PDA

View Full Version : P51D: No feeling of mass, nose wanders about



HayateAce
09-14-2005, 11:57 AM
Anyone notice that with 4.01 the Mustang has turned into some kind of nothing aircraft? Despite trying various stick settings on my x45, the pitch of this thing remains woefully uncrotrollable.

Several folks have tried to raise some issues recently with the P51D, but oddly they are attacked from every angle then the thread is promptly closed down.

Doesn't sound like an honest, open environment to me.

A Few of the Problems:

1 - synchronized guns making them ineffective
2 - Poor tracking due to the fact that the aircraft gives no feeling of mass
3 - Wing-rip, elevator, blackout issues (whatever the problem, this combination leads to unrealistic scenarios)
4 - Excessive pendulum yaw effects

HayateAce
09-14-2005, 11:57 AM
Anyone notice that with 4.01 the Mustang has turned into some kind of nothing aircraft? Despite trying various stick settings on my x45, the pitch of this thing remains woefully uncrotrollable.

Several folks have tried to raise some issues recently with the P51D, but oddly they are attacked from every angle then the thread is promptly closed down.

Doesn't sound like an honest, open environment to me.

A Few of the Problems:

1 - synchronized guns making them ineffective
2 - Poor tracking due to the fact that the aircraft gives no feeling of mass
3 - Wing-rip, elevator, blackout issues (whatever the problem, this combination leads to unrealistic scenarios)
4 - Excessive pendulum yaw effects

JG52Uther
09-14-2005, 12:14 PM
The P51 was a bag of nail's in real life,why should it be any different in this sim.

geetarman
09-14-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
The P51 was a bag of nail's in real life,why should it be any different in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always love an open discussion about Mustangs, whether in the sim or in RL. However, the post above expresses what, I believe, many feel about the Mustang on these boards, so there's no point. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Brain32
09-14-2005, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A Few of the Problems:

1 - synchronized guns making them ineffective
2 - Poor tracking due to the fact that the aircraft gives no feeling of mass
3 - Wing-rip, elevator, blackout issues (whatever the problem, this combination leads to unrealistic scenarios)
4 - Excessive pendulum yaw effects </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. official allied whine - so I say nonsense
2. I must admit I have that feeling too and not only with p51 but with some russian planes also but then again it's just a feeling and I don't have a clue how it should really be
3.LOL would 14G for all allied planes be enough?
4.I personally find p51 to be quite stable, opposed to, for example bf109 or spitfire.

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 01:02 PM
lol brain the p51D, in this patch is the new p38.
its NO WHERE near a 109 in stabilility, 109g6 flies like its on RAILS

teh elivator is overly effective and the plane isnt dampened like others, ive ripped the wing off by opening up the throttle quickly for example...

p51D is like someone jacked up on caffine, u dont know when there gonna go mental..

HayateAce
09-14-2005, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

p51D is like someone jacked up on caffine, u dont know when there gonna go mental.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

At least you've got a good sense of humour M8.

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 01:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

its true, me and hte 99th guys found out it can stall pulling out of a dive, not a highspeed one mind, but 300kph+ easily, at low alt

the razor backs are much nicer to fly

Brain32
09-14-2005, 01:12 PM
Well I maybe misunderstood some things by stability I meant the amount of input on rudder needed to keep the plane flying strait, I simply noticed that I work much more with rudder when flying spit or bf109(becomes more stable only at high speed).
I must say that I really "feel" the heavyness of a P38 opposed to P51 or LA7...
Is it possible that FM is so different offline?

BTW could you explain to me what "pendulum" means, I am not a native english speaker so...

horseback
09-14-2005, 02:26 PM
pendulum\n\:a body that swings freely from a fixed point.

To clarify further, a pendulum is that things which swings back and forth on old clocks.

The in-game Mustang's nose bounces around far too much at any speed; it was described as "the Cadillac of the skies" precisely because it handled so smoothly and precisely.

cheers

horseback

geetarman
09-14-2005, 03:14 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brain32:
... I simply noticed that I work much more with rudder when flying spit or bf109(becomes more stable only at high speed).


That's a problem with the 109 right there (p.s. you're right though).

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 03:46 PM
109 had no adustable trim for rudder in the air, so no surprise there...

ofcourse, kindly spits, p51s and yaks etc would helply help out the 109s by adusting the trim tab with there guns. this sadly led to many a 109 being shot down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Grey_Mouser67
09-14-2005, 05:46 PM
I have a feeling the pendulum effect will be addressed in the next patch.

The syncronization issue is real and i got a bad feeling that it won't be addressed yet...may be a mutiny on the bounty if it isn't however.

The light nose/weightlessness/pitch...whatever you want to call it...over active elevator is a real big issue...reminds me of the CFS1 flight model...I'm thinking there is no way Oleg flew that plane himself as he would never let something like that into this sim....but anyways it feels almost like a COG problem...I'm thinking it might be modelled correctly if the tank is 100% full, because that was a real issue in the Mustang...it threw off its COG under high G turns and the plane wanted to swap ends...but outside of that, the Mustang flew like it was on rails...glided around the skies and was stable and easy to fly...it did have a tendancy to stall with little warning but that was its only vice that I know of.

What we have is not representative of the real airplane unfortunately...hopefully Oleg will rectify the situation.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-14-2005, 06:10 PM
No tracks...just words.

I have no doubt that Oleg will be rectifying a lot of things for the next patch based on hearsay. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ta,
Norris

edgflyer
09-14-2005, 08:50 PM
My feeling (ready for the flames because I said "feeling", lol) is that the P51 looses it's energy rather quickly compared to other planes for what ever reason. Oh and the Synchronization problem with guns to. But all the other seem to not be affected as much by e-retention as much as the 51. Keep the energy and it realy is sweet.

BlakJakOfSpades
09-14-2005, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A Few of the Problems:

1 - synchronized guns making them ineffective
2 - Poor tracking due to the fact that the aircraft gives no feeling of mass
3 - Wing-rip, elevator, blackout issues (whatever the problem, this combination leads to unrealistic scenarios)
4 - Excessive pendulum yaw effects </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. official allied whine - so I say nonsense
2. I must admit I have that feeling too and not only with p51 but with some russian planes also but then again it's just a feeling and I don't have a clue how it should really be
3.LOL would 14G for all allied planes be enough?
4.I personally find p51 to be quite stable, opposed to, for example bf109 or spitfire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i don't know how anyone can be against the desync....

p1ngu666
09-14-2005, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
No tracks...just words.

I have no doubt that Oleg will be rectifying a lot of things for the next patch based on hearsay. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

norris its far better if u go fly it, then try a 109g6 for comparison
2min flight, even 1min flight and u will see the difference right off, its huge

FritzGryphon
09-14-2005, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> u will see the difference right off, its huge </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They are two different planes, after all. Very different.

I'd be surprised if their handling was similar.

msalama
09-14-2005, 11:06 PM
FWIW -

I've noticed that using JS input filtering seems to dampen the bouncing somewhat even when the stick itself is working correctly (i.e. there're no output signal spikes).

Yeah yeah yeah, just my zwei dinero...

Badsight.
09-14-2005, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
1. official allied whine - so I say nonsense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>are you mental ? you are mental right ? please say your just mental , because . . . . if your not . . . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Slechtvalk
09-15-2005, 02:12 AM
He is not saying that this mistake isn't there but that it doesn't makes a huge/any difference when it's fixed. I think...

Maple_Tiger
09-15-2005, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
The P51 was a bag of nail's in real life,why should it be any different in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now theres a thoughtless post lol.

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

Zjoek
09-15-2005, 04:13 AM
The synchronization problem is there, believe me. Saw it first hand yesterday (though on the old FB+AEP, 2.04).

I was flying "The Real Deal" campaign (excellent work btw) in a P47, chased a bf110 down low, and gave it a good burst. You could clearly see the tracers grouped together in clumps instead of a steady stream. Looked like one of those old space shoot'em ups http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

...Though offcourse in the P47 it doesn't really matter... With those 8 MG's, you can chew up anything with a steady 1-2 second burst on target... If it isn't dead it's horribly crippled. Lots of engine failures too.

Brain32
09-15-2005, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> He is not saying that this mistake isn't there but that it doesn't makes a huge/any difference when it's fixed. I think... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are right I'm totally FOR .50 desync but I really don't think .50 cal should be more effective(make more damage) because that would just be insane...

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> u will see the difference right off, its huge </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They are two different planes, after all. Very different.

I'd be surprised if their handling was similar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

true, but the g6 is SO STABLE, SO EASY TO FLY
g6 is some really nice new car, u just drive no worries about handling at all.

p51D is like some cut and shut job with a decent engine, its fast but its gonna kill u with its erratic handling..

Chuck_Older
09-15-2005, 09:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I've been updating a few single player missions lately, that I made with versions prior to 3.04

One of my favorites is a mission in which P-51Ds attack a german airbase that is scrambling Me 262s for attack on the bomber stream

I used to fly the P-51D a lot and I guess offline I'm pretty good with it.

Personally I don't have this 'massless' feeling while tooling around in it. It feels the same as it did before except that the rudder control is more important and trim needs constant attention in pitch and roll

I might have some free time tonight and I'll try out another P-51D mission that I've been meaning to update and see if there's a weird feeling to it

With 4.01m I found almost all aircraft I normally fly, unflyable until I added filtering to the pitch axis. I use an X45

csThor
09-15-2005, 10:03 AM
The problem of "wobbling" is not a new thing - both the Fw 190 and the Bf 109 (and a load of other planes) have suffered from this ever since I started playing Il-2. Even when diving it seems to me as if both start "wobbling" like a drunken soldier on his first leave. Maybe this is a problem of axis stability of the game engine ... I don't know.

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 10:15 AM
yeah some planes have always been wobbly, like the il2 for example

faustnik
09-15-2005, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
The problem of "wobbling" is not a new thing - both the Fw 190 and the Bf 109 (and a load of other planes) have suffered from this ever since I started playing Il-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of this is controller setup. I've never had a problem with Fw190 stability but, many really have issue with it. I have a MSFFB2 with CH pedals and throttle. The guys with the issues almost always have X45s.

The Fw190 will yaw when firing like a P-51 or Spitfire. The cure is to use very short bursts. This works great in the Fw190 but, unfortunately won't help the Mustang. The Mustang needs a much longer burst for effect.

WholeHawg
09-15-2005, 10:52 AM
There seems to be a lot of talk about the P-51 lately and I would have to agree with the sentiment that is "seems wrong" given all the anecdotal evidence. I have read countless books seen documentaries proclaiming P-51 to have "...Won the war..." and "..Is the best piston driven fighter of WWII.."

Yet in this game it yields less than war winning results.

IMHO there can be several reasons for these results that have nothing to do with an inaccurate flight model. Two that spring to mind are;

1. From my reading the P-51 was refined to fill the role of a long range, high altitude escort. Not a down in the weeds dogfighter. In my experience most of the online combat occurs down in the weeds, out of P-51s optimal envelope.

2. Later in the war the quality of the German pilots was declining. I would have to think this would make any fighter seem more effective.

Just my 2 Centavos.

geetarman
09-15-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WholeHawg:
There seems to be a lot of talk about the P-51 lately and I would have to agree with the sentiment that is "seems wrong" given all the anecdotal evidence. I have read countless books seen documentaries proclaiming P-51 to have "...Won the war..." and "..Is the best piston driven fighter of WWII.."


You are right on both points, but they don't get to the heart of the posters original complaint.

Yet in this game it yields less than war winning results.

