factory flaws' are not present; hence, early war Soviet fighters have canopies you can see out of and the surface finish that the designers were only able to achieve with their hand-built prototypes. Similarly, late-war German fighters suffer from none of the Quality Assurance issues inherent in scattered manufacture at remote sites by slave labor. The first Mustang offered in FB was plagued with wing-loss problems originally ascribed to a production flaw caused at one production line at one factory for one batch. The initial P-47 could be out-rolled by the He-111. The counterrotating props of the P-38 had more torque than the imaginary 109z, whose props turned in the same direction (if they didn't please name the DB model number used for the counterclockwise turning prop). All of these aircraft now bounce around in the sky like 10-speed bicycles on a gravel road, while the 109 (and to a lesser extent, the 190) track as smoothly as Harley Davidsons on a new blacktop."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Friendly_flyer
09-30-2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The superb combination of airframe and Merlin engine as well as the skill of those flying it made the P-51 not only successful but legendary.

The P-51 was indeed a good plane, but legendary? What's legendary depends on where you're from. Comming from Norway, I knew Spitfires and Hurricanes from boyhood, but I think I was in my teens before I learned there was something named "Mustang". I'm not saying the Hurricane was a better plane than the Mustang, just that "legendary" is a matter of perception.

The mustang was undoubtly a great plane. It is in the game too. I'm not entierly fond of the .50'ies, but the plane is eminent as long as you stay high and don't turn to much. It's a high speed escort plane, not some doubledecker.

horseback
09-30-2005, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
The P-51 was indeed a good plane, but legendary? What's legendary depends on where you're from. Comming from Norway, I knew Spitfires and Hurricanes from boyhood, but I think I was in my teens before I learned there was something named "Mustang". I'm not saying the Hurricane was a better plane than the Mustang, just that "legendary" is a matter of perception. That's because all the Norwegians who flew Mustangs in WWII went back home to places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, Petter. When you're a child, it's all about what your guys flew and had success with. The Poles knew about Mustangs because the RAF put them in Mustangs, where some of their greatest aces performed great deeds. The Brits and Aussies know about them, because the Brits provided that marvelous engine, and the Aussies liked 'em enough to have built their own Mustangs after the war.

The Germans know about it because for the next several years after mid 1944, they saw more of them than they ever did Messerschmitts.

I'd say that qualifies it for the 'Legendary' label.

cheers

horseback

fordfan25
09-30-2005, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I agree with Pipper. Well put http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

as do i. im not one to say the p-51 was THE best fighter or any fighter is THE best "sept for f4u-4 it was king" but i dont think the p51 is any wear near right when it comes to a few major factors. as far as the things i have read and seen

VFA-25_Peckens
09-30-2005, 09:35 PM
the p51 is my favoirte plane in rl and in this sim even though its not the most uber plane in the game the only problem i have with it is that it drains energy fairly quick in just a small little turn and its a pretty heavy plane too so i would think it would be able to maintaing it a bit better, otherwise once u know alot about the mustang then u will find it a very deadly killing machine, just like the 190 and 47 its another plane that u have to learn to use to its best (im still learning and dying alot hehe but im improving)

Von_Rat
09-30-2005, 10:21 PM
for all you guys complaining that the p51d is no good as its currently modeled, or the .50s are weak, well, i think you guys need to practice more or somthing.

i flew the p51d on warclouds tonite. after screwing around on the deck with it like a noob, and getting killed 3 times, i decided to get serious.

i started flying fast, not necessarly hi, but i always kept my e up. and i somehow managed to shoot down 7 of those dreaded uber lw planes. 6 of them were clean kills, 3 of them were the supposed unkillable fws. i think only one my kills was awarded for a plane that landed, i'll have to check.

anyway after i got serious i only got shotdown once, vulched right after takeoff.

i'm far from being a uber pilot, and i'm not all that familar with the p51, since i mostly fly blue.

but comon, if i can score like that, with some of the best flyers on the server,,, cough ,,the rest of jv44,,, cough,,, hunting me, you can do it too.

geetarman
09-30-2005, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
for all you guys complaining that the p51d is no good as its currently modeled, or the .50s are weak, well, i think you guys need to practice more or somthing.

i flew the p51d on warclouds tonite. after screwing around on the deck with it like a noob, and getting killed 3 times, i decided to get serious.

i started flying fast, not necessarly hi, but i always kept my e up. and i somehow managed to shoot down 7 of those dreaded uber lw planes. 6 of them were clean kills, 3 of them were the supposed unkillable fws. i think only one my kills was awarded for a plane that landed, i'll have to check.

anyway after i got serious i only got shotdown once, vulched right after takeoff.

i'm far from being a uber pilot, and i'm not all that familar with the p51, since i mostly fly blue.

but comon, if i can score like that, with some of the best flyers on the server,,, cough ,,the rest of jv44,,, cough,,, hunting me, you can do it too.

I was there (under a diff name) and da man speaks the truth. We were taking names at 22,000'.

Von_Rat
09-30-2005, 11:13 PM
yep we were owning them up hi,, but funny thing is i didnt get one dang kill up there..lol

HellToupee
09-30-2005, 11:31 PM
The issue is on servers like warclouds the p51 has few if any advantages over its opponents, only up high is it fast enough to disengage, the guns are also inconsitant, ive managed 5 kill sorties sawing wings off 109s even dewinged a 190 once other times ive emptyed the entire ammo load into a ta152 only to get minor dammage. But vs late 109s its easily outturned, outclimbed outrun at lower alts out gunned to, vs 190s its about fair but is outgunned and outrun. Not saying its undermodeled just it is an inferior plane for dogfight servers, but in the end you can still shoot down a me262 with a gladiator or a k4 with a spit Vc just means u have to be much better or lucky than the guy in the other plane.

Von_Rat
09-30-2005, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
The issue is on servers like warclouds the p51 has few if any advantages over its opponents, only up high is it fast enough to disengage, the guns are also inconsitant, ive managed 5 kill sorties sawing wings off 109s even dewinged a 190 once other times ive emptyed the entire ammo load into a ta152 only to get minor dammage. But vs late 109s its easily outturned, outclimbed outrun at lower alts out gunned to, vs 190s its about fair but is outgunned and outrun. Not saying its undermodeled just it is an inferior plane for dogfight servers, but in the end you can still shoot down a me262 with a gladiator or a k4 with a spit Vc just means u have to be much better or lucky than the guy in the other plane.

the p51d is faster than the d9 at alts beteewn 2k and 4k appoxamitly. thats hardly up hi. its faster than 109k at anything under 4k. the p51 easily out turns the 09 at hi speeds, so just stop tnb ing on the deck.

as far as outgunned, when youre using 50 cals, get close, when you think youre close enough,,, get closer.

if youre inconsistant youre probaly shooting to soon. also all guns are inconsistant, ive seen planes eat multiple 108s.

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The superb combination of airframe and Merlin engine as well as the skill of those flying it made the P-51 not only successful but legendary.

The P-51 was indeed a good plane, but legendary? What's legendary depends on where you're from. Comming from Norway, I knew Spitfires and Hurricanes from boyhood, but I think I was in my teens before I learned there was something named "Mustang". I'm not saying the Hurricane was a better plane than the Mustang, just that "legendary" is a matter of perception. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, it's not a matter of perception whatsoever. It's a matter of well established fact as attested to by its excellent war record.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 04:51 AM
Pipper , History & Legends are made by Victors no ?

how much did the cold propaganda war let the US public know about the history of the ETO airwar & its part in ending WW2 ?

how much did you personally know about Lavochkin's & Yakolev's before IL2 ?

for sure the Mustang is well-knowen in america - for good reason

personally it took this game for me to learn anything about the Sturmovik & the top scoring allied Ace who flew La-7's . . . . .

& this is repeated by many other users of this game

danjama
10-01-2005, 07:04 AM
"the p51 easily out turns the 09 at hi speeds, so just stop tnb ing on the deck."

BS! Whats the point in trying to outturn a 109 with your suprior speed, only to lose it all in a semi circle and get shot down! Theres clearly a problem with the P51 FM in the game so stop being dumb.

fordfan25
10-01-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
yep we were owning them up hi,, but funny thing is i didnt get one dang kill up there..lol

i would not call that owning them then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
10-01-2005, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
"the p51 easily out turns the 09 at hi speeds, so just stop tnb ing on the deck."

BS! Whats the point in trying to outturn a 109 with your suprior speed, only to lose it all in a semi circle and get shot down! Theres clearly a problem with the P51 FM in the game so stop being dumb.

lol that and loseing a wing if your tryn to pull harder than the 109. IMHO and im not whinning mind you "im a 38 man my self" but i think the p-51 in its current state is fubar. claiming you can get kills in it does not change how its moddled on way or another. i can get kill's in a wildcat, la-7 or a fw190 that does not change the fact that the wild cat dives like a paper airplane or that the FW's top speed may be wrong.

HellToupee
10-01-2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the p51d is faster than the d9 at alts beteewn 2k and 4k appoxamitly. thats hardly up hi. its faster than 109k at anything under 4k. the p51 easily out turns the 09 at hi speeds, so just stop tnb ing on the deck.

as far as outgunned, when youre using 50 cals, get close, when you think youre close enough,,, get closer.

if youre inconsistant youre probaly shooting to soon. also all guns are inconsistant, ive seen planes eat multiple 108s.

