PDA

View Full Version : P-51...why is it so freakin hard to fly?



calvert74
05-30-2008, 01:47 PM
I have been flying IL-2 for a few years now and have become pretty good flying several different aircraft. But...I can't seem to master the P-51. I thought it was supposed to be THE BEST fighter of the war. Everytime I fly it I get out-manouvered, out-flown and shot down. I fly it at altitude, I dont TnB when I fly it. Is it just modeled bad in the game? is there a trick? any P-51 pilots have any advice? I really like the Mustang...but I get so frustrated when I fly it.

calvert74
05-30-2008, 01:47 PM
I have been flying IL-2 for a few years now and have become pretty good flying several different aircraft. But...I can't seem to master the P-51. I thought it was supposed to be THE BEST fighter of the war. Everytime I fly it I get out-manouvered, out-flown and shot down. I fly it at altitude, I dont TnB when I fly it. Is it just modeled bad in the game? is there a trick? any P-51 pilots have any advice? I really like the Mustang...but I get so frustrated when I fly it.

jayhall0315
05-30-2008, 01:55 PM
Funny, that you a veteran of over two years IL2 experience should say this. I recently revised a section in my Newbie's Guide concerning just this matter. You should take a look at it here:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2751038856

(the section on American 'quirks' is in the middle or my guide).

My own conclusion, it that Oleg just didnt get down the details as well with many American aircraft as he did with say the Spit, 109s, or La. Consequently, as long as other more sporty aircraft are available in the planeset, I never choose the American aircraft, which is a shame.

Jay

Airmail109
05-30-2008, 02:06 PM
The 190s far harder to fly than the Stang? What are you complaining about, it isnt going to handle like a 109 or Spitfire. It handles better in many respects though especially at high speed.

Jeeze Ive gone TnB in a stang versus an La7 and won. It was not the best fighter of the war, its strengths were good range, good high speed handling, good visibility and an ergonomic cockpit. The 25lb boosted versions such as the MKIII we have in game were also very fast on the deck.

The Stangs we have in game especially the B/C models have THE best energy retention in game, The B/C models also handle better as in real life. They also outrun just about everything in a very very slight dive.

Do NOT fight with a FULL tank, as just like IRL it handles like **** with a full tank.

I take 50 percent fuel and drop tanks online and have never run out of fuel.

M_Gunz
05-30-2008, 03:26 PM
Yes, it must be the modeling that's wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

DKoor
05-30-2008, 03:37 PM
It's hard to fly, but I suppose it wasn't "pleasant" and "forgiving" plane IRL either... in comparison with some other planes like Spitfire, Lavochkin or Bf-109.
However, that plane sports some serious performance!
When someone mention top WW2 plane performers among others I always think of P-51!

About how effective it can be vs hard targets such is FW, check out the track from my sig, "Power of .50cal".

HayateAce
05-30-2008, 04:46 PM
The Mustang's CoG is modeled too far aft, as are several other US/British planes. Don't bother.

Bearcat99
05-30-2008, 04:46 PM
Tips to fly the P-51-1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5641027835/p/1)

Tips to fly the P-51-2 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2711041016?r=4871041016#4871041016)

ElAurens
05-30-2008, 04:58 PM
I'm almost beginning to think that the other planes in the sim are too easy to fly.

Clearly the P51 in the sim bears little resemblance to the P51 that actually flew in WW2, but I suspect that most of the "aircraft" in the sim are this way as well.

It's a game.

DKoor
05-30-2008, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
It's a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

DKoor
05-30-2008, 05:06 PM
And in a way... who cares if they are 100% modeled right?

Like that would meant something... like that would be a step closer to "reality".

<span class="ev_code_RED">RotFL</span>

Aaron_GT
05-30-2008, 05:38 PM
Some of the easy turners (Yaks, Spits) can be thrown around with abandon. The more modern planes (P51, Fw 190, Tempest) need to be allowed more to find their own path. It may sound a bit vague, and it is, but that's how it feels. The limited physical feedback from a PC doesn't help.