IMHO there can be several reasons for these results that have nothing to do with an inaccurate flight model. Two that spring to mind are;

1. From my reading the P-51 was refined to fill the role of a long range, high altitude escort. Not a down in the weeds dogfighter. In my experience most of the online combat occurs down in the weeds, out of P-51s optimal envelope.

2. Later in the war the quality of the German pilots was declining. I would have to think this would make any fighter seem more effective.

Just my 2 Centavos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
The problem of "wobbling" is not a new thing - both the Fw 190 and the Bf 109 (and a load of other planes) have suffered from this ever since I started playing Il-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of this is controller setup. I've never had a problem with Fw190 stability but, many really have issue with it. I have a MSFFB2 with CH pedals and throttle. The guys with the issues almost always have X45s.

The Fw190 will yaw when firing like a P-51 or Spitfire. The cure is to use very short bursts. This works great in the Fw190 but, unfortunately won't help the Mustang. The Mustang needs a much longer burst for effect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

im thinkin of changing my settings tbh, but g6 is still rock stable compaired to p51,zero,spit and other on the same stick settings, so a "fair test"

NorrisMcWhirter
09-15-2005, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
No tracks...just words.

I have no doubt that Oleg will be rectifying a lot of things for the next patch based on hearsay. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

norris its far better if u go fly it, then try a 109g6 for comparison
2min flight, even 1min flight and u will see the difference right off, its huge </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you are not advocating that I go and see 'what it feels like' so I can make a completely unsubstantiated, 'yes..it seems to be that way' style statement? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

That recent track I posted of me bagging the two K4s indicates that the P51 is very stable in flight. I had no trouble aiming..or killing them.

Ta,
Norris

HayateAce
09-15-2005, 02:54 PM
I'm advocating that you leave the thread, given your anti-US aircraft bent.

Grey_Mouser67
09-15-2005, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WholeHawg:
There seems to be a lot of talk about the P-51 lately and I would have to agree with the sentiment that is "seems wrong" given all the anecdotal evidence. I have read countless books seen documentaries proclaiming P-51 to have "...Won the war..." and "..Is the best piston driven fighter of WWII.."

If Reno Racers handled like the current FM, there would be no Reno Air racers because they would have all had their wings fall off, snap stalled into the ground or over controlled at the first pylon and augered in! I realize those planes' engines are heavily modified, but I don't think their control surfaces were.

Yet in this game it yields less than war winning results.

IMHO there can be several reasons for these results that have nothing to do with an inaccurate flight model. Two that spring to mind are;

1. From my reading the P-51 was refined to fill the role of a long range, high altitude escort. Not a down in the weeds dogfighter. In my experience most of the online combat occurs down in the weeds, out of P-51s optimal envelope.

2. Later in the war the quality of the German pilots was declining. I would have to think this would make any fighter seem more effective.

Just my 2 Centavos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang was the reason Luftwaffe pilot quality was declining...and it happened in the first half of 1944 when there were plenty of good luftwaffe pilots, plenty of fuel and the Luftwaffe outnumbered Mustangs....ie prior to Normandy...after Normandy, that was a whole different thing.

I would use historical evidence last in comparison, but it would be foolish to ignore it and at least try to understand why it was so...the really aggrevating thing about the Mustang FM is that there are lots of Mustangs flying around today! Lots of Jugs, spits and Lightnings....not so many 109's and 190's...it shouldn't be very hard at all to get an understanding of the REAL flight characteristics of those aircraft...I have a couple of DVD's on the Jug and Lightning.

The guns will likely be a long/difficult debate but the anectdotal handeling characteristics are straight forward, observable and concrete...the only question in my mind is what will it take to motivate the developer to improve the accuracy of these FM's...not going to be easy given the resource constraints and the new BoB priorities.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-15-2005, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
I'm advocating that you leave the thread, given your anti-US aircraft bent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the same manner that you leave threads based given your anti-German aircraft 'bent' ?

Ya, reet.

I flew the 'stang and had no problems. I even showed how weak the 109 DM was against .50s. I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

Norris

berg417448
09-15-2005, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:


I flew the 'stang and had no problems. I even showed how weak the 109 DM was against .50s. I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you didn't post this on another thread?:



As to the wings falling off, tell Oleg about it - he can always reduce the elevator response to something realistic Wink

Ta,
Norris


You can't claim you don't know what the "fuss is about" after you wrote that.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-15-2005, 04:16 PM
That pertains to wings falling off. Not wandering about. I'm sure you can see that they are two distinct items.

As to wings falling off, it has been suggested that it is a result of the elevator response being, shall we say, ovemodelled.

Anyway, if you are suggesting that wandering and response and wings falling off are related, are we to conclude, then, that all planes that supposedly wander have a good elevator response (they don't, the 190 doesn't wander much) and that aircraft with poor elevator response should fly like they are on rails (109 - poor response, no wander - in their words).

It doesn't stack up.

Ta,
Norris

berg417448
09-15-2005, 04:25 PM
I've never had the wings come of while flying the Mustang but the elevator response most certainly causes wandering in the pitch plane. Definitely no feeling of mass as the OP said. Overmodelled is as good a word as any I guess.

Chuck_Older
09-15-2005, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
I've never had the wings come of while flying the Mustang but the elevator response most certainly causes wandering in the pitch plane. Definitely no feeling of mass as the OP said. Overmodelled is as good a word as any I guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I do not experience 'wandering' in the P-51 B, C, or D

I suspect this is controller related. Apply filtering to your pitch axis

How can a feeling of "no mass" equal overmodelling?

Overmodelling refers to a condition in which the aircraft outperforms it's real life capabilities

Chuck_Older
09-15-2005, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WholeHawg: I have read countless books seen documentaries proclaiming P-51 to have "...Won the war..." and "..Is the best piston driven fighter of WWII.."

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You read rubbish, then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The P-51 didn't win the war. Utter tripe. Bollocks. Pantload. Horse hockey. Didn't happen. The P-51 was a potent weapon in the fight and did not and could not win the war, just as the M-1 didn't win the war, the C-47 didn't win the war, and the deuce and a half didn't win the war. Without them, victory was doubtful. With them, victory had potential.

The servicemen of the Allied nations won WWII, not some soulless machine.

GR142-Pipper
09-15-2005, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Anyone notice that with 4.01 the Mustang has turned into some kind of nothing aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaking of a complete nothing of an aircraft, try the P-47 these days. It's nothing more than worthless with the 4.01 patch.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-15-2005, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
No tracks...just words.

I have no doubt that Oleg will be rectifying a lot of things for the next patch based on hearsay. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE> He might as well go on hearsay because the patches have been increasingly screwed up with each release. Now with 109s turning like Yaks, P-47s flying like boat anchors, AI gunners with sniper-like accuracy, 50 caliber mg's that aren't effective, Yaks and Spits which easily depart, etc., etc., he sure isn't basing his changes on actual historics.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
09-15-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
I'm advocating that you leave the thread, given your anti-US aircraft bent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the same manner that you leave threads based given your anti-German aircraft 'bent' ?

Ya, reet.

I flew the 'stang and had no problems. I even showed how weak the 109 DM was against .50s. I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The fuss is about the P-51 being screwed up...which it thoroughly is. So on one hand, Norris has no problems and on the other so many, many other good pilots do. So noted.

GR142-Pipper

Grey_Mouser67
09-15-2005, 06:15 PM
Ya know...that Mustang won the war bs...i really wish sometimes folks would quit being so litteral.

The Mustang appeared in the skies over Germany in December of 1943. The Luftwaffe had no sanctuary...they could be hunted on their own turf...no longer could they linger out of Jug or lightning range to pounce on bombers...when Mustangs appeared over Germany, every German worth his salt knew the war could not be won.

The Mustang proceeded to engage the Luftwaffe in the air and on the ground and quickly won a war of attrition...this was a fight that no other allied plane could fight.

Did the Mustang win the war? No...but I assure you the Mustang in the skies over germany signaled the end as sure as a sunset signals the beginning of night...hence the phrase....think of it figuratively instead of litterally.

The invasion of Normandy was made safer for allies by winning air superiority...the Mustang paved the way...without the Mustang, the skies over the beachead would have likely been filled with Luftwaffe aircraft...but they were dead or grounded...because the Mustang had legs, because it could kill Luftwaffe aircraft readily with its armament, because it was the fastest thing in the sky and was good but not great at just about everything else.

Mustangs signaled the beginning of the end...they didn't win the war, but the war was won once the Allies had a weapon by which they could carry the fight to the enemy on their own terms...in the Pacific, the same was done by carrier battle groups and Hellcats.

enough said.

luftluuver
09-15-2005, 06:22 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The Mustang appeared in the skies over Germany in December of 1943. The Luftwaffe had no sanctuary...they could be hunted on their own turf...no longer could they linger out of Jug or lightning range to pounce on bombers...when Mustangs appeared over Germany, every German worth his salt knew the war could not be won./QUOTE]

I think if you search you will find it was the P-38, not the P-51, that was the first American fighter over Berlin. Range was no hinderance to the P-38.

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 06:52 PM
norris, could u post your stick settings?
i use default, unless its randomly changed on its own..

and yeah, go try out the 109g6, its more stable than the later 109s, but its like its rails, p51D feels like a cut and shut, zero is abit bouncy aswell

Triggaaar
09-15-2005, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
when Mustangs appeared over Germany, every German worth his salt knew the war could not be won. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not looking to argue here, but learn, since I don't know anything about each aircrafts role in the war. Saying 'when Mustangs appeared over Germany' are you saying that if other allied aircraft appeared, it would have been less threatening, or that other aircraft didn't have the range to fight over Germany?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Mustang proceeded to engage the Luftwaffe in the air and on the ground and quickly won a war of attrition...this was a fight that no other allied plane could fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, was this because of range, or what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did the Mustang win the war? No...but I assure you the Mustang in the skies over germany signaled the end as sure as a sunset signals the beginning of night...hence the phrase....think of it figuratively instead of litterally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thinking of it that figuratively can be misleading. What signals the end, may not have caused the end. For example, birds singing can signal the start of a new day, but the birds didn't start the new day (I personally have no idea which allied plane had the most impact on winning the war, I'm just trying to understand people's comments here).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The invasion of Normandy was made safer for allies by winning air superiority...the Mustang paved the way...without the Mustang, the skies over the beachead would have likely been filled with Luftwaffe aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously air superiority was vital. But is it really the case that this wasn't possible without Mustangs?

p1ngu666
09-15-2005, 07:18 PM
spitfire imo, highly effective interceptor, iconic and it gave people who saw it heart to fight on.
good PR aircraft aswell, often photoed berlin along with the mossie.

mossie 2nd choice, as it could go anywhere, do anything and ud be **** lucky if u could do anything about it.

mustang is probably best escort aircraft.

besides, its the bomber/attack aircraft that make the difference, mustangs could fly over berlin all they wanted, but if they didnt have fighters to shoot down, didnt attack stuff on ground or take recon, then it was pointless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TX-Gunslinger
09-15-2005, 07:41 PM
Things I agree with:

1. Guns on P51 and P47 need to be "fixed". I hope the desync fixes that... I also believe that the visulization of the outbound tracer rounds leaves quite a bit to be desired. I've always throught that.

2. P-47 certainly feels sluggish and E bleed seems higher than before. I used to fly it quite a bit, but when I fly red I usually pick the P-51-D20 since the patch.

With that said, my experience with both planes is more like Chuck Olders.

I spend quite a bit of effort with my joystick settings. I have three differnt curves mapped to my stick for different types of A/C. Those settings are really, really important to the control of A/C.