Its not a matter of how close you are it is simply outgunned, i also find cannons significantly easyer to land on target. Yes some guns are inconsistant, but i can saw wings off spitfires in 2 151 hits far more frequently than i caninflict fatal dammage in a 5 second stream of hits :/ with .50s.


P51 maybe faster, however its acceleration is abysmal a spit Vc will overtake it in a shallow climb and in level flight untill its max speed is reached, you can rarely if ever reach its top speed in any practical time, one advantage of flying the D9 was i could engage opponents even risk high bleed manovers then just ram down the throttle and be gone in a jiffy, only opponents with alt advantage put me in danger. I tried running from a g6/as today i had quite a head start closed rad full throttle trimmed out for level flight he had been turn fighting on the deck, he very quickly caught me what to do then? well you cant really outmanover him, g6/as can turn as good as a spitfire. Sure a p51 can outturn a 109 at high speed, but then theres many ways around that 109s can slow down very quickly and turn inside you, a turn will also bleed what little speed you have which you cannot get back as easily as a 109, and also turns at high speed result in blackouts and some blackouts are certian death especially when u are going very fast it takes a very long time to recover. Then theres the feel the plane gives you, in a p51 i feel like a target tug, in a d9 i feel like nothing can touch me not even my fav the spit.

Also your success you were working with other pilots, even **** planes will beat much better planes if they outnumber them or have generally more organisation, cant quite rember what the stats were but i had around 13 sorties of p51 before reset and about 9ish kills with one shoot down being outrun by a g6/as again, not because of the plane, not because of my UBER L33T abilities but because when ever some lufty came after me a spitfire would come screaming from the heavens with a 20mm surpise.

gx-warspite
10-01-2005, 08:49 AM
Some comments:

1. The "legendariness" of an aircraft has **** to do with how good it was. The Zero is legendary - or infamous - and it's quite possibly the worst fighter in the game and definitely the one most over-rated by history. Am I saying that all "legendary" aircraft are bad? No, but I'm saying that "legendary" status confers NOTHING on them.

2. The P-51 is a HIGH ALTITUDE fighter. While competent on the deck, like the Ta-152, its advantages are most evident at high altitude. Most servers I've flown on have fights under 3km/10k ft. This isn't where the Mustang shines. In fact, you'd be better off with the P-51A with the Allison engine at these altitudes.

3. The P-51 is a HIGH SPEED fighter. Its roll rate is average at low and medium speeds, but unlike other aircraft, its roll doesn't get worse at high speed. P-51s, along with 190s, like being fast. They don't like being turned. These aren't Spitfires, Zeros or even 109s or Franks. They never did like being turned.

4. The P-51 is a HEAVY fighter. Now it's no Jug, but its performance envelope falls well within that of the 190. They have a lot of power, can go very fast, but their low and medium speed acceleration, as well as their climb rate, are poor. Where they excel is in top speed, dive, and being able to continue accelerating long after other fighters have reached their speed limit.

5. History has NOTHING to do with this game. You're not flying with a stream of 2,000 bombers facing sections and pockets of Luftwaffe 109G-6 and 190A-8 resistance at 10km/30,000ft. You're fighting on the deck. Your opponent isn't preoccupied with trying to shoot down bombers. Your opponent is flying 109Ks and 190Ds rather than more primitive fighters. Your opponent isn't a poorly trained 1944 draftee. Your opponent isn't outnumbered. Consequently, you're not going to repeat history.

6. .50s aren't cannon. Even the USAF realized this over Korea. There's a reason that Britain kept using cannon on its fighters even though they could have used Brownings. There's a reason that Russians used cannon rather than the UBK (which is superior to the M2, with similar ballistics, a much higher rate of fire, same weight bullet, same muzzle velocity). There's a reason why the MG151 was re-chambered to 20mm rather than keeping the original 15mm. Cannon are superior because they deal more damage in less time. When you're in combat and have .5s for a snapshot, you bet your sweet *** you'll want cannon. Read this: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html

Now, IMO, .50s scatter too much in the game and in general there's too much recoil, but it's not like I can produce any data on their effectiveness or whatever.


You want a wank-and-bank fighter with lots of firepower that can do everything well? Try a Lala or Ki-84. They won't turn with Spits or Zekes but they're faster, climb better and can outturn most other fighters.

The P-51 is an excellent ship, you just need to learn to fly it right. I fly 190s and P-51s. They're extremely competitive with each other. What do I prefer? Depends if I'm alone or flying with friends. Alone I'll take the 190 because its firepower permits me to get more kills. With friends I'll fly the Mk III because that way we can set up drag-and-bags and the Mk III's better speed and climb increase survivability in that scenario.

Friendly_flyer
10-01-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
That's because all the Norwegians who flew Mustangs in WWII went back home to places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, Petter.

Now, that would be Americans, then wouldn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But off coerce you are right. Norwegian fighter pilots on WWII flew Spitfires and Mosquitoes, and these wonderful machines where the ones being iconised in Norway after the war. Besides, living two days by boat from where the BoB was fought, the Hurricane was bound for stardom, even here.

I just say that the Mustangs stardom is no proof of its excellence.

Von_Rat
10-01-2005, 09:27 AM
I tried running from a g6/as today i had quite a head start closed rad full throttle trimmed out for level flight he had been turn fighting on the deck, he very quickly caught me what to do then?

you can dive away from a g6as rather handily, if hes to close, throw in a barrel roll as you dive, but oh wait, you probaly couldn't dive, because you were on the deck right?



_______________________________________________
Also your success you were working with other pilots, even **** planes will beat much better planes if they outnumber them or have generally more organisation
____________________________________________


working together is good idea, you state it like if you cant dominate by yourself your plane is porked.

btw i was flying alone when i got most of my kills, later when lw started flying higher i teamed up with some great red pilots and started flying hi.



___________________________________________

Sure a p51 can outturn a 109 at high speed, but then theres many ways around that 109s can slow down very quickly and turn inside you, a turn will also bleed what little speed you have which you cannot get back as easily as a 109,
______________________________________________


go up, dont flat turn, use the vertical.

geeez it sounds like you guys want the p51 to be just another spitfire clone.



______________________________________________--
lol that and loseing a wing if your tryn to pull harder than the 109
____________________________________________-

adjust your joystick, i did and didnt lose a wing at all last nite, despite dives of 750k plus.
also before i adjusted my joystick i was hi speed stalling alot in p51. after i adjusted it i only hi speed stalled once trying to turn with 09.


______________________________________________
BS! Whats the point in trying to outturn a 109 with your suprior speed, only to lose it all in a semi circle and get shot down! Theres clearly a problem with the P51 FM in the game so stop being dumb.

___________________________________________

stop flat turning, your the dumb one if you don't use the vertical.



as far as the p51s acceleration goes, is it wrong , i dunno, some here say the rl p51 was a medicore accelarator. be that as it may, if you think the p51 accelerates slow, try the ta152, that thing accelerates even slower.



---------------------------------------------
claiming you can get kills in it does not change how its moddled on way or another. i can get kill's in a wildcat, la-7 or a fw190 that does not change the fact that the wild cat dives like a paper airplane or that the FW's top speed may be wrong.
______________________________________________



this is true, getting kills doesn't prove nothings wrong with p51, but then again i haven't seen any post that prove there is somthing wrong. just alot of whining that the p51 is, in so many words, useless. well i posted my orginal post to prove its not useless.

Von_Rat
10-01-2005, 09:36 AM
great post warspite...

Vipez-
10-01-2005, 10:55 AM
Yup, nice post warspite..

horseback
10-01-2005, 04:13 PM
The following is taken from Mustang: The Operational Record, by Robert Jackson, published by Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992. Jackson records on pages 30 and 31 the report produced by the Army Air Forces Board after evaluating the new production P-51B, in the first half of 1943(I've added emphasis with italics in key points):

€œThe P-51B, from sea level to 11,000 ft, is some seven to ten miles an hour slower than the P-51A which is the fastest fighter at this altitude. Between 14,000 and 22,000 ft, the P-51B is about fifteen to twenty mph faster. From 22,000 ft the P-51B, in high blower, widens this speed advantage up to seventy-five mph at 30,000 ft.

€œFrom sea level, the P-51B gradually gains on the P-38J and the P-47D until, at 16,000 ft, it has a speed of about 420 mph which is about ten mph faster than the P-38J and about twenty mph faster than the P-47D. Above 27,000 ft, the P-51B can no longer get war emergency power, but its speed of about 430 mph at 30,000 ft is equal to that of the P-47D and about twenty mph faster than the P-38J, both using war emergency power. The P-51B is capable of 400 mph at 30,000 ft.

€œThe P-51B is by far the best climbing aircraft of all current American fighters. It takes about 4.5 minutes to get to 15,000 ft as against five minutes for the P-38J and about seven minutes for the P-47J (I have to think this is a typo and that they are still referring to the P-47D-HB). The P-51B maintains a lead of about .5 minute over the P-38J to 30,000 ft and reaches that altitude in about eleven minutes which is about 6.5 minutes faster than the P-47D.

€œIn zooming the P-51B with the P-47D from level flight at cruising and high speeds, and from high speeds out of dives, the P-51B gains speed rapidly and leaves the P-47D far behind. In zooming the P-51B with the P-38J, from level flight at cruising speed, the fighters climb evenly at the start. However, the P-51B falls off while the P-38J keeps climbing. In zooms from high speeds (425 indicated air speed) the P-51B pulls away from the P-38J and it soon ends considerably higher.