K_Freddie
05-30-2008, 06:00 PM
Maybe because you don't do it like this...
Me109 V4.08 ntrk (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/DesertDF.ntrk)

Although this is a Me109.. the story is the same.
Look and see (in cockpit)
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

K_Freddie
05-30-2008, 06:10 PM
Also you haven't mentioned whether this has happened 'online' or 'offline'.

It sounds like 'offline', as you 'fly at altitude'... we don't do that here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , unless you're doing co-op with LONG TIME.

Up against the AI...ugggghhhh,
Who you flying against... ???
What plane..?
Which year ?

Metatron_123
05-30-2008, 06:33 PM
You guys are crazy... The Mustangs are easily among the best planes in the game.

Especially the Mustang III absolutely rocks. It is in fact so good, you don't feel the light armament. You are always on their tails anyway!

Stop pulling the stick with the same excitement as when you're wanking, and you'll be fine.

Try flying the Bf-109 against the Mustang and see how hard it is to follow it in high speed maneuvers, and then come back and make ungrateful comments like that.

DKoor
05-30-2008, 06:37 PM
Mustang III is easily best piston in game... if we outrule some exotics like I-250, Do-335 etc.

Metatron_123
05-30-2008, 06:53 PM
Agreed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

quasimodo_3
05-30-2008, 06:56 PM
It's probably hard to fly because it has flight
characteristics unlike all the other FM's. There's no real comparison with other types
so you need to get a feel for it's capabilities.
It's also not going to take a beating like some
of more heavily armored planes. It's got a merlin like the spit and the spits get shot up quite a bit if you've noticed, losing wings, getting smoked, etc. It's got a lot of speed and firepower and is agile if flown within it's strengths. The B and C versions can fly with pretty much anything axis.

Airmail109
05-30-2008, 07:04 PM
Agreed the MKIII is one of the best fighters in the game.

mortoma
05-30-2008, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
It's hard to fly, but I suppose it wasn't "pleasant" and "forgiving" plane IRL either... in comparison with some other planes like Spitfire, Lavochkin or Bf-109.
However, that plane sports some serious performance!
When someone mention top WW2 plane performers among others I always think of P-51!

About how effective it can be vs hard targets such is FW, check out the track from my sig, "Power of .50cal". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ! One of the great German aces was allowed to fly one after the war and he was very delighted at the light controls and general handling qualites. I can't remember which ace it was but it was a big one. I would almost describe his reation as "blown away". At the very least very impressed. And that was the D model too IIRC.

Airmail109
05-30-2008, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
It's hard to fly, but I suppose it wasn't "pleasant" and "forgiving" plane IRL either... in comparison with some other planes like Spitfire, Lavochkin or Bf-109.
However, that plane sports some serious performance!
When someone mention top WW2 plane performers among others I always think of P-51!

About how effective it can be vs hard targets such is FW, check out the track from my sig, "Power of .50cal". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ! One of the great German aces was allowed to fly one after the war and he was very delighted at the light controls and general handling qualites. I can't remember which ace it was but it was a big one. I would almost describe his reation as "blown away". At the very least very impressed. And that was the D model too IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P51 in game is light at the controls, take note of its handling at high speed compared to the 109.

The 190 was generally lighter at the controls than the Spitfire, doesn't mean it was more forgiving.

SeaFireLIV
05-30-2008, 08:22 PM
I still believe that more of this is down to the fact that many P51 fans have the mistaken belief that the P51 was so uber that it outflew and out-fought everything with ease (due to the constant spiel they are fed) and when they jump into the cockpit can`t believe it when they don`t shoot down 4 109s in 10 minutes like the real life Aces who trained and use tactics and are even more shocked when a 109 shoots them down.

People accuse Oleg of bias, but I believe that many American war planes in sims were made too good to suit the American dream bias.

I still remember playing Pacific Air War and trying to fight F4Fs in Zeros and finding myself being outturned and shotdown easily then jumping in n F4F or any other US plane and burning zeros with ease and thinking how rubbish Japanese planes must be.

Then I flew IL2 and suddenly Japanese planes could outturn Allied planes with ease! What was going on?