Also, trimming the American aircraft is a bit of work. That's the bad news. The good news (historically accurate, of course) is that in the P-51/P-47 you have trim for rudder, ailerons and elevator. When in trim, I don't recall my P-51's nose wandering about, any more than an FW's nose wanders about at slow speed when the apply full throttle.

Now, the fact that I have a very high-end joystick with a ton of buttons and switches helps considerably. I have every single axis of trim at my fingertips, organized in an a natural and efficient manner. I can't imagine trimming in 3 axes from the keyboard. That would be extremely difficult.

I've been flying the P-51 quite a bit the last few months. If properly trimmed in all axis, it flys well. If not, it does'nt fly as well and does'nt achieve maximum performance.

Is that historically correct? I really don't know.

Now, of course I'm a Focke-Wulf driver. That's the aircraft I have the most time in and am most comfortable with. We've always had to trim the elevator a lot in that plane. I'm used to it, and enjoy the extra control that I have in the American aircraft. It took me quite a while to get used to 3 times the trimming work, and I'm not sure I've totally mastered it, but the more I fly the P-51, the more proficient I become at managing trim.

In 4.01, the Focke-Wulf's, every single one of them, pull to the left until you get over about 420-450 kmh (I'm trying to remember the exact number but I'm on travel with no joystick and have'nt flown in a week). I don't know if that's historically correct either, but that's the way it is in the sim.

I approach flying the P-51 in a very similar manner to the Dora, the P-47 similar to an Anton. Neither of these planes had the handling characteristics of a Spitfire, Yak, Zero or La. They did however, excel in other areas.

Since 4.01, I've noticed a significant number of allied pilots stalling out in violent turns who did'nt stall out before. I wonder if those pilots have their joystick settings too hot, and what their trim state is.

Lastly, I believe that the most porked handling in the game right now is the Yak-9 series. I can't believe that the handling on that aircraft was so radically different than the Yak-1/Yak-3 series. If you want to see something that appears drastically wrong, try that aircraft.


S~

Gun

** edited for grammatical errors **

T_O_A_D
09-15-2005, 08:14 PM
Wheres my wingman!!!!!!

Badsight.
09-15-2005, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Yes, you are right I'm totally FOR .50 desync but I really don't think .50 cal should be more effective(make more damage) because that would just be insane... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>well thats the way FB works , de-synching means it ceases to be a Shotgun

instead it will work like its supposed too , i.e. better than it is now

BaldieJr
09-15-2005, 10:39 PM
Didnt read the whole thread and probably wont...

Curious about sync'ed guns. Is it there becase of oversight? Some planes have sync because they fire through the prop. Will it be too much work to fix?

LeadSpitter_
09-15-2005, 10:41 PM
Ubi French
1c russian

enough said.

Badsight.
09-15-2005, 10:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Didnt read the whole thread and probably wont...

Curious about sync'ed guns. Is it there becase of oversight? Some planes have sync because they fire through the prop. Will it be too much work to fix? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>all planes fire in a synched pattern

all planes

all fire globs of bullets instead of a steady stream

there are a couple of exceptions , Hurricane IIb & P-40 FM being two of them , & the P-40 FM really shows how much more effective a "stream" of bullets can be instead of the "shotgun" firing pattern we are all using

seeing as the M2 fifty cal is so weak for online use the request now is that the M2 be given an exemption & all planes using the M2 fifty cal be allowed to fire an unsynched "stream" of bullets

the syncronisation happend during AEP during the last big M2 fifty cal debate . Maddox Games - for reasons unexplained - synched all guns back in one of AEP's patches

next time i just type : "read the fricken ORR gawdammit" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BigKahuna_GS
09-16-2005, 01:11 AM
S!


__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Obviously air superiority was vital. But is it really the case that this wasn't possible without Mustangs?
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Witold Lanoski a RAF Spitfire pilot training with the 56th FG flying P47s said:

The Spitfire was good for a trip to Paris and 1 air battle. The P47 was good for a trip to Berlin and several air battles.

As great a fighter as the Spit was, it simply did not have the range to take the fight to germany and establish air superiority.

The P47 was named the best fighter over 25,000ft at Joint Fighter Confrence by all groups of pilots that it. That is a strong statement of performance. But the P47 didnt have the range the Mustang did.

The Mustang was probably the best high altitude long range escort, The Pony could fly further, was more maneuverable than the Jug and performed almost as good as the P47 at high altitude, and better than the P47 at moderate and low altitudes.

The best model of the P38, the P38J-25 and P38L had range similar too if not slightly better than the P51, but it did not have the numbers. There was a huge need in the PTO for the P38 and they were being transfered there.

So the P51 became the most important allied strategic fighter in the ETO to gain air superiority over the deepest parts of germany and beyond. The P51 was a stellar performer in this role and it's record speaks for itself.



__

Triggaaar
09-16-2005, 04:37 AM
Interesting, thanks.

carguy_
09-16-2005, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
im thinkin of changing my settings tbh, but g6 is still rock stable compaired to p51,zero,spit and other on the same stick settings, so a "fair test" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey,how bout my feel of those planes?Spit the most stable by far,Zero 2nd,109 3rd and P51 last(real pain when you got 50km to target). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

carguy_
09-16-2005, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
all planes

all fire globs of bullets instead of a steady stream

there are a couple of exceptions , Hurricane IIb & P-40 FM being two of them , & the P-40 FM really shows how much more effective a "stream" of bullets can be instead of the "shotgun" firing pattern we are all using </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You forgot 7.62mm ShKAS dude!Best sub10mm machinegun in the game!

This weapon shows the best how unsynching every historically unsynched gun is important for combat.

You will not cut planes in half,you will not blow wings or fuselages but:
1.You will kill the pilot.
2.You will screw control cables.
3.You will hit radiator/engine causing fuel/oil leak or immediate engine stop.
4.You will destroy cockpit instruments along with throttle lever and Kommandgerat.

You would never see ppl flying I16 type18 model if ShKAS was synched.

p1ngu666
09-16-2005, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
im thinkin of changing my settings tbh, but g6 is still rock stable compaired to p51,zero,spit and other on the same stick settings, so a "fair test" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey,how bout my feel of those planes?Spit the most stable by far,Zero 2nd,109 3rd and P51 last(real pain when you got 50km to target). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what type of spit? the VIII seems really unstable in roll especialy, and the zero is stable apart from pitch for me

tell me what your joystick settings are aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

geetarman
09-16-2005, 09:34 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:

I would use historical evidence last in comparison, but it would be foolish to ignore it and at least try to understand why it was so...the really aggrevating thing about the Mustang FM is that there are lots of Mustangs flying around today! Lots of Jugs, spits and Lightnings....not so many 109's and 190's...it shouldn't be very hard at all to get an understanding of the REAL flight characteristics of those aircraft...I have a couple of DVD's on the Jug and Lightning.

Yeah, it may work the other way though. The US planes may fly closer to real life than the German planes since no one has 10 or 20 109/190's laying around the world to use as a reference. I'm staring to think that may be more like it.

geetarman
09-16-2005, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Ya know...that Mustang won the war bs...i really wish sometimes folks would quit being so litteral.

The Mustang appeared in the skies over Germany in December of 1943. The Luftwaffe had no sanctuary...they could be hunted on their own turf...no longer could they linger out of Jug or lightning range to pounce on bombers...when Mustangs appeared over Germany, every German worth his salt knew the war could not be won.

The Mustang proceeded to engage the Luftwaffe in the air and on the ground and quickly won a war of attrition...this was a fight that no other allied plane could fight.

Did the Mustang win the war? No...but I assure you the Mustang in the skies over germany signaled the end as sure as a sunset signals the beginning of night...hence the phrase....think of it figuratively instead of litterally.

The invasion of Normandy was made safer for allies by winning air superiority...the Mustang paved the way...without the Mustang, the skies over the beachead would have likely been filled with Luftwaffe aircraft...but they were dead or grounded...because the Mustang had legs, because it could kill Luftwaffe aircraft readily with its armament, because it was the fastest thing in the sky and was good but not great at just about everything else.

Mustangs signaled the beginning of the end...they didn't win the war, but the war was won once the Allies had a weapon by which they could carry the fight to the enemy on their own terms...in the Pacific, the same was done by carrier battle groups and Hellcats.

enough said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen - the backlash against the Mustang on these boards is really odd.

geetarman
09-16-2005, 09:49 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:


In 4.01, the Focke-Wulf's, every single one of them, pull to the left until you get over about 420-450 kmh (I'm trying to remember the exact number but I'm on travel with no joystick and have'nt flown in a week). I don't know if that's historically correct either, but that's the way it is in the sim.

This may be what I see as a problem with 4.01.
Trim was set for cruise, above and below that speed, the German fighters had to be handled as much or more than a 51/47 for coordinated flight. There was a benefit to all axis adjustable trim trim.

The 51 flies pretty well when trimmed up, but it is one of the worst in the sim once you change a thing (such as when manuevering for a gunshot, even on a gradual-slope 6:00 approach).
Other planes are bad too, not just US fighters. The German fighters, seem to have this effect muted the most.

Yes, the Mustang required attention in flight, there's no debate. If changed in the next patch, it better not ride on rails! That does the sim no good. But, it should be damped down a bit.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-16-2005, 11:08 AM
Pipper - it never occurred to me that only 'good pilots' can suffer from the yawing problem; that's clearly why I'm having so many problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif On that note, you prompted me to do a quick QMB to make sure I wasn't hallucinating the first time around so here's a couple of 190s downed in a Mustang with only a small amount of fire (and not much 'wobble' either)

http://www.brayllo.plus.com/sig/IL-2%20Sturmovik%20Forg...records/dead190s.trk (http://www.brayllo.plus.com/sig/IL-2%20Sturmovik%20Forgotten%20Battles/records/dead190s.trk)

Pingu: recently, I had non-linear settings along the lines of 3, 14, 25 etc...to 100 but I've recently changed them to 10, 20, 30, 40 etc.. I don't have pedals, only a twist MSFFB2 so I'd probably expect more of a problem than with pedals where there is more 'stability'. I don't see a whole lot of difference between the Mustang and the G6, tbh. If anything, as I tried a G6 against the 190s, I'd say it was worse as it took me a lot longer to drop the 190s as it did with the Mustang as I had more trouble hitting them.

Ta,
Norris

GR142-Pipper
09-16-2005, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Pipper - it never occurred to me that only 'good pilots' can suffer from the yawing problem; that's clearly why I'm having so many problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif On that note, you prompted me to do a quick QMB to make sure I wasn't hallucinating the first time around so here's a couple of 190s downed in a Mustang with only a small amount of fire (and not much 'wobble' either) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Norris, I never said that ONLY good pilots experienced yaw problems. I said that many, many good pilots do and continue to experience these. By the way, fighting in QMB is not in any way the same as fighting on-line. It appears that much less damage is required in QMB to kill the AI opponent.

GR142-Pipper

Sillius_Sodus
09-16-2005, 07:37 PM
Actually, when you think about it, having the aircraft not perform to specs is quite realistic. Performance figures are usually determined using a brand new airplane. After a few combat missions, it's unlikely that an airplane will perform like new. The stress of combat can also "bend" the airframe, making it harder to fly in trim. WWII pilots flew their airplanes pretty hard and the engines and airframes got used up pretty quickly.

Now if only the AI flown aircraft had that problem...