€œThe diving characteristics of the P-51B are superior to those of any other fighter plane. It is exceptionally easy to handle and requires very little trimming. The P-51B dives away from all other fighters except the P-47D, against which the P-51B loses several hundred feet ahead in the initial pushover and then holds that position, apparently neither gaining nor losing distance.

€œThe new seal-balanced ailerons of the P-51B give the fighter a faster rate of roll at all speeds than any other (Allied-HB) fighter except the P-47D with which it is equal at cruising speeds.

€œThe search view of the P-51B is better than in the P-51A, but is still obstructed above, to both sides, and to the rear, by the canopy construction. The view forward over the nose is considerably improved over the P-51A by the relocation of the carburetor air intake scoop, the elimination of the clear view panel on the left side of the windshield, and lowering the nose of the engine one and one-half degrees.

€œThe fighting qualities of the P-51B were compared with those of the P-47D-10 and the P-38J-5 and briefly, with the P-39N-0 and the P-40N. The only maneuver the P-39 and P-40 have that is superior to the P-51B is a slight advantage in the turning circle. In all other maneuvers, as well as performance, they are both inferior. The P-51B has good performance at all altitudes, but above
20,000 ft the performance improves rapidly, and its best fighting altitude is between 25 and 35,000 ft. The rate of climb is outstanding, with an average of about 3,000 ft per minute from sea level to 25,000 ft. Above 20,000 ft, the overall fighting qualities of this aircraft are superior to those of all other types used in the trials.€

Unquestionably, there is some hyperbole, particularly about the climb. The early models of the P-51B lacked the dreaded fuselage tank, though, so it was certainly more competitive in climb than later models. The information
provided seems a bit selective. But it is a fact that fuel accounted for a much larger fraction of its fully loaded internal takeoff weight than for any other fighter of its time, and that by the time it normally reached the combat area, at least a third of that weight had been consumed. In this lighter weight condition, it became much more formidable.

I€ve been searching amongst my various books and magazines, trying to find an evaluation the RAF did of the Mustang Mk III (P-51B) vs the Spitfire Mk IX, but it hasn€t surfaced as yet. If my memory serves, the RAF felt that there was little to choose between the two if the Mustang€s fuel level was limited to the wing tanks, slightly favoring the Spit in turn and climb up to medium heights, negated by the Mustang€s greater speed (possibly including acceleration at that lighter weight), particularly in the dive.. The higher the contest went, the more the gap narrowed, until the Mustang was felt to be superior above 25,000 ft in all but horizontal turn (and that was quite close, owing to the Mustang€s use of the flaps at the maneuvering stop). Generally, the tone of the report seemed to me to be that a contest between the two would be determined by the pilots rather than any decisive advantage of one type over the other. I€ll post that when I find it.

cheers

horseback

ICDP
10-01-2005, 04:37 PM
Great post Vipez.

What you say is backed up by mountains of data on the P51. The P51B/C and D were a high altitude fighters, even the USN said so in their P51 v F4U tests. An interesting point they brought up was the weak directional stability which requires constant attention to the rudder in flight (P51B).

Check out the link to see why the USN determined that the P51 was not suitable for naval use due to poor directional stability and that it was only better than the F4U at higher altitudes. The F4U was superior in climb, dive and turn. That the F4U was superior in maneuverablity and response.

Read the report here.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/

Why am I bringing this up? Because it seems that the Mustang whiners want a completely unhistorical figher that is equally at home at low and high speed and altitude. The day Oleg listens to them is the day the entire IL2 series becomes a joke. Face it guys, the P51B/C or D was NEVER a low speed low altitude dogfigher. If the P51 whiners get their way they will be getting a Spitfire with the shape of a Mustang.

It doesn't have the acceleration, response or agility to compete with Spitfires, Yaks, 109's or La's at low altitude or speeds. Having said that I have won my fair share of knife fights in the P51B (my favourite Mustang).

Before 2.01 the Mustang was far to agile and could even turn with Spitfires and 109's at low speeds. As far as energy bleed goes I disagree, I am able to hold energy quite well in the P51... oh! I just realised... maybe I am doing something wrong by NOT ENGAING IN TURNFIGHTS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
The P-51 is an excellent ship, you just need to learn to fly it right. You might want to give us a little credit here for knowing how to fight the P-51. Many here know what its strenths are as well as its limitations. The issue being presented is that in this game the aircraft has very limited capabilities other than up high. History says otherwise.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I just say that the Mustangs stardom is no proof of its excellence. Respectfully, have you read anything about this aircraft at all? Its history? Its widespread utilization? Its war record? Pilot accounts? Anything? To conclude that its stardom was anything other than absolutely well-earned is amazing.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
[quote]Why am I bringing this up? Because it seems that the Mustang whiners want a completely unhistorical figher that is equally at home at low and high speed and altitude. That's not true. Those who use the P-51 in this game simply want an accurate P-51. Not one that's a virtual grape in just about all areas (or in the case of the P-47 an aircraft that is a complete grape in all areas).


The day Oleg listens to them is the day the entire IL2 series becomes a joke. Face it guys, the P51B/C or D was NEVER a low speed low altitude dogfigher. If the P51 whiners get their way they will be getting a Spitfire with the shape of a Mustang. Sort of like the way Oleg has made the 109's turn at near Yak-like rates, right? Face it guys, the 109G/K's were never turning dogfighers. The 109 whiners got their way and received a up-gunned, no blackout, instant energy altering, farcical bat-turning Yak with the shape of a 109.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 05:17 PM
I€ve been searching amongst my various books and magazines, trying to find an evaluation the RAF did of the Mustang Mk III (P-51B) vs the Spitfire Mk IX, but it hasn€t surfaced as yet.

The test against the XIV is easily available:

"Radius of Action
31. Without a long range tank, the Spitfire XIV has no endurance. With a 90 gallon long-range tank it has about half the range of the Mustang III fitted with 2 x 62 1/2 gallon long range tanks.

Maximum Speed
32. The maximum speed are practically identical.

Maximum Climb
33. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

Dive
34. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly.

Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XIV is better.

Rate of Roll
36. The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.

Conclusion
37. With the exception of endurance no conclusions can be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste."

ICDP
10-01-2005, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The issue being presented is that in this game the aircraft has very limited capabilities other than up high. History says otherwise.

GR142-Pipper

No it doesn't, history tells us exactly that. It could hold its own at low altitude and speed but was at a dissadvantage against the 109 in this area. Even the NACA chart shows that at low to mid speed the rollrate of the P51 is overmodelled. If anyting the NACA rollrate diagram shows that at low speed the P51 rollrate should be toned down slightly, it suffers by around 10% at higher speeds but so do all other AC in the sim.

Try to remember that the P51B/C or D had 1500-1700 HP engines and weighed a lot more than the Bf109 or even the Fw190. This means that both LW fighters have higher HP per lb. and will outaccelerate the P51 at low to mid speeds. Basically this means that if you start maneuvering hard in a P51 it WILL lose speed faster than the 109 or 190. It will end up at a dissadvantage, not because it is slower that the 109 or 190 but because it is gerneraly less agile than both these fighters at lower speeds. It will aslo have a distinct dissadvantage in acceleration and climb rate.

None of you P51 whiners are presenting ANY FACTS, all you show as proof is some "gut feelings" and some pilot accounts. Pilot accounts alone are not FACTS, they are opinions of the individual pilots. I have seen accounts from 109 pilots who swear they could outturn a Spitfire. I have seen a pilot account form Pierre Closterman where he stated the Bf109 would outrun the Spitfire at low speeds. I have seen pilot account that swore that the P39 was a dog, while others claim it was an excellent fighter. I have even seen pilot accounts from an F2A2 pilots who stated the Zero could do 400mph. My point is that for every pilot account that says one thing there are plently that say another.

I am not dissputing that the P51 was an outstanding fighter, it was. What I am dissputing is that you and other P51 whiners have any argument that it is undermodelled. In my tests it reaches its historical performance levels almost perfectly and it behaves according to the test results I have seen.

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 05:21 PM
I want the P-51 to be accurate. As far as I can tell it is pretty good, Pipper, as it is now, from what I have read. Given the engine boosts used in the sim it matches specs, it has the same stability issues (pretty much) noted in the USN trials, and it turns well at high speed, but much less well at low speed. The only real problems are the over sensitive elevator which can cause wing breaks and the tactical employment.

Now it might be that the RELATIVE performance is off, but that's a case for changing the other aircraft, not the P51. There are certainly areas of modelling problems of other aircraft, for example the Spitfire which is a bit too good in some areas (relative to the boost levels we have), or the Tempest which is woefully undermodelled.

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 05:23 PM
Basically this means that if you start maneuvering hard in a P51 it WILL lose speed faster that the 109 or 190.

It also gives the 109 an advantage in sustained turns. The 109 also has a wing better suited to generating lift at low speed. But then getting into a slow turn fight is a mistake in any plane as whilst you might beat the plane you are currently fighting it makes you very vulnerable to BnZ from his buddy that you didn't know about .

neural_dream
10-01-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Those who use the P-51 in this game simply want an accurate P-51...
and they have it. You rely too much on books and stories, and i suspect they are all American.