So I finally checked the history books and guess what? Japanese planes were better than US planes in th early stages of the war until the US figured in new tactics and new planes.

There`s bias and it`s not just Oleg. Personally, I think Oleg`s made the least bias WWII flight sim of any in history, exception possibly being BOBWOV.

Xiolablu3
05-30-2008, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Mustang III is easily best piston in game... if we outrule some exotics like I-250, Do-335 etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually prefer the Tempest and Dora.

I find the 4x.50's not enough firepower for me, I have to stay behind the enemy for too long.

What I want to do is hit him hard and zoom away, not stick behind pumping lead into him.

I realise it IS realistic (20mm is far more powerful than 50 cal), but I am just saying that I need more firepower.

Airmail109
05-30-2008, 08:31 PM
<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">Originally posted by DKoor:
Mustang III is easily best piston in game... if we outrule some exotics like I-250, Do-335 etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually prefer the Tempest and Dora.

I find the 4x.50's not enough firepower for me, I have to stay behind the enemy for too long.

What I want to do is hit him hard and zoom away, not stick behind pumping lead into him.

I realise it IS realistic (20mm is far more powerful than 50 cal), but I am just saying that I need more firepower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Learn to make your attacks slashing/carving manuvers where you come in with high deflection shots if your BnZing.

If your energy fighting 2/3 seconds into the wing roots or fusalage will do it, and 1 second burst will do it for the engine.

badatit
05-30-2008, 08:59 PM
From what I've read, most...if not all...P51 aces had "very" keen eye sight, and were danm good shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIeiMNjv0BQ

Airmail109
05-30-2008, 10:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by badatit:
From what I've read, most...if not all...P51 aces had "very" keen eye sight, and were danm good shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIeiMNjv0BQ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

most aces were

Xiolablu3
05-30-2008, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by badatit:
From what I've read, most...if not all...P51 aces had "very" keen eye sight, and were danm good shots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIeiMNjv0BQ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Many of them used and loved the British Gyro Gunsight and put it to great use. Using this sight according to the pilots views it totally took the 'guessing' out of deflection shooting and made it easy, so they actually didnt need to be great shots anymore, just be good at using the sight.

Spitfire VIII's, IX's and XIV's had the choice of the Gyro sight from early 1944 I believe, Johnnie Johnson certainly did. But we dont have the option in game, its only on the P51.