Sillius_Sodus

Bearcat99
09-16-2005, 11:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Grey_Mouser67:
Ya know...that Mustang won the war bs...i really wish sometimes folks would quit being so litteral.

The Mustang appeared in the skies over Germany in December of 1943. The Luftwaffe had no sanctuary...they could be hunted on their own turf...no longer could they linger out of Jug or lightning range to pounce on bombers...when Mustangs appeared over Germany, every German worth his salt knew the war could not be won.

The Mustang proceeded to engage the Luftwaffe in the air and on the ground and quickly won a war of attrition...this was a fight that no other allied plane could fight.

Did the Mustang win the war? No...but I assure you the Mustang in the skies over germany signaled the end as sure as a sunset signals the beginning of night...hence the phrase....think of it figuratively instead of litterally.

The invasion of Normandy was made safer for allies by winning air superiority...the Mustang paved the way...without the Mustang, the skies over the beachead would have likely been filled with Luftwaffe aircraft...but they were dead or grounded...because the Mustang had legs, because it could kill Luftwaffe aircraft readily with its armament, because it was the fastest thing in the sky and was good but not great at just about everything else.

Mustangs signaled the beginning of the end...they didn't win the war, but the war was won once the Allies had a weapon by which they could carry the fight to the enemy on their own terms...in the Pacific, the same was done by carrier battle groups and Hellcats.

enough said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen - the backlash against the Mustang on these boards is really odd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it isnt.. it is par for the course.. you should have seen the boards when the Mustang first got here... In fact when FB first came out you couldnt say anything good about any uS aircraft without someone coming up saying that the XXX was better...... that whole "Mustang won the war" thing... LOL? Well that was a HUGE HUGE debacle here. I posted a link to an article by a guy thinking it was good info.. (this was way before I bvecame a mod) and I had guys calling for my head..... and the post turned into a heated 9 or 10 page flame fest..... and it still is like that to a large degree. go figure............

LeadSpitter_
09-17-2005, 02:10 AM
The thing thats funny is so many in this community think the 109 just becuase of its remarkable aces, who flow for the wooden cross or ironcross should make the online player have a 300 kill to 1 loss ratio.

The majority of these aces were shot down multiple times, KIA etc.

Its a hard reputation and stat to go by but the 109 was the most destroyed aircraft of wwii.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-17-2005, 02:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Pipper - it never occurred to me that only 'good pilots' can suffer from the yawing problem; that's clearly why I'm having so many problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif On that note, you prompted me to do a quick QMB to make sure I wasn't hallucinating the first time around so here's a couple of 190s downed in a Mustang with only a small amount of fire (and not much 'wobble' either) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Norris, I never said that ONLY good pilots experienced yaw problems. I said that many, many good pilots do and continue to experience these. By the way, fighting in QMB is not in any way the same as fighting on-line. It appears that much less damage is required in QMB to kill the AI opponent.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..but you can see why I thought you might have implied that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In actual fact, I meant to say that I was having no problems because I must be a bad pilot.

I don't think that aircraft take more damage online than off; I just think that lag means that shots that should have hit do not...or shots that appear to you to have hit cause no damage.

But, as you can imagine, that affects ALL aircraft. I think my two tracks show quite clearly that the claims that the 190/109 DMs are too strong (and that the .50s are too weak) are a little exaggerated. That's not to say that sometimes aircraft take longer to down than others but that's true IRL also.

Ta,
Norris

carguy_
09-17-2005, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The thing thats funny is so many in this community think the 109 just becuase of its remarkable aces, who flow for the wooden cross or ironcross should make the online player have a 300 kill to 1 loss ratio.

The majority of these aces were shot down multiple times, KIA etc.

Its a hard reputation and stat to go by but the 109 was the most destroyed aircraft of wwii. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right back at you,John Wayne http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
09-17-2005, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Its a hard reputation and stat to go by but the 109 was the most destroyed aircraft of wwii. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source? Or it`s forum wisdom ?

p1ngu666
09-17-2005, 08:56 AM
well, 35,000 produced?
probably what, a few thousand left at the end of the war?
say 3000?

what happened to the other 30,000 odd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif?

JG53Harti
09-17-2005, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well, 35,000 produced?
probably what, a few thousand left at the end of the war?
say 3000?

what happened to the other 30,000 odd http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

replaced, start- landing accidents ...

Or do you believe all very early built Me`s have served up to the end of the war?

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/Me109-R.htm

Kuna15
09-17-2005, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Right back at you,John Wayne http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

rofl

p1ngu666
09-17-2005, 09:57 AM
so, alot where scrapped?
if there was 3000 at the end, then on average, they scrapped 13,000odd in a year?

Zyzbot
09-17-2005, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
so, alot where scrapped?
if there was 3000 at the end, then on average, they scrapped 13,000odd in a year? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...they did have some help in "scrapping" a few them on the ground. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
09-17-2005, 10:42 AM
I don't know what the hubbub about the Mustang is. I fly it on and off and it feels about the same as before. A bit heavier I think...the roll rate is down a bit from before but all planes have that because of more role inertia so I think its pretty good.

I really like the Mustang. Its fast, the gunsight on the D-20 is superb for deflection shots, the turns and flies well enough at high speeds to get into some really good fights with the late war fighters. The only thing that is bad about it really is the armament and I really prefer to have cannons as one shot really matters alot more. Nonetheless, the firepower is ok...I tightened my convergence up again (its closer every time) and its now at 225 for machine guns and 235 for cannons. I think this makes a real difference. You really get a buzzsaw effect at the ideal firing range.

So for the people with trouble on the Mustang...here's some things to check:
1) You are flying too slowly and are pretending its a Yak or Spitfire...wrong!
2) Your gun convergence is default 500m (after all it means nothing right?) ...wrong!
3) Your rudder has a linear 100 value across the entire bredth of the stick. Wrong! The values should be incremental under the new FM...mine start 2, 6, 17, and so on.
4) You think you can execute a 90 degree pullout in 2 seconds with full elevator deflection at 700kph. Bad! Wrong!

I don't get nose wandering, I don't have the lack of mass feeling...and quite honestly we get lots of guys flying the myth and finding it doesn't exist. Only real piloting and combat skills count...

And there are some FM issues with all planes that continually are worked out (and in sometimes). The Mustang appears to achieve best possible speed, good climb rate, manuevers well according to accounts and charts...I have not seen any indication of anything being really wrong with it. Except for some bad controller setups. If something is wrong...lets test it. But nobody wants to do that...just expell wind.

The Mustang isn't perfect but we once again blame planes for problems that exist in the minds of pilots who don't know any better or who refuse to know any better because of some sort of myth that exists in their mind.

horseback
09-17-2005, 11:43 AM
Let me see if I have this right. If one flies the Mustang 'properly', it handles and shoots just like the historical reports? All one has to do is set his rudder and other controller sensitivities 'properly' and the Pony will handle like a classic Cadillac...

The problem is, while combat pilots have the help of their inner ears (and a little pressure on the seats of their pants), plus their training and tips from their buddies, we computer pilots have... drumroll, please... exactly squat-- a maximum of 85 degrees of visual range, cockpit instruments that are only vaguely accurate or obsured, and a delayed trim input that does more to obscure trim state than it does to stabilize or even reveal it.

There is not so much as a hint in the Readme or online 'manual' to tell me that when they change the FMs, I may have to change joystick sensitivities every time I change aircraft. Should we keep flipcharts hanging on the wall beside our monitors for sensitivities, one each for the P-51, P-47, P-38, and a general one for the Bf-109 / FW-190 / Spitfire / aircraft flown by the Soviets (the P39/P-40 are much easier to fly than the other US a/c in-game)?

The issue here is one group of aircraft singled out to be more difficult to fly and fight successfully in, when historically, these very aircraft (with the exception of the P-38) were universally praised for being exactly the opposite; if any class of fighters were 'user friendly', it was the late war US fighters.

The opposite might be said of the German fighters - what was the crack made by the RAF ace to a captured but still arrogant 109 pilot? "Know why we're going to win? Because any idiot can fly a Spitfire."

The German had boasted that it took a good and well-trained pilot to fly a Messerschmitt to its limits, taking pride in his membership in an elite club. The Brit rightly pointed out that there was no point to being the member of an elite if less gifted or skilled men could equal them with better (or easier) tools...

As it stands now, the easiest fighter for me to fly is the 109, followed closely by the 190 and the Spitfire. Maybe I'm just being picky, but that seems wrong to me.

Close to forty years of study on the subject would indicate to me that the Hellcat, the P-47, the Mustang, and the Spitfire (closely followed by the 190)should be the easiest of the 'Western' planes to fly and fight in.

cheers

horseback

CUJO_1970
09-17-2005, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

The opposite might be said of the German fighters </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nonesense WRT the FW190.

It was universally known to be extremely well balanced, with excellent control harmony and easy to fly.

Even the latest test flight by Fluegwerk with the gear extended the pilot said it was extremely responsive and handled quite well.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 should be easy to fly in the sim and they are.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-17-2005, 12:08 PM
Icefire is right - I don't fly the Mustang too much (I prefer the P47) but my tracks certainly show that it's not at all difficult to nail German fighters. i.e. I had little trouble and I don't fly it much.

Online, things are admittedly different what with gunnery but that's the same for everyone. No one is singled out, IMO; I think it's far more the case that it's the expectation of people that isn't satisfied but that certainly doesn't mean that Oleg has it wrong at all.

Ta,
Norris

horseback
09-17-2005, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:

Nonesense WRT the FW190.

It was universally known to be extremely well balanced, with excellent control harmony and easy to fly.

Even the latest test flight by Fluegwerk with the gear extended the pilot said it was extremely responsive and handled quite well.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 should be easy to fly in the sim and they are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Cherrypicker. The category was "to fly and fight in," and the 190 does have a bit of a rep for treachory in the high speed maneuvering category, and the Anton lost its performance edge at the higher altitudes at which its bomber killing armament was most useful.

Maybe I should have been more specific and just said that one of the two major German types was less than user friendly, but please note that your 190 was deservedly listed barely behind the Spitfire in my 'ease of use' list.

My point remains: the 109 series is the easiest fighter for the average player to fly and fight in the game, a reversal of the historical record. The Mustang and P-47 bounce all over the place at high speeds, and get even worse when you pull the trigger (and my rudder sensitivity is set to 1, 4, 9, 16... etc).

The issue is 'slotting' the ease that the aircrafts' strengths can be applied in combat. If the Mustang's high speed FM and behavior when firing the guns is correct, then the FMs and firing behavior of most other aircraft types is terribly wrong.

cheers

horseback

Kurfurst__
09-17-2005, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
so, alot where scrapped?
if there was 3000 at the end, then on average, they scrapped 13,000odd in a year? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What`s so surprising, how many Hurris were produced... 14 000? How many left? How many Spitties produced, 20 000? How many left, 1-2000 perhaps? All shot down? Of course not...

Fighters have a short lifespan, the aiframe would last only a few hundred hours (~500) before overhaul, and they won`t bother to overhaul obsolate models, when hundreds of the new ones are produced each month. When they grew obsolate, they were retired, some sent to training units, the rest being scrapped. Non combat losses, and wastage is FAR higher than most would think.

Not as a bad career imho then right after the war, when factory workers in allied countries had to see the planes they made were scrapped right after leaving the production line... :/

p1ngu666
09-17-2005, 02:37 PM
yep, curiously the typhoon was being made, then trundled across the aerodrome to be dismantled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

alot of hurri's, and earlier spits ended up in burma, they went through planes quickly there.

ive no idea how many planes anyone had on charge at the end actully.

theres currently a few 109s about, 33,000ish where produced, similer to yak fighters,po2 and il2?
probably more about now than the yak and il2..