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Now it might be that the RELATIVE performance is off, but that's a case for changing the other aircraft, not the P51. In this game, it's all about relative performance. It's FAR easier to change one aircraft to establish its relative performance position than to modify ALL other aircraft to conform to "properly" modeled P-51, no? Which do YOU think Oleg would do...change the P-51 or modify ALL the other aircraft? (It's a rhetorical question, btw.)

GR142-Pipper

ICDP
10-01-2005, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
In this game, it's all about relative performance. It's FAR easier to change one aircraft to establish its relative performance position than to modify ALL other aircraft to conform to "properly" modeled P-51, no? Which do YOU think Oleg would do...change the P-51 or modify ALL the other aircraft? (It's a rhetorical question, btw.)

GR142-Pipper

With this sinlge statement you have shown your true agenda. You are totally admiting with the above statement that you believe the P51 is modelled to historical levels in PF. What you really want is an overmodelled P51, thank you for finally admiting what most of us already suspected. You are saying the P51 is fine but the 109 and 190 are overmodelled (in your opinion) but you want the P51 "boosted" to match your perception of history.

Oh and by the way, I can assure you that the vast majority of us would prefer ALL aircraft to be modelled correctly. Thankfully this is what Oleg wants also.

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Those who use the P-51 in this game simply want an accurate P-51...
and they have it. You rely too much on books and stories, and i suspect they are all American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hilarious. Yes, relying on an aircraft's proven combat record, innumerable combat pilot reports and other historical data that all confirm this aircraft's greatness are things that should be avoided in the future. Instead, we could listen to those here on this little forum who enjoy attempts at rewriting history to provide us the "truth". LOL

Psssst...I'll take the real historics any day.

GR142-Pipper

P.S. Btw, take a look at at where most (not all) of the authoritative aviation books are published. They're from Great Britain. The Brits are sticklers for historical accuracy and they do it right.

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
and received a up-gunned, no blackout, instant energy altering, farcical bat-turning Yak with the shape of a 109.

...and so it goes. man , thats BS

Pippers posting out of frustration - has yet to post any of this "history" he says shows how fantastic the Mustang was

this is the best ever summary for Mustang fans to read ive yet seen posted here at UBI :


Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Some comments:

1. The "legendariness" of an aircraft has **** to do with how good it was. The Zero is legendary - or infamous - and it's quite possibly the worst fighter in the game and definitely the one most over-rated by history. Am I saying that all "legendary" aircraft are bad? No, but I'm saying that "legendary" status confers NOTHING on them.

2. The P-51 is a HIGH ALTITUDE fighter. While competent on the deck, like the Ta-152, its advantages are most evident at high altitude. Most servers I've flown on have fights under 3km/10k ft. This isn't where the Mustang shines. In fact, you'd be better off with the P-51A with the Allison engine at these altitudes.

3. The P-51 is a HIGH SPEED fighter. Its roll rate is average at low and medium speeds, but unlike other aircraft, its roll doesn't get worse at high speed. P-51s, along with 190s, like being fast. They don't like being turned. These aren't Spitfires, Zeros or even 109s or Franks. They never did like being turned.

4. The P-51 is a HEAVY fighter. Now it's no Jug, but its performance envelope falls well within that of the 190. They have a lot of power, can go very fast, but their low and medium speed acceleration, as well as their climb rate, are poor. Where they excel is in top speed, dive, and being able to continue accelerating long after other fighters have reached their speed limit.

5. History has NOTHING to do with this game. You're not flying with a stream of 2,000 bombers facing sections and pockets of Luftwaffe 109G-6 and 190A-8 resistance at 10km/30,000ft. You're fighting on the deck. Your opponent isn't preoccupied with trying to shoot down bombers. Your opponent is flying 109Ks and 190Ds rather than more primitive fighters. Your opponent isn't a poorly trained 1944 draftee. Your opponent isn't outnumbered. Consequently, you're not going to repeat history.

6. .50s aren't cannon. Even the USAF realized this over Korea. There's a reason that Britain kept using cannon on its fighters even though they could have used Brownings. There's a reason that Russians used cannon rather than the UBK (which is superior to the M2, with similar ballistics, a much higher rate of fire, same weight bullet, same muzzle velocity). There's a reason why the MG151 was re-chambered to 20mm rather than keeping the original 15mm. Cannon are superior because they deal more damage in less time. When you're in combat and have .5s for a snapshot, you bet your sweet *** you'll want cannon. Read this: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/fgun.html

You want a wank-and-bank fighter with lots of firepower that can do everything well? Try a Lala or Ki-84. They won't turn with Spits or Zekes but they're faster, climb better and can outturn most other fighters. how many biased LW fans do you see posting :
"why is the Ta-152 so useless!"
none because they aint that stupid , btw unlike the Mustang , the Ta-152 made a 17+ second turn in tests . theres a place where the Ta shines like the Mustang & where its not good

ICDP
10-01-2005, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Those who use the P-51 in this game simply want an accurate P-51...
and they have it. You rely too much on books and stories, and i suspect they are all American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hilarious. Yes, relying on an aircraft's proven combat record, innumerable combat pilot reports and other historical data that all confirm this aircraft's greatness are things that should be avoided in the future. Instead, we could listen to those here on this little forum who enjoy attempts at rewriting history to provide us the "truth". LOL

Psssst...I'll take the real historics any day.

GR142-Pipper

P.S. Btw, take a look at at where most (not all) of the authoritative aviation books are published. They're from Great Britain. The Brits are sticklers for historical accuracy and they do it right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More total BS from Pipper. YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT OR TEST REPORT TO PROVE YOUR ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF HISTORY. You are nothing but a biased, blinkered fool.

THE P51 IS MODELLED PERFECTLY IN PF, YOU HAVE EVEN ADMITTED IT YOURSELF IN THIS VERY THREAD.

"In this game, it's all about relative performance. It's FAR easier to change one aircraft to establish its relative performance position than to modify ALL other aircraft to conform to "properly" modeled P-51, no? Which do YOU think Oleg would do...change the P-51 or modify ALL the other aircraft? (It's a rhetorical question, btw.)"

YOU ARE CLEARLY STATING THE P51 IS MODELLED PROPERLY BUT YOU "THINK" IT NEEDS BOOSTED TO REACH ITS "RELATIVE PERFORMANCE POSTITION".


I AM SHOUTING TO MAKE MYSELF CLEAR, IT IS WHAT INTELLIGENT PEOPLE HAVE TO DO WHEN COMMUNICATING WITH IDIOTS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ivan please close this thread, this guy is a total biased idiot.

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
With this sinlge statement you have shown your true agenda. You are totally admiting with the above statement that you believe the P51 is modelled to historical levels in PF. Here's yet another example of reading into a post that which isn't there. I never admitted to anything regarding the P-51 and I have no agenda other than historical accuracy regarding all types.

You seem not to understand the post so I'll clarify. The concept I offered in my post was that from a practical programming standpoint it is easier to make one aircraft correct RELATIVE TO ITS PEERS than it is to go back and modify ALL THE OTHERS to conform to that one RELATIVE aircraft imbalance. The rhetorical question then posed was "Which do you think that Oleg would do?" means would he change one or change ALL THE OTHERS. Let me help. He'd overwhelmingly likely change but one. Please READ the posts before replying to your imagination and assigning ficticious agendas when none exist.[/QUOTE]

GR142-Pipper

carguy_
10-01-2005, 06:04 PM
Right on.Glad to see people want to have accurately modeled planes instead of relative "balance".
Unsynch .50cal,stabilise P51 elevator.It will be very good.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-01-2005, 06:04 PM
Sorry but P51's

So you should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif If I had a rolled up newspaper right now I would smack you with it.

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
More total BS from Pipper. YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT OR TEST REPORT TO PROVE YOUR ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF HISTORY. You are nothing but a biased, blinkered fool.

THE P51 IS MODELLED PERFECTLY IN PF, YOU HAVE EVEN ADMITTED IT YOURSELF IN THIS VERY THREAD. You're entirely overemotional. No matter. Please tell me where I "admitted" to anything. Quote me directly. Don't give me your imaginary nonsense. Quote me DIRECTLY.

Btw, asking Ivan to close a thread because you happen to disagree with someone clearly shows you need to take a little break. Have a lemonade and relax a little.

GR142-Pipper

ICDP
10-01-2005, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
With this sinlge statement you have shown your true agenda. You are totally admiting with the above statement that you believe the P51 is modelled to historical levels in PF. Here's yet another example of reading into a post that which isn't there. I never admitted to anything regarding the P-51 and I have no agenda other than historical accuracy regarding all types.

You seem not to understand the post so I'll clarify. The concept I offered in my post was that from a practical programming standpoint it is easier to make one aircraft correct RELATIVE TO ITS PEERS than it is to go back and modify ALL THE OTHERS to conform to that one RELATIVE aircraft imbalance. The rhetorical question then posed was "Which do you think that Oleg would do?" means would he change one or change ALL THE OTHERS. Let me help. He'd overwhelmingly likely change but one. Please READ the posts before replying to your imagination and assigning ficticious agendas when none exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GR142-Pipper[/QUOTE]

Blah blah blah... trying to backtrack now I see. It's to late you made the statement now, it's clear for all to see.

When are you going to post you historical tests that showed the P51 as anything other than an energy fighter. Every test I have ever seen on the P51 clearly labelled it as a mediocre turn fighter.

Von_Rat
10-01-2005, 06:14 PM
WOW this is getting good,,wheres my dam popcorn.