2nd Lt. John M. Creamer, 18 November 1944, 4th FG "I used the K-14 Gyro Gunsight and I'm sure it was a definite advantage in the combat."
Capt. John C. Fitch, 18 November 1944, 4th FG "I used the K-14 Gyro Gun Sight and believe it is superior to the fixed sight."
Capt. William J. O'Donnell, 18 December 1944, 4th FG "I used the K-14 sight and found it to be excellent for deflection shooting and superior to the reflector sight."
1st Lt. George C. Smith, 27 September 1944, 4th FG "The K-14 sight was very helpful. I don't think I could have hit the 190 without it."
Capt. Richard P. Gatterdam, 2 November 1944, 20th FG "I wish to express my unqualified recommendation of the K-14 sight which I used in getting this destroyed."
Lt. Col. John L Mc Ginn, 11 September 1944, 55th FG
1st Lt. Edward H. Beavers, 23 September 1944, 339th FG "The K-14 sight, which I used for the first time, is an excellent instrument and is far superior to our old sight."
Capt.Donald W. Johnson, 26 November 1944, 339th FG Three (3) Fw 190's destroyed. "All my shooting was done at 300 yards or less and with the K-14 sight it was easy."
1st Lt. George T. Rich, 18 November 1944, 339th FG "We quickly outclimbed the e/a and, having a K-14 gunsight, I opened up at around 600 yards."
Capt. William T. Whisner, 2 November 1944, 352nd FG "I was using a K-14 sight which I believe to be very effective."
1st Lt. George S. Montgomery, 14 March 1944, 353rd FG "Right away with the aid of my K14 sight, I started hitting him."
1st Lt. Billy J. Murray, 14 January 1945, 353rd FG
1st Lt. H. W. Brown, 11 September 1944, 355th FG Three (3) Me 109's destroyed. "The K-14 sight is a pilot's dream. The accuracy in deflection shooting is unbelievable."
Capt. Charles W. Lamer, 6 October 1944, 355th FG "I used the K 14 sight in these encounters and it was extremely successful."
1st Lt. Robert O. Peters, 20 July 1944, 355th FG Five (5) destroyed. "I was flying YF-S, a P-51 B5 equipped with a new K-14 sight. The sight was perfect and so easy to use in combat that I was amazed. The accuracy was perfect as it always showed hits at the point of aim. Without it I probably would have barely damaged one or two E/A. The sight is a miracle. I had only had one hour practice on it before."
1st Lt. Thomas L. Wood, 14 January 1945, 355th FG "The K-14 sight made the whole thing so easy it was unbelievable. It is something no good fighter plane should be without."
Lt. Col. Donald A. Baccus, 26 November 1944, 356th FG "I used the K-14 gunsight for the first time in aerial combat on this mission. It worked magnificently. It is so much superior to the old type reflector sight that there is no comparison."
Capt. James W. Browning, 5 December 1944, 357th FG "I took the second and with the K-14 made quite a deflection shot. I observed hits in the engine and cockpit."
1st Lt. William R. Dunlop, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "I used the K-14 sight to do the above fireing and consider it far superior to the old sight."
Capt. John B. England, 13 September 1944, 357th FG "Without the K-14 sight and my "G" suit I don't believe I would have gotten this Jerry as he was headed for a heavily defended airdrome."
1st Lt. Frank L Gailer, 7 October 1944, 357th FG "I was using a K-14 sight and feel that it is the best thing yet as far as sights go."
1st Lt. Harold O. Hand, 2 November 1944, 357th FG "I was using a K-14 Gunsight and I think it is much better than the regular ring and bead sight, because it eliminates the guessing of range and lead."
1st Lt. Harry H. Hermansen, 24 August 1944, 357th FG "I highly reccommed the K-14 sight for deflection firing."
1st Lt. H. P. Howell, 13 September 1944, 357th FG "I used a gyro sight on this mission on a P-51D which I found very effective and easy to use."
Capt. Thomas E. Hughes, 2 November 1944, 357th FG "The K-14 Sight is a vast improvement over the old type sight once you have an E/A properly lined, it is difficult to miss him."
1st Lt. Howard E. Moebius, 18 September 1944, 357th FG "As I was using the K-14 sight, less than 50 rounds were expended."
1st Lt. William B. Overstreet, 29 July 1944, 357th FG The gyro gunsight (k-14) worked extremely well and I think was responsible for getting the hits at first"
1st Lt. Donald J. Pasaka, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "In closing may I add that the K-14 sight is really perfect. In fact it is hard to miss after you once get on him."
1st Lt. Richard C. Roper, 19 September 1944, 357th FG "I had a K-14 sight. It worked perfectly at all angles of deflection and at extreme ranges."

**** 1st Lt. Charles E. Yeager, 12 October 1944, 357th FG "To my estimation the K-14 Sight is the biggest improvement to combat equipment for Fighters up to this date." ****


1st Lt. Emery C. Cook, 23 December 1944, 359th FG "I hit the e/a at a 60 degree angle and attibuted it to the fact that I was using the K-14 gunsight, which I consider a boom to fighter-piloting."
1st Lt. Chester R. Gilmore, 11 September 1944, 359th FG "My ship is equipped with a K-14 sight and it worked perfectly. I turned on the gyro and put the pip on the cockpit of the E/A. Immediately on firing I observed strikes on the cockpit and he mushed yup into the cloulds."
1st Lt. Robert M. York, 27 November 1944, 359th FG Four (4) Me 109's destroyed. "My K-14 sight was working perfectly."
2nd Lt. Claire P. Chennault, 12 September 1944, 361st FG "I was using the K-14 gun sight and found it excellent."