VW-IceFire
09-17-2005, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:

Nonesense WRT the FW190.

It was universally known to be extremely well balanced, with excellent control harmony and easy to fly.

Even the latest test flight by Fluegwerk with the gear extended the pilot said it was extremely responsive and handled quite well.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 should be easy to fly in the sim and they are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Cherrypicker. The category was "to fly and fight in," and the 190 does have a bit of a rep for treachory in the high speed maneuvering category, and the Anton lost its performance edge at the higher altitudes at which its bomber killing armament was most useful.

Maybe I should have been more specific and just said that one of the two major German types was less than user friendly, but please note that your 190 was deservedly listed barely behind the Spitfire in my 'ease of use' list.

My point remains: the 109 series is the easiest fighter for the average player to fly and fight in the game, a reversal of the historical record. The Mustang and P-47 bounce all over the place at high speeds, and get even worse when you pull the trigger (and my rudder sensitivity is set to 1, 4, 9, 16... etc).

The issue is 'slotting' the ease that the aircrafts' strengths can be applied in combat. If the Mustang's high speed FM and behavior when firing the guns is correct, then the FMs and firing behavior of most other aircraft types is terribly wrong.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree on the 109 being easy. I dislike flying that plane and I find the FW190 easier to fly and fight in...with possible exception to the 109F's as they are a real joy...but thats sounding historical again.

See thats the thing really...fly the Mustang and Thunderbolt as they were meant to be flown and they are pretty darn nice to fly. Quite honestly, American pilots were given considerable flight training before they got to combat, and many U.S. pilots prefered to have things a bit more complicated in the cockpit so as they might get the most of their plane.

Case in point is the USN FW190A trials against Corsair and Hellcat. Mention made of the universla throttle control for the FW190 while the Corsairs and Hellcats had separate prop pitch/mix/throttle setups (approximately anyways).

I don't think that in general American aircraft were ever regarded as easiest to fly and fight in. The attributes pwoer and strength come to mind but not necessarily easy. The P-40 was dangerous in a stall (it is in PF), the P-39 was off center (I can't get out of flat spins in 4.01), the P-47 was considered sturdy and docile in a stall (and it largely is), and the P-51 really was a little bit trickier than its contemporaries due to wing design mostly.

My gripe is that people take up a plane first time, say "OMG its the Mustang, should wipe the floor no matter what I do" get shot down by a 109 after a short low altitude turn fight and say "WTF, American planes are undermodeled! Russian bias! OMG!!"

Can someone post a track for me too...with this nose wobbling. I'd really like to see what you guys are experiencing...

Loco-S
09-17-2005, 03:14 PM
Most likely the FM has been written around having fuel in the fuselage tank, that will make your nose wobble and have violent spins....I never fly the 51 but according to the manual its possible to have instability when there is fuel in the center tank....just for toughts.:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/must13.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/Kurbalaganda/must14.jpg

geetarman
09-17-2005, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:

Nonesense WRT the FW190.

It was universally known to be extremely well balanced, with excellent control harmony and easy to fly.

Even the latest test flight by Fluegwerk with the gear extended the pilot said it was extremely responsive and handled quite well.

Both the P-47 and the P-51 should be easy to fly in the sim and they are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Cherrypicker. The category was "to fly and fight in," and the 190 does have a bit of a rep for treachory in the high speed maneuvering category, and the Anton lost its performance edge at the higher altitudes at which its bomber killing armament was most useful.

Maybe I should have been more specific and just said that one of the two major German types was less than user friendly, but please note that your 190 was deservedly listed barely behind the Spitfire in my 'ease of use' list.

My point remains: the 109 series is the easiest fighter for the average player to fly and fight in the game, a reversal of the historical record. The Mustang and P-47 bounce all over the place at high speeds, and get even worse when you pull the trigger (and my rudder sensitivity is set to 1, 4, 9, 16... etc).

The issue is 'slotting' the ease that the aircrafts' strengths can be applied in combat. If the Mustang's high speed FM and behavior when firing the guns is correct, then the FMs and firing behavior of most other aircraft types is terribly wrong.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree on the 109 being easy. I dislike flying that plane and I find the FW190 easier to fly and fight in...with possible exception to the 109F's as they are a real joy...but thats sounding historical again.

See thats the thing really...fly the Mustang and Thunderbolt as they were meant to be flown and they are pretty darn nice to fly. Quite honestly, American pilots were given considerable flight training before they got to combat, and many U.S. pilots prefered to have things a bit more complicated in the cockpit so as they might get the most of their plane.

Case in point is the USN FW190A trials against Corsair and Hellcat. Mention made of the universla throttle control for the FW190 while the Corsairs and Hellcats had separate prop pitch/mix/throttle setups (approximately anyways).

I don't think that in general American aircraft were ever regarded as easiest to fly and fight in. The attributes pwoer and strength come to mind but not necessarily easy. The P-40 was dangerous in a stall (it is in PF), the P-39 was off center (I can't get out of flat spins in 4.01), the P-47 was considered sturdy and docile in a stall (and it largely is), and the P-51 really was a little bit trickier than its contemporaries due to wing design mostly.

My gripe is that people take up a plane first time, say "OMG its the Mustang, should wipe the floor no matter what I do" get shot down by a 109 after a short low altitude turn fight and say "WTF, American planes are undermodeled! Russian bias! OMG!!"

Can someone post a track for me too...with this nose wobbling. I'd really like to see what you guys are experiencing... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see your point and can agree partly. Every account I've read said the Mustang flew well and could be very stable, but did need constant attention to trim it that way. The P-51 in the sim needs the same attention. Problem is, it's a bit overdone making it hard to combat with, which is not what the accounts speak of. Also, it seems of it's main competitiors are not suffering from their faults enough.

I don't think any serious WWII flight simmer wants or expects to hop in a Mustang and wipe the floor with the competition, no matter how or where the fight takes place. They do want a
P-51 that, onced trimmed to fight, is a stable gun platform, puts alot of hurt on the enemy, has a stable and exceptional dive and zoom climb and keeps it's famous "E" retention
properly while manuevering. Some is being being delivered now in the sim - some is not.

Grey_Mouser67
09-17-2005, 03:32 PM
There are aircraft, and the Mustang is one of them, whose control authority gets lighter with speed.

It had great roll and good elevator in real life and it is way over done right now. Bf109 and Fw190 controls are very dampened compared to the Mustang...I think it is the crazy control authority at high speed that created the original poster's title. One can tone the pitch and a little bit of the yaw down with control settings, no doubt about it. I just have to think that the plane, control settings or not, should not be able to move like that. If it wasn't for the wing breaking, there'd be a whole lot of complaints about super high speed turns.

In terms of how easy or how hard a plane is to fly, I think clairification and definition are in order. When I think about how easy or hard a plane is to fly, it revolves primarily around stability and control damening and especially ease of getting in to and out of stalls...how easy it is to stall, how much warning you get, and what is the penalty for stall in terms of loss of E and altitude.

Now go back and compare all the planes again under those criteria...the 109 will be best in class...I find it extremely hard to stall, extremely stable with controls dampened and when I stall I typically dip a wing or spin once lose a little E and take off going again.

An extreme contrast, and historical as far as I know, is the P-39. Stalls are vicious, sudden and often wind up in a flat spin that you can't recover from...historically, P-40's had terrible stall characteristics and required up to 5000 ft to recover.

The Mustang, based on what I read, had some abrupt stall characteristics with a sudden dipping of wing and loss of altitude, but not 5000 ft like the Warhawk. The plane required alot of trimming and flew like it was on rails with excellent control inputs. It has some similarity in terms of stall but I'd say that is about where the in game plane's resemblence ends.

The Spitfire, in game, also has some nasty stall characteristics now...not at all like it was and by contrast for example, a Fw or Ki drops a wing loses virtually no altitude and loses little energy, especially the Ki...can't count the times i've seen a wing drop and boom he's right back on you...can't say if this is correct or not, but when I talk about ease of flight, that is what i'm talking about.

The 109 is hard from the aspect that there is no trim and it requires constant control input to fly straight. At high speeds, it is very stable and controlable and needs little input. Controls are dampened so it is the most stable gun platform in the game followed closely by the Fw and then I'd say the P-40 M105. If I dive, and i've done this many times, in a 109 get my speed up and pull a loop at full, 100%, deflection I can go around to the bottom of the second loop before I stall and then a wing drops, I spin once, recover and continue flying. With speeds above 400km/hr, it is virtually stall proof...that makes it easy to fly in my book.

I wouldn't expect a Mustang to handle well at slow speeds and I don't think that is what the problem is...to me it is its handling properties at high speed. It needs a bunch of the 109's control dampening and some of that yaw stability so rudder inputs don't make it wiggle. At high speeds, say above 550km/hr, it is extremely difficult to control and one has to do a bunch with ones settings to manage it.

I guess if it were left this way, then I'd have a real serious request for Oleg and that would be to have aircraft specific controller, convergence, fuel etc set ups.

I have a suspicion that the yaw instability is compounded for me because I have an X-45 and the rudder input has a way of "snapping" to and fro. I have mapped the rudder to a rotary knob and it is much, much better there. My only question is why does the Corsair, Mustang, Lightning, Jug, Spitfire, Hellcat do this and the 109, 190, P-40, P-39, lagg not?

Aaron_GT
09-17-2005, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Every account I've read said the Mustang flew well and could be very stable, but did need constant attention to trim it that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that part of the problem is that trim was intuitive and easy to do unconsciously on many WW2 fighters in a way that a simulator cannot hope to accomodate unless you have a set up with trim on a slider attached to a bucket seat in front of your monitor.

VW-IceFire
09-17-2005, 06:52 PM
Another question: How many of you folks who have trouble trim the plane constantly and trim the ball to center for level flight?

I've gotten into the habit of trimming always and more recently trimming the ball to center...

horseback
09-17-2005, 06:57 PM
The problem here is that the 'trim' adjustments are delayed and if using button inputs rather than axes, seem to me useful mainly for putting the pilot 'behind the curve'. Agreed that the Mustang was 'trim' aircraft, but my problem with it is not stalling out, but keeping it steady when accellerating or decellerating; the need for trim is grossly exaggerated when any kind of change in E-state occurs. Pull the trigger, and the nose really starts bouncing around.

In the 109 or 190, I can easily and subconsciously add left or right rudder (I have had pedals since the original Il-2 Sturmovik -this may make this kind of adjustment easier for me than for the twist rudder set), add or subtract elevator (actually stabilizer) trim and keep my target in the cross-hairs; this is much more difficult in a Mustang, Thunderbolt or Lightning than it is in a Warhawk.

Coincidentally, Warhawks were flown in some significant numbers by the Soviets. The Mustang, P-38 and the Naval fighters were not, and suffer some blatantly ahistorical faults in the game; the P-47, while used to some extent, was definitely not the Soviets' style and not properly exploited and the engine DM borders upon the ludicrous.

Oleg's reliance upon Soviet sources first mitigates pretty strongly against the primary frontline US fighters, which did not find much favor with Soviet authorities (not least because they operated best in a very different warfighting strategy or because they were so darned big), and of which they had few, if any, operational examples.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
09-17-2005, 07:24 PM
ice, ill try and record a track 4 u

horse, i agree with u, the only thing u haveto worry/deal with is the roll from torque on the 109.

and u cant trim level, always up or down abit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

HayateAce
09-18-2005, 03:58 AM
Icefire,

I rechecked my rudder settings and they are just as you mention. Here is a very simple test:

Lagg3 66series -&gt; Kick rudder all the way to one side and release. Watch and see how long it takes for the nose to settle back down,

P51D - Do the same, and you will see this overstated swaying back and forth and back and forth - PENDULUM effect. This is what some of us are on about.