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
[quote]Blah blah blah... trying to backtrack now I see. It's to late you made the statement now, it's clear for all to see. So you can't quote me as per your imaginary overemotionalism. Gee, what a surprise. This would be a good time for you to go have that lemonade now.

GR142-Pipper

Von_Rat
10-01-2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
With this sinlge statement you have shown your true agenda. You are totally admiting with the above statement that you believe the P51 is modelled to historical levels in PF. Here's yet another example of reading into a post that which isn't there. I never admitted to anything regarding the P-51 and I have no agenda other than historical accuracy regarding all types.

You seem not to understand the post so I'll clarify. The concept I offered in my post was that from a practical programming standpoint it is easier to make one aircraft correct RELATIVE TO ITS PEERS than it is to go back and modify ALL THE OTHERS to conform to that one RELATIVE aircraft imbalance. The rhetorical question then posed was "Which do you think that Oleg would do?" means would he change one or change ALL THE OTHERS. Let me help. He'd overwhelmingly likely change but one. Please READ the posts before replying to your imagination and assigning ficticious agendas when none exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blah blah blah... trying to backtrack now I see. It's to late you made the statement now, it's clear for all to see.

When are you going to post you historical tests that showed the P51 as anything other than an energy fighter. Every test I have ever seen on the P51 clearly labelled it as a mediocre turn fighter.[/QUOTE]
___________________________________________-


i agree with ICDP, wheres the historical data? wheres the tracks proving the p51 is wrong.

even more important, WHERE THE HELL IS TARGET,,, i thought it was his full time job to demand proof and tracks.

gx-warspite
10-01-2005, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
[quote]Blah blah blah... trying to backtrack now I see. It's to late you made the statement now, it's clear for all to see. So you can't quote me. Gee, what a surprise. This would be a good time for you to go have that lemonade now.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you haven't shown any data to prove that the P-51 could turn well.

What's more important to your debate, you think? A quote of another forum poster, or proving your point with hard facts?

ICDP
10-01-2005, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
More total BS from Pipper. YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED ONE SINGLE DOCUMENT OR TEST REPORT TO PROVE YOUR ALTERNATIVE VERSION OF HISTORY. You are nothing but a biased, blinkered fool.

THE P51 IS MODELLED PERFECTLY IN PF, YOU HAVE EVEN ADMITTED IT YOURSELF IN THIS VERY THREAD. You're entirely overemotional. No matter. Please tell me where I "admitted" to anything. Quote me directly. Don't give me your imaginary nonsense. Quote me DIRECTLY.

Btw, asking Ivan to close a thread because you happen to disagree with someone clearly shows you need to take a little break. Have a lemonade and relax a little.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL overemotional, I am having a good laugh at all your BS, the best laugh I have had for ages on this forum. Every time you post it is a whine about some US fighter that your "gut feeling" tells you is wrong. All you ever post as proof are your "gut feelings", some pilot opinions and some references to kill:death ratios that mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS SIM.

I have never once saw you post any tests you have conducted in the sim to back up your silly little "quests".

Do some in sim performance tests and compare to real data and official tests. Maybe you will conclude as most here have, that the P51 is very well modelled in PF 4.01. We keep hearing you moan about the "directional stability" problems with the P51. Problems that even official US tests have clearly stated existed in real life. The USN test clearly stated that the P51 suffered from "Heavy Yaw even at rather high speeds (450 MPH ind.), and which results in inadvertant yawing in flight unless constat attention is paid to the rudder". This is clearly saying the P51 needs constant attention to fly without yaw problems. Yet you and others keep claiming that the P51 has "unhistorical directional stability problems in PF".

According to the tests I have carried out in PF the P51 is modelled extremely well, even down to the directional stability problems as noted in the USN tests. One thing we can agree on though, I too believe the historical tests over the ramblings of an individual every single time.

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ICDP:
[quote]Blah blah blah... trying to backtrack now I see. It's to late you made the statement now, it's clear for all to see. So you can't quote me. Gee, what a surprise. This would be a good time for you to go have that lemonade now.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you haven't shown any data to prove that the P-51 could turn well.{/quote]Please point out where I ever said the P-51 was a great turner?

[quote]What's more important to your debate, you think? A quote of another forum poster, or proving your point with hard facts? Speaking of hard facts, tell us where the 109G/K series were ever hailed as turning nearly as well as a Yak? Or how the P-51's energy retention was substandard for the day? Or specific to my remarks, where I ever said that the P-51 was a great turner? You seem to think I said it so it should be easy for you to CITE ME. It's simply amazing how may posters simply don't read the posts. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-01-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
LOL overemotional, I am having a good laugh at all your BS, the best laugh I have had for ages on this forum. Yes, you're a bit overemotional alright. Relax a little. It's a discussion, not a cure for cancer.


Every time you post it is a whine about some US fighter that your "gut feeling" tells you is wrong. All you ever post as proof are your "gut feelings", some pilot opinions and some references to kill:death ratios that mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS SIM. "Some pilot opinions"? How about many, many combat pilots who actually flew the P-51. Do a little Google search on the P-51. Or you can visit your local library and read all about it there. Your choice. Read and learn. The information is plentiful.


I have never once saw you post any tests you have conducted in the sim to back up your silly little "quests". Are you an aeronautical engineer? Are you an flight sim programmer? Are you a current or former military pilot? Are you a 3-D motion dynamicist? So tell us, if the answers to all these questions are no (and it's a sure bet that they are), how would you know fact from fiction? Perhaps your "IL-2 testing device" as shown below is helpful. http://www.museumoftalkingboards.com/kiptwob.jpg


According to the tests I have carried out in PF the P51 is modelled extremely well, even down to the directional stability problems as noted in the USN tests. One thing we can agree on though, I too believe the historical tests over the ramblings of an individual every single time. Ah, "your tests". Pure science, no doubt, straight from the good 'ol "testing device". (snicker)

GR142-Pipper

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 10:32 PM
another excellent well proven peice of FB opinion from the master of non-ego posting , GR142_Pipper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


.

how about you get off the horse & show something that backs up your Whines . . . . . . FOR ONCE

this is the standard Pipper post when he's disagreed with , & the resort of Zero knowledge backed up by Zero proof

ICDP
10-02-2005, 01:24 AM
I don't need to be any of the things you mentioned Pipper. I can read, that is all I, or anyone else needs to be able to "tell the facts". The USN report I have posted a link to is written in plain english, a language that I understand and use on a daily basis. The many charts and the P51 handbooks I have read are also easy to understand and do not require an aeronautical degree just to interpret the facts.

I am through debating with you. You present ZERO facts and zero proof that would be classed as anything other than opinions. You posting a pilot account saying "I outturned a Bf109 with My Mustang" means nothing. The fact that I and many others have done exactly that in the sim makes the P51 correct according to that particular pilots opinion (under your rules). How many LW pilot accounts are there that report they shot down a P51 in a turn fight? (it's a rhetorical question).

Aaron_GT
10-02-2005, 01:36 AM
carguy wrote:

Right on.Glad to see people want to have accurately modeled planes instead of relative "balance".

I want to see the correct relative performance too. I just think that the way to go about it is to get the absolute performance correct as that can be compared to decent performance charts. Trying to model just the relative merits is going to lead to all sorts of issues with Oleg trying to guess how much to over or undermodel a plane to fit in with how its performance should be relative to another. Then the match up of that plane with a third plane may be off in relative terms. So modelling relative performance only also requires a lot of changes to the entire plane set, and then all it takes is one person to point out that the climb rate of some plane is 1m/s too much and it becomes an unholy flame war. This is why I think the best idea is to model each plane to its historical specs as far as the game can manage to do so and let the relative performance sort itself out by doing that. It won't be perfect as the specs can't always be modelled perfectly, of course, due to sim and PC limitations.

Aaron_GT
10-02-2005, 01:40 AM
Speaking of hard facts, tell us where the 109G/K series were ever hailed as turning nearly as well as a Yak

If there is a problem with the 109G/K then email in a bug report about the 109G/K. Get the 109G/K modelling spot on and the relative performance as compared to the P51 will be correct too. Hopefully in the end all the planes will perform correctly and everyone will be happy. It may not get changed in IL2/PF since the main focus for Oleg is BoB, but then the 109G/K will ultimately be modelled in that sim if all goes well so getting it onto Oleg's agenda means a chance of a change (if one is required) in this sim or the next.

GR142-Pipper
10-02-2005, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
I don't need to be any of the things you mentioned Pipper. I can read, that is all I, or anyone else needs to be able to "tell the facts". The USN report I have posted a link to is written in plain english, a language that I understand and use on a daily basis. The many charts and the P51 handbooks I have read are also easy to understand and do not require an aeronautical degree just to interpret the facts. Simply having the ability to read is hardly qualification to pass judgement on the correctness or incorrectness of the flight models. It's a great deal more than that. What's obvious is that the characteristics of the 109's is WAY out of wack. There have been NO accounts of 109G's/K's which have stated that they were even close to being on a turning par with Yaks. None. Don't believe me? Do a little research and prove me wrong. This is also ample evidence that the 50 cals were deadly. Again, you'd never know it in this game. The P-47 and P-51 were superb aircraft with world-class war records. Again, you'd never know it in this game. The list goes on and on and just being able to read doesn't account whatsoever for why these rather gross inaccuracies exist. The problem is exacerbated because of the importance of these respective types (to wit: P-51, P-47, 109, 190) in real life.