Treetop64
05-30-2008, 10:31 PM
The in-game P-51 is one of the best fighters in the game. However, you must fly her the way SHE want's to be flown, not ham-fisted and with reckless abandon. That means easy turns at high speed and at altitude. BnZ tactics ONLY. Never TnB.

The P-51 is in its element at high speed, at high altitude, and with MINIMAL abrupt maneuvers. It is not a dogfighter, and requires a lot of skill to fly correctly. However, one needs a lot of time to learn to fly the 51. If you're just now flying it, and you've flown other more nimble types, your formed habits are going to really screw it up when flying the p-51 for the first few times!

You have to learn to fly and fight all over again once you move into the P-51.

badatit
05-30-2008, 10:44 PM
I've flown nothing but the P51's since we got the first one. I prefer the 20NA. I fear nothing in it.

However........These days, (when I fly) I hunt the skies of War-Clouds...alone usually...and end up getting clobbered by three or more blues.

To really make her shine you need a killer wingman, one that can get as much speed out of her as you can. Then the odds are moot.

The guys I flew with for years, all got so frustrated with the P51, that they stopped flying her all together. Couple went to the Pacific to fly Hogs, a few just fly Spitz. A couple went blue with the G2 & D9. One is flyin a Yak gods sake.

I'll stay with the P51-20NA
If I can tap the trigger on target/@140 convergance on a 109...game over/time for him to re-plane.

190's are tougher...I like them best though...most of them actually think they can get away after you get a few hits on them...But that's when you really need a good wingman to watch your back.

F19_Orheim
05-30-2008, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
....

My own conclusion, it that Oleg just didnt get down the details as well with many American aircraft as he did with say the Spit, 109s, or La. Consequently, as long as other more sporty aircraft are available in the planeset, I never choose the American aircraft, which is a shame.

Jay </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I LOVE that answer... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif "if you can't fly it correctly, it must be something wrong with the model" breaks me up every time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I haven't looked but I really hope you didn't write stuff about "what planes are correctly modeled and what planes are not" in your guide there Jay....

X32Wright
05-31-2008, 12:35 AM
I train people in my squad and two new pilots in fact have asked me to teach them in the P-51 right away. I said this is impossible because you have to be trained in 'ENERGY FIFGHTING' first and have to master that kind of fighting before you can even handle a P-51 online.

In my experience in the game, the P-51 doesn't like to be SLOW and MISBEHAVES when slow, she likes it FAST and really fast ALWAYS. When she is fast she's a nice plane to fly, responds really well to what you ask her to do. She behaves quite differently when shes slow, almost throws a tantrum (wing dips then stall are specially bad).

In my opinion you have to master flying the FW190,Dora and P-47 first along with the P-39/63 and Tempest before you can handle the Mustang.


As said above she needs to be trimmed well and you can engage and disengage with emenies at will if you keep your speed and alt.

Finally as for killing with the 50 cals, you have to do consistent on target SUSTAINED shots specially with deflection shots. Don't expect the 50 cals to damage if your not constantly hitting your target in that moment.

Xiolablu3
05-31-2008, 01:20 AM
I think we have to remember, that US pilots who used the P51 had been used to the Thunderbolt, so they were definitely used to very heavy planes.


A P47 empty weights almost as much as a Tempest does fully loaded, so these guys will have seen a great improvement with the P51.

I cant help but think that either the P51 is a little hard done by in the sim, or that the P47 is too good. I would have thought that the P51 should be quite a big improvement from the P47, but in the sim I actually prefer the Jug.

For example here is what one US Eagle Squadron pilot said about the Jug....

'One day in January 1943 General Hunter, the Commander of the 8th Fighter Command, came to visit us at Debden. He said he had a 'surprise' for us. We were soon to re-equip with the very latest American fighter, the P-47 Thunderbolt. As he spoke we heard an unusual engine noise outside and one of the new fighters landed and taxied up beside one of our Spitfires. We went outside to look it over. It was huge: the wing tip of the P-47 came higher than the cockpit of the Spitfire. When we strapped into a Spitfire we felt snug and part of the aircraft; the Thunderbolt cockpit, on the other hand, was so large that we felt if we slipped off the *******ed seat we would break a leg! We were horrified at the thought of going to war in such a machine: we had enough trouble with the Focke Wulf 190's in our nimble Spitfire Vs; now this lumbering seven-ton monster seemed infinitely worse, a true 'air inferiority fighter'. Initial mock dog-fights between Thunderbolts and Spitfires seemed to confirm these feelings; we lost four Thunderbolt pilots in rapid succession, spinning in from low level, while trying to match Spitfires in turns. In the end our headquarters issued an order banning mock dog fighting in Thunderbolts below 8,000 feet.