I wonder is this only an x45 problem?

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

Brain32
09-18-2005, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> P51D - Do the same, and you will see this overstated swaying back and forth and back and forth - PENDULUM effect. This is what some of us are on about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I know what are you talking about, it acts like it was made of paper, but you have to "calm" it down, it can be stabilized very quickly

NorrisMcWhirter
09-18-2005, 04:28 AM
Well, it will be very curious if it is stick related.

Ice: check my two tracks out for the nose wobble. There is some, but it's not hard to control it (MSFFB2)

Ta.
Norris

geetarman
09-18-2005, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Another question: How many of you folks who have trouble trim the plane constantly and trim the ball to center for level flight?

I've gotten into the habit of trimming always and more recently trimming the ball to center... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK it DID require a lot of trim. The main culprits were rudder and elevator. Aileron, not so much. You see that reflected in the sim nicely. Trouble is, at higher speeds, particularly, it is very difficult to keep in trim and the nose bobbles around.

msalama
09-18-2005, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Amen - the backlash against the Mustang on these boards is really odd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you're talking about this bozo who lambasted the game's P-51D the other day, presenting historical data ONLY without _any_ attempt whatsoever to measure our version at ALL for comparison, then I'd say that he only got what he asked for.

And mind you, the backlash then _wasn't_ against the Mustang at all AFAIK. It was against idiots.

And of course there's nothing wrong in criticizing Oleg's Mustang either, all constructive critique surely being OK wit' Da Man too & that...

(And yeah, forgive me for interrupting your Mustang discussion here... just an aside, OK?)

Aaron_GT
09-18-2005, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oleg's reliance upon Soviet sources first mitigates pretty strongly against the primary frontline US fighters, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg uses US sources too. Aircraft from many nations are over or under modelled in various aspects. I think this has more to do with changing FM code, the time required to tweak them, and the sheer number of planes in the sim. I don't see any consistent bias myself, as you have some Axis planes overmodelled in some aspects, undermodelled in others, ditto RAF, etc. In terms of raw numbers the P51 hits many of the figures to a reasonable level of accuracy given the level of engine boost modelled.

Aaron_GT
09-18-2005, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Trouble is, at higher speeds, particularly, it is very difficult to keep in trim and the nose bobbles around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we need trim-on-a-slider available for this, but it seems that given the way trim is modelled in the FM code trim-on-a-slider can lead to exploits. So either trim needs to be better implemented as a whole or to keep online play civil perhaps there needs to be a server side switch which somehow prevents connects from people using trim on a slider to avoid the possibility of using that exploit?

Kocur_
09-18-2005, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aircraft from many nations are over or under modelled in various aspects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm...can I kindly ask for examples of undermodelling of La-7, Yak-3, Il-2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Loco-S
09-18-2005, 02:41 PM
the p51 was quite responsive on elevator inputs, so much, it had to be derated to avoid their pilots of overstressing it and breaking things loose from the plane ( say...tail empennage...).....

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/p51.jpg

Kocur_
09-18-2005, 03:08 PM
Seems in-game P-51 is yet waiting for that "stick balast" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

CUJO_1970
09-18-2005, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Cherrypicker. The category was "to fly and fight in," and the 190 does have a bit of a rep for treachory in the high speed maneuvering category, and the Anton lost its performance edge at the higher altitudes at which its bomber killing armament was most useful.

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


High speed manuevering was the FW190's forte horseback.

And the high-G induced snap stall was well known to veteran LW pilots, in fact it was often used as an evasive escape maneuver, even part of technical lectures on the a/c.

A limiting factor of course, but hardly a "treacherous" characteristic for a plane that could recover right away from it.

And of course - "turning doesn't win battles" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
09-18-2005, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
the p51 was quite responsive on elevator inputs, so much, it had to be derated to avoid their pilots of overstressing it and breaking things loose from the plane ( say...tail empennage...)..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A very cool read, what MAG is that from? Oct 1997.. but what mag?

faustnik
09-18-2005, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Icefire,

I rechecked my rudder settings and they are just as you mention. Here is a very simple test:

Lagg3 66series -&gt; Kick rudder all the way to one side and release. Watch and see how long it takes for the nose to settle back down,

P51D - Do the same, and you will see this overstated swaying back and forth and back and forth - PENDULUM effect. This is what some of us are on about.

I wonder is this only an x45 problem?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HayateAce,

I don't think it is just an X45 problem. I just did your test and, although it sounds like the problem is less severe with my MSFFBII, I do notice more "yawing" with the P-51D-5 and Dora than the Lagg-3 and Bf109G10. Maybe it is the intertia modeling and the weight of the heavier a/c???

HayateAce
09-18-2005, 06:55 PM
Rgrt,

I can accept that the P51 is heavier than say a Bf109 and won't stall fight well against it. But, where's my stability as a tradeoff?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/e/ee/Wheres_the_beef_commercial.jpg

horseback
09-18-2005, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> High speed manuevering was the FW190's forte horseback. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you in the habit of trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs? High speed maneuvering at medium altitudes was the FW's forte, and the Mustang was better at it at the higher altitudes they most often met. Chases in a high speed dive also favored the Mustang. Again, better at high speeds.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And the high-G induced snap stall was well known to veteran LW pilots, in fact it was often used as an evasive escape maneuver, even part of technical lectures on the a/c. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Key word: "veteran"--Not many of those left after May of '44. The FW 190 stall was treacherous in that it came with little or no warning, depending upon your source, and it killed more than one pilot who failed to recognize the warning (whatever it was). That includes a number of veterans fighting low level on the Eastern Front, and at high alts over the Reich. Having your aircraft depart when you don't want it to in combat can kill you if your opponent is paying attention to what he's doing.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And of course - "turning doesn't win battles" </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct--but it does make it easier to set up your next pass.

I didn't mean to make you feel as if I kicked your dog, but the subject is the Mustang and how it handles. The FW's flight & damage models are much kinder to it than the Mustang's, contrary to the historical record. Regardless of whether the Mustang in the game can meet the performance marks agreed upon, the handling is so twitchy (absolutely contradicting every wartime pilot's description) that I cannot believe that both aircraft's FMs can be correct, relative to each other.

One or the other is wrong.

cheers

horseback

GR142-Pipper
09-18-2005, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I didn't mean to make you feel as if I kicked your dog, but the subject is the Mustang and how it handles. The FW's flight & damage models are much kinder to it than the Mustang's, contrary to the historical record. Regardless of whether the Mustang in the game can meet the performance marks agreed upon, the handling is so twitchy (absolutely contradicting every wartime pilot's description) that I cannot believe that both aircraft's FMs can be correct, relative to each other.

One or the other is wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an aside and in agreement with your assessment, it's interesting to step back and wonder why Oleg and company introduced yet another modeling variable (engine torque) into this game when the basic flight models of some very important WWII aircraft are clearly wrong. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

CUJO_1970
09-18-2005, 08:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Are you in the habit of trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Are you in the habit of acting like a ****ing moronic little *****?

GR142-Pipper
09-18-2005, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Another question: How many of you folks who have trouble trim the plane constantly and trim the ball to center for level flight?

I've gotten into the habit of trimming always and more recently trimming the ball to center... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Most pilots trim out the pressure and the ball will usually be perfectly centered. That's not the case in this game. Go to QMB, center the ball and then go to externals. You'll often see the aircraft is in fact crabbing. That's not how trim works. When the ball is centered, the plane should be perfectly in alignment directionally. Not so here...even with those planes with trim on all axii (I bet you haven't seen that word before..lol). Check it out and see for yourselves.

GR142-Pipper

p1ngu666
09-18-2005, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aircraft from many nations are over or under modelled in various aspects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm...can I kindly ask for examples of undermodelling of La-7, Yak-3, Il-2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yak3 doesnt have the guages in wing for fuel tanks, maybe dodgy canopeeee

il2, no parachute grenades, iffy control loss, no sub machine gun (extra http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) for the rear gunner, plus other bits and bobs..
il2T has rocket rails, but is suposidly lightend? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

la7, yes, u got me there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

horseback
09-18-2005, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Are you in the habit of trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Are you in the habit of acting like a ****ing moronic little *****? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, next time I will kick your dog.

horseback

faustnik
09-18-2005, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The FW's flight & damage models are much kinder to it than the Mustang's, contrary to the historical record. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We know there are issues with the Fw190s DM, but, now you are claiming the FM has issues too? Care to back that up, or are you just blowing wind?

faustnik
09-18-2005, 10:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Rgrt,

I can accept that the P51 is heavier than say a Bf109 and won't stall fight well against it. But, where's my stability as a tradeoff?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think that more weight = better stability?????

PFSamwise
09-18-2005, 10:54 PM
More weight was more stability. The guns on just about every warbird were strong enough to affect the planes flying from the guns' recoil. The lighter the plane, the easier it is for any force on the plane's body to affect the flight. The stang should really be much more stable.....but in the meantime, just try and be gentle on stick inputs.

Loco-S
09-18-2005, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
]A very cool read, what MAG is that from? Oct 1997.. but what mag? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flight Journal...once in a while they come with great "flying the (insert plane here)" articles...

I have a few if you want, I could post them in PDF file.

HayateAce
09-19-2005, 12:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 HayateAce:
Rgrt,

I can accept that the P51 is heavier than say a Bf109 and won't stall fight well against it. But, where's my stability as a tradeoff?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think that more weight = better stability????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, exactly Faust. More weight = better stability. Where's me stability? 109 flies like it is on rails with all the stability of a heavy aircraft, while the Mustang bobs all over the place.

carguy_
09-19-2005, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes, exactly Faust. More weight = better stability. Where's me stability? 109 flies like it is on rails with all the stability of a heavy aircraft, while the Mustang bobs all over the place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109 is not much more stable than a P51 up to 450km/h.That is where P51 needs to be smooth but the fokin elevator is all over the place.Though when I fly a P51 I do not have any problem with B&Z.The elevator is smooth if you need small inputs.The real and IMO biggest problem lies in high deflection shots.Really hard to pull a fire solution with such a sensitive plane that has the best high speed elevator authority.Also being unable to create a stream of .50cal shells makes a big difference.P51 is fine at shooting below 450km/h but the speed is too slow to jump a 109 repeatedly so he gain on you.

csThor
09-19-2005, 12:36 AM
I'm making a wild guess here, but maybe the "stability" of the 109 is more a thing of the elevator and airleron authority. If you take the Fw 190 as another example (it is certainly comparable to the P-51) you'll note a very touchy elevator and a general lack of stability along all axis. Maybe a fine-tuning of the authority over the control surfaces is needed. *shrugs*

Aaron_GT
09-19-2005, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Umm...can I kindly ask for examples of undermodelling of La-7, Yak-3, Il-2... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know enough about their real life performance to know if they are underperforming, but I am sure someone who knows about Soviet aircraft can find instances within the set of aircraft where there is undermodelling.

An interesting one is that now people say the P39 and P63 is overmodelled because the Soviets used them, but back in the original days of IL2 people complained that Oleg had undermodelled them (by making the stall too severe) because they were manufactured in the USA and Oleg was biased against US aircraft. So looks like Oleg can't win unless every aircraft hits every performance figure with 100% accuracy (even if some of the figures are contradictory), which is probably not possible.