I'm mostly a Yak driver and have quit flying both the P-51 and P-47 on even a secondary basis because they're simply completely and artifically outclassed. Having the ability to read won't establish that level of obviousness. Many hours in both real and sim engagements supported by actual combat pilot accounts of Allied and Axis aircraft are persuasive enough for me to understand that something is very wrong with some aircraft flight models.

GR142-Pipper

ICDP
10-02-2005, 03:18 AM
This thread isn't about the Bf109K, or the .50's. It is about the performance of the P51 which matches very closely with the real test data and performance figures.

Many have stated (and proved) that many aircraft in the sim are able to climb too fast and that their stall speeds are too low. It has also been proven that the .50's are unhistorically synchronised. All these are facts backed up by data posted on these boards, they are not unsubstantiated "gut feelings".

You seem happy to fly around in the Yak which is totally overmrodelled according to real data. If you fly the Yak3P it wasn't even produced in WWII, we may as well include the F8F Bearcat for the same reasons the Yak3P made it. Many aircraft in this sim are modelled to factory specs which in a most cases were specially prepared test versions. The real combat unit versions were usually much slower and didn't come close to the "official data".

The thing is these aircraft need to be fixed to "correct historical levels" in line with the levels the P51's are modelled to. The P51's should not be artificially boosted to suit your "gut feelings".

Aaron_GT
10-02-2005, 05:37 AM
What's obvious is that the characteristics of the 109's is WAY out of wack.

Then do the tests and send in a bug report. If the P51 fails to match specs do the tests and send in a bug report.

Takata_
10-02-2005, 06:32 AM
S~ Pipper and all,

This thread remind me all the previous one about Bf-109, Fw-190, F4U or P-47 combat performance : two sides completly disagree about the curent combat abilities of such planes in the curent sim engine.

One side is showing technical specs and may prove that all those plane are fairly modelled in relation with historical charts.

The other side is showing global combat records, and historical combat tactics and may argue that all those planes just can't behave like they should.

IMHO, the truth is half-way and the main problem is not related to one plane's FM. This issue seems really difficult to put in perspective with the FM testing tools provided to us, it's a huge task to collect accurate data... as it was in real life too.

Remember that in the 30-40s', the aeronautical engineers were not using devicelink (and tracks) either. Most of those historical charts are not as accurate as some may believe. A lot is extrapolated from empirical tests. Even today, physicians are still arguing about the Lift theory and several other aspect of 'flight'.

So, what we have now is an incomplete set of historical data build from empirical testing... then, we should try to compare it with another incomplete set of inacurate data extracted from this sim engine.

On the other hand, we've got the historical combat records. They are not so accurate too... and somewhat biased. Plenty of other factors than 'pure flight' caracteristics are mixed with.

Then we've got Oleg, and that man and team did a pretty good job producing this sim engine. And like nobody is perfect, this resulting engine is not perfect too. That's why they are still working on it to 'refine' the FMs' and Physics.

I believe they had to use many shortcuts to simplify the whole stuff to something working on actual home computers.

On this not perfect side, it's possible to notice some weakness with high speed handling, compression, dive and climb. Where is the issue? aerodynamics models? physics?... I really don't know, but I only think that it could be the same issue for all the FMs'.

4.01 don't fix the ability of most planes to climb close to their maximum rate at too low or too high speed.

4.01 don't fix the ability of light planes to dive barely as fast as heavy ones.

4.01 don't give the ability to high speed turners to bleed less energy in such manoeuvers vs other planes.

Everybody can argue those points forever, we don't have the tools to really track the 'possible' FMs' issue. Only Oleg can do it.

But...
if the high speed handling and dive speed was much different from plane to plane, all the planes that were designed for such fight in real life would be much better in the sim too.

In this category were the P-51, P-47, F-4U, F6F, (Tempest)... and the Fw-190 and Ta-152.

:-D

S~!
Takata.

gx-warspite
10-02-2005, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Speaking of hard facts, tell us where the 109G/K series were ever hailed as turning nearly as well as a Yak? Or how the P-51's energy retention was substandard for the day? Or specific to my remarks, where I ever said that the P-51 was a great turner? You seem to think I said it so it should be easy for you to CITE ME. It's simply amazing how may posters simply don't read the posts. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper
Is this a 109G/K discussion? I don't have any data on the 109G/K. I don't fly 109G/Ks with anything resembling regularity. For all I know, you're lying about them turning with Yaks.

I also know you have absolutely no evidence that the P-51 should be anything but a pig in turns, seeing as you change the subject every time I demand proof.

Sharpe26
10-02-2005, 08:26 AM
P51 overrated but undermodeled?

Von_Rat
10-02-2005, 08:35 AM
flew the p51d again on warclouds last nite.

thanks to some great wingman flying by wasp, i was able to get kills on 6 lw in one mission, within just a few minutes of each other, despite being heavily outnumbered in that fight, and flying under 4k.

being able to do somthing like that, sure makes the p51 that we have in this sim, sound exactly like the p51 in all those real life storys that people post to show the p51 was a uber war winning plane.

well its a uber war winning plane in this sim too.

you just have to fly it right, and stop whinning for some unhistorical spitfire clone.


as for directinal instability of p51 in game. what directional instability???? i haven't noticed anymore instability in p51 than say a fw190. hell at hi speed it flys like its on rails.

i think some of you guys need new joysticks, or adjust the ones you have better.

Von_Rat
10-02-2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Takata_:
S~ Pipper and all,

This thread remind me all the previous one about Bf-109, Fw-190, F4U or P-47 combat performance : two sides completly disagree about the curent combat abilities of such planes in the curent sim engine.

One side is showing technical specs and may prove that all those plane are fairly modelled in relation with historical charts.

The other side is showing global combat records, and historical combat tactics and may argue that all those planes just can't behave like they should.

IMHO, the truth is half-way and the main problem is not related to one plane's FM. This issue seems really difficult to put in perspective with the FM testing tools provided to us, it's a huge task to collect accurate data... as it was in real life too.

Remember that in the 30-40s', the aeronautical engineers were not using devicelink (and tracks) either. Most of those historical charts are not as accurate as some may believe. A lot is extrapolated from empirical tests. Even today, physicians are still arguing about the Lift theory and several other aspect of 'flight'.

So, what we have now is an incomplete set of historical data build from empirical testing... then, we should try to compare it with another incomplete set of inacurate data extracted from this sim engine.

On the other hand, we've got the historical combat records. They are not so accurate too... and somewhat biased. Plenty of other factors than 'pure flight' caracteristics are mixed with.

Then we've got Oleg, and that man and team did a pretty good job producing this sim engine. And like nobody is perfect, this resulting engine is not perfect too. That's why they are still working on it to 'refine' the FMs' and Physics.

I believe they had to use many shortcuts to simplify the whole stuff to something working on actual home computers.

On this not perfect side, it's possible to notice some weakness with high speed handling, compression, dive and climb. Where is the issue? aerodynamics models? physics?... I really don't know, but I only think that it could be the same issue for all the FMs'.

4.01 don't fix the ability of most planes to climb close to their maximum rate at too low or too high speed.

4.01 don't fix the ability of light planes to dive barely as fast as heavy ones.

4.01 don't give the ability to high speed turners to bleed less energy in such manoeuvers vs other planes.

Everybody can argue those points forever, we don't have the tools to really track the 'possible' FMs' issue. Only Oleg can do it.

But...
if the high speed handling and dive speed was much different from plane to plane, all the planes that were designed for such fight in real life would be much better in the sim too.

In this category were the P-51, P-47, F-4U, F6F, (Tempest)... and the Fw-190 and Ta-152.

:-D

S~!
Takata.

great post, raises some good points.

Kocur_
10-02-2005, 11:14 AM
Pipper! Calling anyone overemotional is something you shouldnt do. Everytime a plane you like is discussed you keep posting expressions of your feelings, not facts. Or prove me wrong please, i.e. post your notion on what technical properties of Mustang in this game are wrong and why. By "technical properties" I mean things like speed, climb, turn times etc, aerodynamical properties of the airframe, efficiency of prop, etc. Plain "it was a great plane" is simply not enough here.

GR142-Pipper
10-02-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
[quote]Pipper! Calling anyone overemotional is something you shouldnt do. He was overemotional and I said so. If it hurts his feelings, Heartbreak Hotel.


Everytime a plane you like is discussed you keep posting expressions of your feelings, not facts. Or prove me wrong please, i.e. post your notion on what technical properties of Mustang in this game are wrong and why. By "technical properties" I mean things like speed, climb, turn times etc, aerodynamical properties of the airframe, efficiency of prop, etc. Plain "it was a great plane" is simply not enough here. Like I stated before, I'm primarily a Yak driver. If the P-51 gets fixed, great. If not, it's no skin off my neck. However, to say in 2005 that one is still not convinced that the P-51 (or P-47 or Spitfire or F6F) weren't truly great aircraft, there is nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The material that discusses these topics has been put forth many, many times and a simple Google search is easy enough to do. If you don't believe the proven combat record of the P-51 and P-47 as well as the many pilot accounts of those who flew them, then put your faith in this little game's DeviceLink. I'll go with real pilots and war records any day.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
10-02-2005, 11:37 AM
the master of non-ego posting, GR142_Pipper

But there's always a way with trolls like Pipper - stop feeding them and they eventually go away! Plain and simple...