Gradually however, we learnt how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude, she was a 'hot ship' and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to 'mix it' with the enemy, but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory--where the action was. So, reluctantly, we had to give up our beautiful little Spitfires and convert to the new juggernauts. The war was moving on, and we had to move with it.

The change to the Thunderbolt might have been necessary militarily, but my heart remained with the Spitfire. Even now, thirty years after I flew them on operations, the mere sound or sight of a Spitfire brings me a deep feeling of nostalgia, and many pleasant memories. She was such a gentle little airplane, without a trace of viciousness. She was a dream to handle in the air. I feel genuinely sorry for the modern fighter pilot, who has never had the chance to get his hands on a Spitfire; he will never know what real flying was like.'

DKoor
05-31-2008, 01:28 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">Originally posted by DKoor:
Mustang III is easily best piston in game... if we outrule some exotics like I-250, Do-335 etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually prefer the Tempest and Dora.

I find the 4x.50's not enough firepower for me, I have to stay behind the enemy for too long.

What I want to do is hit him hard and zoom away, not stick behind pumping lead into him.

I realise it IS realistic (20mm is far more powerful than 50 cal), but I am just saying that I need more firepower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey Xio check out the "Power of .50cal" track in my sig...
Those are typical high speed attacks on slower targets... done in a P-51D.
It has slightly better armament than a Mustang Mk.III but I have no doubts whatsoever that result is achievable with quad .50s too!

Thing is... those .50s really are different to most weapons in game, especially cannons and if you don't practice a lot with them that experience may not be such stellar one (flying a .50cal equipped plane).

In FW all you need to do is to collect a few scored hits on E/A and he's toasted.
With .50cal you need to collect at least 20 hits per plane to make sure he ain't going home http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
Some times it more some times you may get him with few hits, but generally speaking ~20 will do the trick. They are even more effective if done at E/A "profile" i.e. not from dead 6...

Also I'm using this opportunity to say that although FW-190D9 may be the overall winner in experience online, it's not a match to Mustang Mk.III! Of course IMO.

Von_Rat
05-31-2008, 01:28 AM
a p51 is about the only late war plane that doesnt worry me if it gets on my six.

they rarely shoot me down even though alot of them fly on wc, which is where i fly the most.

several of the people praising this games p51 in here, also fly p51s at wc. i dont worry about them either unless im already crippled.

p47 is much more dangerous imo.


one of my major beefs about flying the p51 is the way the rudder kicks over with only a slight change in pitch attitude.

not to mention wing breaks. yeah yeah i dumbed down my js alot and i use down trim, which btw screws up its already flaky flying. and i dont want to hear about people who whined to get the uber elevator, i wasnt one of them. oh the p51s tracers are dam near invisable and you can barely tell when your getting hits.

DKoor
05-31-2008, 01:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
a p51 is about the only late war plane that doesnt worry me if it gets on my six.

they rarely shoot me down even though alot of them fly on wc, which is where i fly the most. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In all my flying on FW-190D on WC I have been shot down by a P-51D only once... and that one time he just put few rounds in one of my wings and engine and flew away... since I got squeeky noise I headed for friendly lines and landed on some road near town (was a winter map)...

Now that I think of it, I think it's quite funny.