Aaron_GT
09-19-2005, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. If you take the Fw 190 as another example (it is certainly comparable to the P-51) you'll note a very touchy elevator and a general lack of stability along all axis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find the P51 is (thankfully, since I fly red) more stable than the 190. To me the 190A is barely usable. The 190D seems more stable, though, although I don't know why this would be so.

Kocur_
09-19-2005, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't know enough about their real life performance to know if they are underperforming, but I am sure someone who knows about Soviet aircraft can find instances within the set of aircraft where there is undermodelling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading this formum made me confident 95% of ppl present here arent interested in non-soviet aviation. Similar percentage is valid for number of threads about planes issues. It happenes that I am interested in soviet planes, and the more I learn about real performance of soviet planes the more I cant see ANYTHING like undermodelling of them. RL Yak-3 Vne was 700kmh TAS, Il2 losses were one per 18,5 sorties, the best SL Vmax of test example of La-7'44 was 596kmh - confront that with in-game "reality" and find undermodelling there, please.

Xiolablu3
09-19-2005, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

The opposite might be said of the German fighters - what was the crack made by the RAF ace to a captured but still arrogant 109 pilot? "Know why we're going to win? Because any idiot can fly a Spitfire."

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm pretty sure that it was the other way around.

The annoyed, just shot-down German pilot said to the RAF flyer, 'Do you know why the Spitfire does so well against German planes? Because any idiot can fly a Spitfire.'

Or something to that effect.

I may be wrong but thats how I heard it.

TAGERT.
09-19-2005, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
Flight Journal...once in a while they come with great "flying the (insert plane here)" articles...

I have a few if you want, I could post them in PDF file. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A pdf of that one would be great! I guessed it was Flight Journal, went to their web sight and the soft copys only go back to Oct of 1998! Missed it by one year! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HayateAce
09-19-2005, 09:05 AM
Don't hijack the thread, but I will give you a fine example of Soviet undermodeling: The 4.01 Yak3.

This thing has been reduced to a quivering mass of twitches. Try to pull a hard turn to ride a 109s tail and VERY often you will find yourself in a vicious departure, followed by a flat spin that is much more difficult to recover from than the 109s spin.

That is backwards folks. The Yak3 loses control like the P40 should, while history states it was a phenonminal TnB macine.

Kocur_
09-19-2005, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try to pull a hard turn to ride a 109s tail and VERY often you will find yourself in a vicious departure, followed by a flat spin that is much more difficult to recover from than the 109s spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

109 has slats. Remember? All planes with slats are in 4.01 are, at least, hard to stall.

p1ngu666
09-19-2005, 10:07 AM
yak9 is decididly average, also engine produces 2cv power at high alt
overheats quick up there tho, compair to say jug, down low overheats, up high, close rad, bolt throttle wide open, wait, and wait and... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

is like theres one good ride per nation/airforce

russian, la7
german, 109
raf, spit
usaaf p38 late
USN corsair
japanease ki84/ and zero, by erm default for ijn not really overmodeled..

the rest are average/undermodeled

horseback
09-19-2005, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 horseback:
The FW's flight & damage models are much kinder to it than the Mustang's, contrary to the historical record. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We know there are issues with the Fw190s DM, but, now you are claiming the FM has issues too? Care to back that up, or are you just blowing wind? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no issues with the 190's FM, beyond the old visibility from the cockpit bugaboo, and I think it feels a bit 'stodgy' now, a bit slow to react, when pilot accounts describe it as very responsive. Still, I feel that the FM is kinder (than the Mustang's) as in easier for the average simmer to master and fight with.

I can get and keep my sights on a target much easier with the 190 than I can with a Mustang, and at worst, the Mustang should be in the same class. The Mustang is too demanding of trim inputs that for all intents and purposes require anticipation (due to the delay in trim from the moment of player input) of the trim needs as speed goes up and down.

A better comparison might be the P-40, which is by all accounts a much more demanding aircraft to fly than the Mustang, particularly in its need for constant trim inputs for minor speed changes. Its FM is much more forgiving (in the same sense as the FW 190's) than the Mustang's.

But as I pointed out earlier, the Soviets operated a lot of P-40s and recorded reams of accurate, first hand flight data about it. Given Oleg's reliance on Soviet sources first, German sources second, and other countries third, one can assume that the P-40 FM is fairly accurate.

The same primary reliance on Soviet and German sources mitigates against the Mustang. Neither source received 'official' operating examples of the P-51B/C/D from Britain or the United States, according to every source I have checked, although the Soviets may have received a 'used' Mustang Mk I from the British (however, unless it was completely worn out, I would expect a much better low level FM for the Pony-the Allison engined Mustangs were very sweet within the confines of the Allison's preferred altitudes).

Therefore, one must assume that the Mustang FM is more reliant upon reports compiled from tests of rebuilt wrecks in both countries or, God forbid, from examples provided by defecting Nationalist Chinese pilots in the late 1940s (if you haven't already, read Tuchman's Stillwell and the American Experience in China or Daniel Ford's Flying Tigers to get an idea of the state of the Nationalist Chinese AF-it was an absolute mess during the war and only got worse until after the move to Taiwan).

Taking those probabilities first, then comparing them to British and American ('propaganda') sources are logically going to result in a skewed, twitchy FM, which is what we have.

cheers

horseback

Kocur_
09-19-2005, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yak9 is decididly average, also engine produces 2cv power at high alt </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please, lets not mix history facts and expectations. Such a history fact is that M-105 no-matter-what-version was a weak engine, with never resolved oil leaks and overheating problem - I didnt notice it is modelled, btw...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore, one must assume that the Mustang FM is more reliant upon reports compiled from tests of rebuilt wrecks in both countries or, God forbid, from examples provided by defecting Nationalist Chinese pilots in the late 1940s (if you haven't already, read Tuchman's Stillwell and the American Experience in China or Daniel Ford's Flying Tigers to get an idea of the state of the Nationalist Chinese AF-it was an absolute mess during the war and only got worse until after the move to Taiwan).

Taking those probabilities first, then comparing them to British and American ('propaganda') sources are logically going to result in a skewed, twitchy FM, which is what we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree, with exeption that I would take Spitfire out of that: firstly because it works just fine in game, secondly because soviets did operate Spitfires V and IX. As for "propaganda" being reason to dismiss sources - please...! On a different forum I read recently guess-whO saying that RS-82 HE warhead could penetrate armour of all German tanks, excluding only front armour of Tiger and Elefant...

horseback
09-19-2005, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

The opposite might be said of the German fighters - what was the crack made by the RAF ace to a captured but still arrogant 109 pilot? "Know why we're going to win? Because any idiot can fly a Spitfire."

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm pretty sure that it was the other way around.

The annoyed, just shot-down German pilot said to the RAF flyer, 'Do you know why the Spitfire does so well against German planes? Because any idiot can fly a Spitfire.'

Or something to that effect.

I may be wrong but thats how I heard it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saw an interview of the RAF pilot in question on the Military Channel, a BoB stalwart of 603 Squadron with a marvelous handlebar moustache and eyebrows to match, where he claimed to have made the statement.

I cannot remember his name for the life of me, but his nickname (also decorating the side of his Spit Mk I) was 'Stapme'.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
09-19-2005, 10:58 AM
Horseback,

I disagree with you on the stability difference between the Fw190 and P-51. Both a/c have very similar stability on my setup.

I do agree that the net effect of the instability is much worse for the P-51. A very short burst from 4 x Mg151 and 2 x Mg131 is far more devastating than a burst from six .50s. The P-51 has to maintain fire on its target, the Fw190 just needs a snapshot.

My best "guess" is that stability for all heavy a/c is a problem, but, I'm sure not qualified to judge.

horseback
09-19-2005, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore, one must assume that the Mustang FM is more reliant upon reports compiled from tests of rebuilt wrecks in both countries or, God forbid, from examples provided by defecting Nationalist Chinese pilots in the late 1940s (if you haven't already, read Tuchman's Stillwell and the American Experience in China or Daniel Ford's Flying Tigers to get an idea of the state of the Nationalist Chinese AF-it was an absolute mess during the war and only got worse until after the move to Taiwan).

Taking those probabilities first, then comparing them to British and American ('propaganda') sources are logically going to result in a skewed, twitchy FM, which is what we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree, with exeption that I would take Spitfire out of that: firstly because it works just fine in game, secondly because soviets did operate Spitfires V and IX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm confused. Did I make a reference to the Spitfire in a prior post(I am getting up there in years, so my short-term memory isn't always perfect)? I referred to British sources because they had compiled extensive records of tests of all Allied and Axis types they could get their mits on, in this case all models of the Mustang. One might expect British materials to be more readily available to Oleg and his team.

The 'propaganda' reference is to the infamous episode reported by Gibbage when he first tried to get the P-38 FM more in line with the historical record; Oleg dismissed data from the official Pilots' Notes and Manual as, you guessed it, "propaganda."

Unfortunately, a certain amount of residue from the Cold War lingers on...

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
09-19-2005, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yak9 is decididly average, also engine produces 2cv power at high alt </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please, lets not mix history facts and expectations. Such a history fact is that M-105 no-matter-what-version was a weak engine, with never resolved oil leaks and overheating problem - I didnt notice it is modelled, btw...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore, one must assume that the Mustang FM is more reliant upon reports compiled from tests of rebuilt wrecks in both countries or, God forbid, from examples provided by defecting Nationalist Chinese pilots in the late 1940s (if you haven't already, read Tuchman's Stillwell and the American Experience in China or Daniel Ford's Flying Tigers to get an idea of the state of the Nationalist Chinese AF-it was an absolute mess during the war and only got worse until after the move to Taiwan).

Taking those probabilities first, then comparing them to British and American ('propaganda') sources are logically going to result in a skewed, twitchy FM, which is what we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree, with exeption that I would take Spitfire out of that: firstly because it works just fine in game, secondly because soviets did operate Spitfires V and IX. As for "propaganda" being reason to dismiss sources - please...! On a different forum I read recently guess-whO saying that RS-82 HE warhead could penetrate armour of all German tanks, excluding only front armour of Tiger and Elefant... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, it is average engine, and up high very little power
so why does it overheat quicker than p47 producing huge amounts of power?

Kocur_
09-19-2005, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm confused. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh sorry! Its me who is confused - slappy reading http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Kocur_
09-19-2005, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">yes, it is average engine, and up high very little power
so why does it overheat quicker than p47 producing huge amounts of power? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because M-105 had badly designed (and IRL even worse manufactured and even worse mainatined) cooling system. Its developement history is enlarging radiatior in every next version. Even M105 PF2 in Yak-3s had to have radiator fully opened if engine was at 100% power. It was impossible to climb constantly - pilots climbed a while, than reduced power in level flight to cool engine and then climbed more, and so on. Its history - not undermodelling.

geetarman
09-19-2005, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
the p51 was quite responsive on elevator inputs, so much, it had to be derated to avoid their pilots of overstressing it and breaking things loose from the plane ( say...tail empennage...).....

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/p51.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think (and I'm going on memory here) the tailplane issues were as a result of lateral instability due to the cutdown fuselage of the P-51D, not the elevators. The fillet and bob weight apparently solved the problem. There was a big thread about it on the Mustang/Mustang website where someone scanned in the AF memo that order the fillets.

geetarman
09-19-2005, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:


HayateAce,

I don't think it is just an X45 problem. I just did your test and, although it sounds like the problem is less severe with my MSFFBII, I do notice more "yawing" with the P-51D-5 and Dora than the Lagg-3 and Bf109G10. Maybe it is the intertia modeling and the weight of the heavier a/c??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be. I took up (in order) an A4 and 109G2 yesterday on an OL df server. Two things jumped out at me immediately about both planes. First right rudder was needed until speeds reached baout 210-220. Thereafter and up to combat speed of 275-350, the ball slid into the center and stayed there for the most part!