Kocur_
10-02-2005, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
[quote]Pipper! Calling anyone overemotional is something you shouldnt do. He was overemotional and I said so. If it hurts his feelings, Heartbreak Hotel.


Everytime a plane you like is discussed you keep posting expressions of your feelings, not facts. Or prove me wrong please, i.e. post your notion on what technical properties of Mustang in this game are wrong and why. By "technical properties" I mean things like speed, climb, turn times etc, aerodynamical properties of the airframe, efficiency of prop, etc. Plain "it was a great plane" is simply not enough here. Like I stated before, I'm primarily a Yak driver. If the P-51 gets fixed, great. If not, it's no skin off my neck. However, to say in 2005 that one is still not convinced that the P-51 (or P-47 or Spitfire or F6F) weren't truly great aircraft, there is nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The material that discusses these topics has been put forth many, many times and a simple Google search is easy enough to do. If you don't believe the proven combat record of the P-51 and P-47 as well as the many pilot accounts of those who flew them, then put your faith in this little game's DeviceLink. I'll go with real pilots and war records any day.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have your tactics change after you switched from P-51 to Yaks?

GR142-Pipper
10-02-2005, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
[quote]Pipper! Calling anyone overemotional is something you shouldnt do. He was overemotional and I said so. If it hurts his feelings, Heartbreak Hotel.


Everytime a plane you like is discussed you keep posting expressions of your feelings, not facts. Or prove me wrong please, i.e. post your notion on what technical properties of Mustang in this game are wrong and why. By "technical properties" I mean things like speed, climb, turn times etc, aerodynamical properties of the airframe, efficiency of prop, etc. Plain "it was a great plane" is simply not enough here. Like I stated before, I'm primarily a Yak driver. If the P-51 gets fixed, great. If not, it's no skin off my neck. However, to say in 2005 that one is still not convinced that the P-51 (or P-47 or Spitfire or F6F) weren't truly great aircraft, there is nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The material that discusses these topics has been put forth many, many times and a simple Google search is easy enough to do. If you don't believe the proven combat record of the P-51 and P-47 as well as the many pilot accounts of those who flew them, then put your faith in this little game's DeviceLink. I'll go with real pilots and war records any day.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have your tactics change after you switched from P-51 to Yaks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The tactics are the same. They're just employed differently.

GR142-Pipper

drose01
10-02-2005, 01:03 PM
I have been reading this thread and think there are some interesting themes touched here:

1) Mustangs (and other planes) MAY be modelled accurately, but if the planes they are fighting are not modelled as accurately, it creates the impression that the Mustang is too weak.

2) While aircraft such as the Mustang may meet published data in terms of top speeds, turning radius, etc, parameters such as zoom climb, energy retention, damage models and many others are much harder to test or model (for example see http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2821092163)

So many people who play this sim say something about the P51 "feels" wrong when flying vs historical opponents, based on their preconceptions of how it should perform in those situations.

Is it unscientific to post those feelings here? Yes, although using words like "an emotional whine" or "useless" tends to be demeaning.

The question is, just like Takata's post points out, is there enough data out there to ever really answer all the questions about how these aircraft should be performing?

Kocur_
10-02-2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
[quote]Pipper! Calling anyone overemotional is something you shouldnt do. He was overemotional and I said so. If it hurts his feelings, Heartbreak Hotel.


Everytime a plane you like is discussed you keep posting expressions of your feelings, not facts. Or prove me wrong please, i.e. post your notion on what technical properties of Mustang in this game are wrong and why. By "technical properties" I mean things like speed, climb, turn times etc, aerodynamical properties of the airframe, efficiency of prop, etc. Plain "it was a great plane" is simply not enough here. Like I stated before, I'm primarily a Yak driver. If the P-51 gets fixed, great. If not, it's no skin off my neck. However, to say in 2005 that one is still not convinced that the P-51 (or P-47 or Spitfire or F6F) weren't truly great aircraft, there is nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The material that discusses these topics has been put forth many, many times and a simple Google search is easy enough to do. If you don't believe the proven combat record of the P-51 and P-47 as well as the many pilot accounts of those who flew them, then put your faith in this little game's DeviceLink. I'll go with real pilots and war records any day.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have your tactics change after you switched from P-51 to Yaks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The tactics are the same. They're just employed differently.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is?

danjama
10-02-2005, 01:25 PM
"Gentile went into a tight turn with the Hun. Not many pilots could turn in a Mustang on the deck with an FW-190, but Gentile had the skill and was too frightened to worry about spinning out."

Isnt this modelled in the game? Im pretty sure it is so the FM must be correct! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sorry just thought id lighten the mood in this thread.

*edit* i think i should add that this quote shows that the plane WAS indeed a scary and difficult plane to turn in, so much so that it is recognised as a special ability to have, thats what i am trying to illustrate. Perhaps our problem is that we dont feel the Fear they felt so we try to fly the planes too hard. S~

drose01
10-02-2005, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:

Have your tactics change after you switched from P-51 to Yaks?

I can tell you how MY tactics are different: the Yak accelerates so much more quickly than the Mustang that it is safer to chase and turn in pursuit of enemies longer, knowing that my speed can quickly be regained.

In the Mustang, speed must be jealously guarded because regaining it once it is lost is a slow and dangerous process.

(Question: are there any data on acceleration in level flight available for Mustangs and the other main fighter types?)

msalama
10-02-2005, 02:08 PM
...then put your faith in this little game's DeviceLink.

And you've no doubt compared your source data with DeviceLink's since you're so confident of the FMs being way out of whack, right?

faustnik
10-02-2005, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
"Gentile went into a tight turn with the Hun. Not many pilots could turn in a Mustang on the deck with an FW-190, but Gentile had the skill and was too frightened to worry about spinning out."

Isnt this modelled in the game? Im pretty sure it is so the FM must be correct! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sorry just thought id lighten the mood in this thread.

*edit* i think i should add that this quote shows that the plane WAS indeed a scary and difficult plane to turn in, so much so that it is recognised as a special ability to have, thats what i am trying to illustrate. Perhaps our problem is that we dont feel the Fear they felt so we try to fly the planes too hard. S~

Danjama,

I have been reading a lot about Jg26 lately. They had no problem turning with Mustangs and P-47s in the Fw190As on the deck. They took the opposite tactics used with the Spitfires and tried to drag the U.S. a/c into looping and turning digfights below 3000 meters. The key for the Fw190s however, seemed to be low altitude. I get the impression that the Fw190As did very well on the deck but, had a very rough time at higher altitudes. They also considered the P-51 more of a threat in a dogfight than the heavy P-47.

So, anyway, my point is that the P-51 might not have had an advatage over the Fw190 on the deck but, at altitudes at which the P-51 frequently flew, the Mustang held all the cards, save firepower, over the Fw190As.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-02-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
"Gentile went into a tight turn with the Hun. Not many pilots could turn in a Mustang on the deck with an FW-190, but Gentile had the skill and was too frightened to worry about spinning out."

Isnt this modelled in the game? Im pretty sure it is so the FM must be correct! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sorry just thought id lighten the mood in this thread.

*edit* i think i should add that this quote shows that the plane WAS indeed a scary and difficult plane to turn in, so much so that it is recognised as a special ability to have, thats what i am trying to illustrate. Perhaps our problem is that we dont feel the Fear they felt so we try to fly the planes too hard. S~

Danjama,

I have been reading a lot about Jg26 lately. They had no problem turning with Mustangs and P-47s in the Fw190As on the deck. They took the opposite tactics used with the Spitfires and tried to drag the U.S. a/c into looping and turning digfights below 3000 meters. The key for the Fw190s however, seemed to be low altitude. I get the impression that the Fw190As did very well on the deck but, had a very rough time at higher altitudes. They also considered the P-51 more of a threat in a dogfight than the heavy P-47.

So, anyway, my point is that the P-51 might not have had an advatage over the Fw190 on the deck but, at altitudes at which the P-51 frequently flew, the Mustang held all the cards, save firepower, over the Fw190As. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how is a 190A on the deck in this game? No good for turnfighting, that's for sure..unless you can maintain 500kmh+

Ta,
norris

faustnik
10-02-2005, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:


And how is a 190A on the deck in this game? No good for turnfighting, that's for sure..unless you can maintain 500kmh+

Ta,
norris

Not true. The Fw190As can turn with P-51s and P-47s on the deck in 4.01, especially the lighter A4-A6s. The matchup comes down to pilot skill as it should.

danjama
10-02-2005, 04:36 PM
Its true, i think the 190s and P47s/51s are perfect opponents in this game in most areas, thats why im currently setting up a server called P47s_VS_190s on HL! Im sick of flying a P51 only to be chased down by annoying little La7s and shot down. I like to fight real opponents. Real fights. Oh and im not starting a debate about La7s being Uber, im just saying,.

Slickun
10-02-2005, 06:31 PM
In response to the question about the P-51's acceleration:

It is relatively easy to arrive at acceleration data if the thrust, weight and drag is known.

If one takes the standard P-51D at 67" hg boost, it was third in the US fleet behind the P-47M and the P-38J/L. All three were close to 3 feet/sec/sec, 0 feet, 250 mph starting speed.

As most of us know, or should know, the P-51D at 67" was the poorest performing example of all the Merlin Mustangs. If one begins to look at acceleration figures with the lighter B/C/III, or any of the models at 72-81" hg boost, the figures rise rapidly.

A P-51D at 80" hg accelerated slightly better than a P-38L at 1725 hp. A Mustang III at 81" hg blew both away.

horseback
10-02-2005, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
"Gentile went into a tight turn with the Hun. Not many pilots could turn in a Mustang on the deck with an FW-190, but Gentile had the skill and was too frightened to worry about spinning out."

Isnt this modelled in the game? Im pretty sure it is so the FM must be correct! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Sorry just thought id lighten the mood in this thread.

*edit* i think i should add that this quote shows that the plane WAS indeed a scary and difficult plane to turn in, so much so that it is recognised as a special ability to have, thats what i am trying to illustrate. Perhaps our problem is that we dont feel the Fear they felt so we try to fly the planes too hard. S~ I think we have a misquote here. The line is almost word for word from a chapter in 1000 Destroyed: The Life and Times of the 4th Fighter Group in World War II titled 'Help, I'm Being Clobbered' about Don Gentile's life changing dogfight of January 14th, 1944, while flying a Thunderbolt. According to what I've read, the P-47 was not thought to be in the same class in maneuverability as the FW, especially on the deck, although postwar tests showed them to be very similar, at least once the paddleblade props were put on the Jug (unlike Gentile's mount at the time).

The Mustang was worlds better turning in the horizontal plane than the P-47 at any altitude. The only danger a tight turn in an early Pony posed for Gentile was in having the guns on one wing jam when he fired during the turn; that could be a Bad Thing, and it happened to more than one early Mustang driver before the ammo feed issues were resolved.

But not Gentile. Most of his kills in the P-51B were scored at higher alts, and he was never 'caught' down low without a wingman again.

cheers

horseback

GR142-Pipper
10-03-2005, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Speaking of hard facts, tell us where the 109G/K series were ever hailed as turning nearly as well as a Yak? Or how the P-51's energy retention was substandard for the day? Or specific to my remarks, where I ever said that the P-51 was a great turner? You seem to think I said it so it should be easy for you to CITE ME. It's simply amazing how may posters simply don't read the posts. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

Is this a 109G/K discussion? I don't have any data on the 109G/K. I don't fly 109G/Ks with anything resembling regularity. For all I know, you're lying about them turning with Yaks. I have no reason to lie about what I observe in 109 turn performance. The "new" 109 turning ability is not a phenomenon that only I have observed.


I also know you have absolutely no evidence that the P-51 should be anything but a pig in turns, seeing as you change the subject every time I demand proof. First, I have NEVER stated that the P-51 was a great turner. Disagree? Then cite where I have ever said that.

Second, I have made it clear that IMHO the plane is an absolute dog (as modeled in this game) which has little in common with it's real life counterpart. Don't believe me? See how few P-51's are used by the game pilots here. It's not avoided because they just don't know how good it really is or they don't know how to fly it properly. It's avoided because it's been modeled into a POS.

Third, you've claimed that I change the subject. So cite where I've done so.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight.
10-03-2005, 12:15 AM
how good a plane is at Airquake & whether a plane is correctly moddeled . . . . 2 different things!

so do tell me Pipper , just how good was the RL P-51 supposed to be at low alt hard turning DF's ?

GR142-Pipper
10-03-2005, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
[quote]That is? That is what? That is you really don't know the differences between the employment of a Yak vs. a P-51? Is that what you're saying? You'd like me to give you a tutorial? If so, sorry but I'm not your nanny or your game flight instructor.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
10-03-2005, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
how good a plane is at Airquake & whether a plane is correctly moddeled . . . . 2 different things!

so do tell me Pipper , just how good was the RL P-51 supposed to be at low alt hard turning DF's ? The P-51 wasn't the "all singing, all dancing" hard turner. I never said it was. But it wasn't the gutless, ball-less (weak 50's), energy-losing slug either as it's modeled in this game.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight.
10-03-2005, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
If so, sorry but I'm not your nanny or your game flight instructor. its official

GR142-Pipper dont know how to use the FB Mustang , bet he dont know that planes in FB go over 4K too

ICDP
10-03-2005, 01:24 AM
I fly the P51 (all variants) online quite a bit. I have come to the conclussion that it is an outstanding fighter and modelled very well in PF. It is faster than the Bf109 on the deck and will outdive and outzoom the Bf109 as long as you keep speed high 350kph+. Even on airquake servers I am getting 3-4 kills per mission with the Mustang III by keeping speed high, very easy in this bird as it keeps its energy very well and has good acceleration. The Mustang is an incredibly agile fighter in the 400-540kph range and will punish many who simply try to turn out of its way. Even fighting Yak3's is quite easy if you keep speed at around 400+kph and climb gently they will eventually end up at 3500+ metres where thay are much easier to deal with. In short if I stay fast I have total confidence in the Mustangs abilities. One of the best tips I can give is to use 50% fuel, it seems to dive/zoom and retain energy better with this loadout (IMHO).

Thank you Oleg, according to data and tests I have read on the P51 it is one of the best modelled aircraft in the entire series.

msalama
10-03-2005, 01:33 AM
But it wasn't the gutless, ball-less (weak 50's), energy-losing slug either as it's modeled in this game.

And you've undoubtedly compared our P-51's performance to real-life data because you feel so confident in saying this?

ImpStarDuece
10-03-2005, 01:36 AM
Its officially dump on Pipper week!

Where do I sign up?

Over there? But the que is MASSIVE!

Aaron_GT
10-03-2005, 03:32 AM
Pipper, Noone thinks the P51 was anything other than a great plane. All we are saying is that is seems to hit the historical numbers so we are not sure what the problem is.

carguy_
10-03-2005, 04:16 AM
View the guncams.You`ll see that most .50cal engagements come down to distance of 70-30m,not 170-300m.

Kocur_
10-03-2005, 04:41 AM
Pipper! Have your tactics change after you switched from P-51 to Yaks?


Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:The tactics are the same. They're just employed differently.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is? That is what? That is you really don't know the differences between the employment of a Yak vs. a P-51? Is that what you're saying? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I know, I know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Im Fw190 guy you know, not Yak guy.


You'd like me to give you a tutorial? If so, sorry but I'm not your nanny or your game flight instructor.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
No, thanks! I definately dont want a tutorial on fighting on P-51 from someone whos tactics in it are the same as in Yaks and who cant explain how they are "employed differently". I dont think there is anything to explain...And that must be source of your deep disappointment by P-51 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

WOLFMondo
10-03-2005, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
I never said it was. But it wasn't the gutless, ball-less (weak 50's), energy-losing slug either as it's modeled in this game.

GR142-Pipper

Not the .50 argument again. There is nothing wrong with them!!! 190 DM is a little off with no fires or leaks (a hole in the wing completely ruins your performance) but that doesn't mean there is a problem with the .50's. I do fine with them, only 4 of them to boot! Convergence 150m and I don't fire until then.

Friendly_flyer
10-03-2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, have you read anything about this aircraft at all? Its history? Its widespread utilization? Its war record? Pilot accounts? Anything? To conclude that its stardom was anything other than absolutely well-earned is amazing.


You still don't get my point, do you? No-one argues that the Mustang wasn't a very good plane, I only argue that being legendary does not prove much. The Hurricane is legendary too, and I wouldn€t call it a world beater. The Brewster is legendary in Finland, although the Americans and British will insist it was rubbish. What€s legendary is relative. To me as a Norwegian the superiority of the Mustang is not obvious, while I was raised to believe that the Spitfire was superior to all. This game has taught me better.

Bremspropeller
10-03-2005, 08:46 AM
Hey faust, which lecture are you currently reading about JG 26 ?

I'm also very interested in getting something to read about them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
10-03-2005, 09:16 AM
the problem with the stang is its handling modeling, the subjective modeling, how it handles when pushed

it handles like it wants to kill u, when pushed

LLv34Mokkeri
10-03-2005, 09:54 AM
I fly mostly P51D on warclouds and I really like that bird. It is not "****" plane just dont go to low level turn fighting. Guns are effective if you dont expect half second snapshot kills. FW is problem but it's FW's DM issue.

faustnik
10-03-2005, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Hey faust, which lecture are you currently reading about JG 26 ?

I'm also very interested in getting something to read about them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have four books by Donald Caldwell,

Jg 26 : Top Guns of the Luftwaffe

Jg 26: Photographic History of the Luftwaffe's Top Guns

Jg 26 War Diary Vol. 1, 1939-1942

Jg 26 War Diary Vol. 2, 1943-1945

All of those books can be found in the Amazon "Used and New" section fairly cheap. The first one can be found in paperback and is probably the most fun to read. The Diaries are very thorough as far as analyzing actual vs. claimed kills and losses.

Jg 26 was a very interesting unit. They had a lot of good pilots and mechanics and received a lot of good equipment.

faustnik
10-03-2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the problem with the stang is its handling modeling, the subjective modeling, how it handles when pushed

it handles like it wants to kill u, when pushed

I asked Oleg the same question P1ng, "why is the P-51 so slippery in turns?" I don't think he would mind if I posted his reply so:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Mustang is more easy controlable for a pilot aircraft comparing to Bf-109 or FW-190. But in a sim we have a limit - the stick is one for all... But you could change the input curvers and get more right result. I recomment to use the close to picture to the midlle for all input curves recommended in manual for Pacific fighters. </span>