More importantly, it basically stayed there no matter the power level or AoA. As long as you were going over 210mph, both planes felt like they were on rails.

I dove on a Spitfire in the A4, hit about 375mph, fired and zoomed up at high speed into a chandelle, then into a wingover. The ball remained centered with minimal rudder input (same with the G2) during each of those manuevers! To even hope to get the same smooth response with a Mustang would have required Herculean efforts at trimming and drastic, fluctuating rudder inputs to compensate for the pendulum effect. Just push the nose down slightly on the Mustang at, say, 250mph and your ball goes sliding to the left.

We'll see what happens in 4.02.

faustnik
09-19-2005, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:

More importantly, it basically stayed there no matter the power level or AoA. As long as you were going over 210mph, both planes felt like they were on rails.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are about the only one I have ever heard say that the Fw190 was flying "on rails" in 4.01. Many characterize flying the 4.01 Fw190 as "trying to balance the plane on the head of a pin". I never get a "rails" feeling, ever, throttle changes always have a yaw effect. You must have an excellent setup for flying the 190. My suggestion is for you to fly blue! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
09-19-2005, 12:22 PM
Why won't someone post a track clearly showing them having this difficulty?

Ta,
Norris

RAF74_Poker
09-19-2005, 12:37 PM
Maybe because the red planes are more trim intensive, once you fly the 190 it feels like it's riding on rails ... and all those blue flyers only fly 190's and so have not experienced the twitchiness of red planes.

I have only flown 190 a couple of times online ... 1 sortie on WC was very easy, and my kill was very easy ... honestly, I got bored of flying it so I landed. 190 is a breeze to fly.

faustnik
09-19-2005, 01:13 PM
It always cracks me up how so many find it so easy to fly the "other guys" plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
09-19-2005, 01:36 PM
Don't tell me - 190 is a noob plane! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

RAF74_Poker
09-19-2005, 02:15 PM
I've been flying since February.
I mostly fly IJN planes elsewhere, and Spits on WC.
If I'm on tonight I'll fly the 190 exclusively for the night.
currently my k/d ratio is 0.44, 8 kills, and my hit %'age is 2.17 so I'm obviously not anywhere near to being an ace of anything other than lawndarting.
I'll take a look at what my hit %'age comes out at the end of the night and we'll see whether I have better results as a 190 flieger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I'd say that with my inexperience, and my lousy shooting, if there is a significant improvement then the 190 would indeed qualify as a noob plane.
I honestly don't know how this will go, but, what the heck. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
09-19-2005, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF74_Poker:
if there is a significant improvement then the 190 would indeed qualify as a noob plane.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tell you what, I'll look for you on HL. You grab a Fw190A6 and I'll grab a Spit IX. If you can beat me 2 out of 3, then give the Fw190 the "n00b" label. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
09-19-2005, 03:04 PM
Back to the P-51...

I was reading through some of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference Report and came across this:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P51Comments.jpg

No wonder it is hard to get people here to agree, the guys flying the a/c at the time couldn't even agree! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Loco-S
09-19-2005, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
Flight Journal...once in a while they come with great "flying the (insert plane here)" articles...

I have a few if you want, I could post them in PDF file. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A pdf of that one would be great! I guessed it was Flight Journal, went to their web sight and the soft copys only go back to Oct of 1998! Missed it by one year! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

here it goes..1.3 mb PDF file...scanned from Flight Journal:

http://rapidshare.de/files/5299596/p-51.pdf.html

Aaron_GT
09-19-2005, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No wonder it is hard to get people here to agree, the guys flying the a/c at the time couldn't even agree! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually there are three things that seem to crop up again and again in those comments - poor directional stability, issues with rudder trim, good visibility. People are complaining about the lack of directional stability, but it seems those pilot comments suggest there was an issue with directional stability for a gun platform, which is interesting.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-19-2005, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF74_Poker:
I've been flying since February.
I mostly fly IJN planes elsewhere, and Spits on WC.
If I'm on tonight I'll fly the 190 exclusively for the night.
currently my k/d ratio is 0.44, 8 kills, and my hit %'age is 2.17 so I'm obviously not anywhere near to being an ace of anything other than lawndarting.
I'll take a look at what my hit %'age comes out at the end of the night and we'll see whether I have better results as a 190 flieger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I'd say that with my inexperience, and my lousy shooting, if there is a significant improvement then the 190 would indeed qualify as a noob plane.
I honestly don't know how this will go, but, what the heck. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But even then it doesn't mean that it's for noobs. If you fly it correctly, to it's strengths, it will be relatively easy to down planes and get away. Same can be said for other 'difficult' planes such as P47, though. Does that make the P47 a noob plane?

Ta,
Norris

Grey_Mouser67
09-19-2005, 05:39 PM
Norris..you might find this amusing, but when I first started flying online I chose the P-47 precisely because I could hit what I was aiming at!

Now I had to learn the tactics involved with B&Z and I got shot down a lot too, but I considered it a "noob" plane from the standpoint of gunnery...that was back in the days when we had the dispersion/shotgun M2's...set convergence to about 250 meters...start a dive, pull the trigger at about 500 meters and follow through...got lots of kills that way!

I think the jug is still fairly stable, but not in yaw and even pitch is a little goofy...I was thinking about re-installing FB and going through a few of the patches, but I'm afraid I might just get more aggrevated than anything. I have fond memories of the Mustang being stable and smooth, the jug being very stable but real slow a real bad on E retention....shotgun M2's etc...

Yes the P-47 is a noob plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif for me anyways.

The Fw, well lets just say it didn't start out that way, but it is no longer a difficult plane to fly. There are many more Fw's online than there were a year or more ago and there is a reason for that. The E retention is excellent, firepower is improved, stall characteristics managable, and its DM is ambitious...no doubt about it...only drawback is that silly bar in the way, but I find if you cut your angle of incidence down, there is no trouble scoring kills and the Fw has both the elevator authority and the firepower to enter lag pursuit at high speed and make the necessary last second corrections to make the kill, bar or no bar.

RAF74_Poker
09-19-2005, 10:44 PM
Well ... gave it a whirl ...didn't get a kill, and got shot down twice.

Was interesting.
Certainly w/ a few more flights I think I could do better.
Not so noobish as I thought, but it's still a very survivable plane ... just takes patience to refrain from turning w/ the enemy.

S!

TAGERT.
09-19-2005, 10:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Back to the P-51...

I was reading through some of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference Report and came across this:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P51Comments.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool.. got link?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
No wonder it is hard to get people here to agree, the guys flying the a/c at the time couldn't even agree! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Is what I have been sayig.. pilots accounts dont tell you much about the plane.. but they do tell you alot about the pilots. Thus the need for test pilot flight data.. numbers dont lie.. as much! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT.
09-19-2005, 10:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
Flight Journal...once in a while they come with great "flying the (insert plane here)" articles...

I have a few if you want, I could post them in PDF file. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A pdf of that one would be great! I guessed it was Flight Journal, went to their web sight and the soft copys only go back to Oct of 1998! Missed it by one year! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

here it goes..1.3 mb PDF file...scanned from Flight Journal:

http://rapidshare.de/files/5299596/p-51.pdf.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!

geetarman
09-20-2005, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Back to the P-51...

I was reading through some of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference Report and came across this:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P51Comments.jpg

No wonder it is hard to get people here to agree, the guys flying the a/c at the time couldn't even agree! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You're right!

geetarman
09-20-2005, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No wonder it is hard to get people here to agree, the guys flying the a/c at the time couldn't even agree! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually there are three things that seem to crop up again and again in those comments - poor directional stability, issues with rudder trim, good visibility. People are complaining about the lack of directional stability, but it seems those pilot comments suggest there was an issue with directional stability for a gun platform, which is interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes- I agree. It would be interesting to see some comparison trials of contemporary German fighters.

horseback
09-21-2005, 12:04 AM
It does seem, however, that the directional issue seems to be associated with a full fuselage tank. The Joint Fighter Conference took place in early '44, if I remember correctly. The bubbletop Mustang hadn't made it across the pond yet, and the fin fillet had yet to be devised, even if the D model was appraised.

That was when the rear fuselage tank was being introduced in combat units (the original Merlin Mustangs lacked this feature-and those that had it were marked with a white cross or + sign near the data block), and the operators were learning about it the hard way. Apparently, the AAF never got around to promulgating the appropriate measures for avoiding the issue, just like the fix for the razorback's gun jamming issues, which were quickly fixed by the ETO groups (and spread to the Mediterranean operators) but totally unknown to the CBI operators of the P-51A/B/C as late as the summer of 1944.

Given the presence of Naval aviators (and they seem to be the primary directional stab faulters) at the conference, one can only imagine the glee some Army types must have taken in 'setting up' the squids with a Mustang packing a nearly full fuselage tank. Or, quite possibly, the disbelief of the squids that even the Army would be stupid enough to believe that they'd fall for that crud about a dangerous CG shifting extra fuel tank in a frontline fighter...

Think about it.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
09-21-2005, 12:55 AM
The conference was in October 16th thru 23rd, 1944. You could be right about the tanks though. The P-51 might have had some stability issues but, I'm sure the guys at the front learned to overcome them quickly.

IL2-chuter
09-21-2005, 02:29 AM
The directional (yaw) instability was not really connected to the longitudinal (pitch) instabilty caused by the fuse tank. The Brits always thought the Mustang had some level of yaw instability (they were always looking to increase yaw stability in the Mustang) and this was magnified by the Merlin (actually, it was the switch from three blade to four blade prop - props have an effective side area value and are destabilizing when up front, stabilizing when in the back), and then compounded by the bubble canopy turbulence (loss of fuselage side area is just not right, most side lost was close to CG, and fuselage side area doesn't even play a factor till the fuselage is more than fifteen degrees - some aircraft much more - AOA). In the end the concerns were mitigated to some extent (but not completely, though adequately) by the dorsal fin mod (on some B/C's too, shows the desk-set thought B's were not stable enough) and the fact that pilots just flew'em anyway without complaining (just dealing with it, that's just the way the plane is . . . not too bad really . . .)


Just my two cents . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Slickun
09-21-2005, 09:42 AM
Some things about the Joint Fighter Conference:

It was full of Navy, Marine, and Army types. There were also foreign pilots, and test pilots.

The deal was, you flew and commented on planes you weren't familiar with. So, Navy and Marine pilots flew the Pony, Army types flew the F6F and F4U.

After all that, the P-51 was rated #1 in "best all around fighter below 25,000 feet". It was #2 behind the P-47 in "Best All Around Fighter Above 25,000 feet".

Actually, the Bearcat was rated #1 Below 25,000 feet, but several publications don't list it 'cause it didn't make it into actual combat.

CUJO_1970
09-21-2005, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF74_Poker:
Well ... gave it a whirl ...didn't get a kill, and got shot down twice.

Was interesting.
Certainly w/ a few more flights I think I could do better.
Not so noobish as I thought, but it's still a very survivable plane ... just takes patience to refrain from turning w/ the enemy.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You came on just as I was leaving, it was late.

Next time get on WC comms and I will fly wing with you.