On the other hand I've been shot down by a Tempests mostly. Seconded only by few shot down by P-47's and about under 5 times by a Spitfires...
Kinda speaks for itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">several of the people praising the p51 in here also fly there, i dont worry about them either unless im already crippled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't worry at all unless you are seriously crippled... because on two occasions where I hit a FW-190D with few round (wings, fuselage) he still easily gained on me in maneuvers.
Smart P-51D pilot will never mix it up unless situation permits (a lot of friendlies around) and that's a fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">p47 is much more dangerous imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That seems to be correct, partially because P-47 is capable of what P-51D does (minus the high elevator action), and also it can mix it up with various Luftwaffe types with more success than P-51D.

DKoor
05-31-2008, 01:55 AM
And yes... we'd all be singing a very different tune if P-51D is equipped with 4xH (Hispano)... or just 2xH! Would be quite a killing machine.

And that also speaks for itself and some of the biggest issues when flying a P-51D in this game.

Xiolablu3
05-31-2008, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
a p51 is about the only late war plane that doesnt worry me if it gets on my six.

they rarely shoot me down even though alot of them fly on wc, which is where i fly the most. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In all my flying on FW-190D on WC I have been shot down by a P-51D only once... and that one time he just put few rounds in one of my wings and engine and flew away... since I got squeeky noise I headed for friendly lines and landed on some road near town (was a winter map)...

Now that I think of it, I think it's quite funny.

On the other hand I've been shot down by a Tempests mostly. Seconded only by few shot down by P-47's and about under 5 times by a Spitfires...
Kinda speaks for itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">several of the people praising the p51 in here also fly there, i dont worry about them either unless im already crippled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't worry at all unless you are seriously crippled... because on two occasions where I hit a FW-190D with few round (wings, fuselage) he still easily gained on me in maneuvers.
Smart P-51D pilot will never mix it up unless situation permits (a lot of friendlies around) and that's a fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">p47 is much more dangerous imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That seems to be correct, partially because P-47 is capable of what P-51D does (minus the high elevator action), and also it can mix it up with various Luftwaffe types with more success than P-51D. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUt dont you think this is a little strange?

See the passage by the P47 pilot I posted above, his flight concluded NEVER to mix it with enemy fighters in a P47 but to strictly B&Z (they learned in mock dogfights with SPits). However in the P51 combat reports on WW2aircraftperformance there are plenty of pilots 'mixing it' with the enemy and outturning him.

I cant help but think that the P47 is a little too good in manouvres and the P51 a little too bad.

The gap between them should be wider IMO. The P51 should be at least one class better in manouvres, but I dont find it better at all in 4.08m. I much prefer the Jug.

Remember that the P51D is in Eric Browns top 3 fighters of WW2 along with the Dora and SPitfire XIV. Would you really put the P51 we have in 4.08m in that class? I wouldnt.

DKoor
05-31-2008, 02:32 AM
Trouble is when one tries to connect this game to a RL.

As I learn about subject and go deeper...

I personally do not see much more than a pretty game.

Even if we discount possible flight model errors, we are still stuck with funny gun/dm box modeling which cripples machine guns to a fairly good extent... and that's just top of an iceberg.
Flight models changed patch after patch, and every time it was supposed to resemble 'reality'.
Every patch was compared to RL, pilot quotes, charts, performance... not to mention the gray zone of overall "aircraft handling" which is a subject of steamy discussions even now...
It's quite ridiculous now when we think about it...

So how can we in any serious way go ahead and compare it to a RL?

I know I made that mistake a lot in the past.

I can go ahead and explain further what I mean by all this, but I wont.
Those who want, who are willing, understand perfectly clear especially if they are playing the game for few years.

dieg777
05-31-2008, 02:36 AM
I have been trying out he P-51 just for a change from spits and although obviously just learning it ,I dont think its a hard plane once you fly it right. Here are some thoughts from a rookie 51 flyer- bearcats links helped me so follow the advice there

It takes a while to adjust but Iv learnt to be more gentle and not pull on the pole as much.
As already been said- its not a fuggin spitfire so dont use it like one. Learn to use trim to steady it out and make pitch adjustments -never bank and pull at high speeds or you shed wings - fly it smoothly. Iv had around 840 kmph on it diving and pulled up ok, Iv also shed wings at much lower speed by banking and pulling at the same time

Hit and run and often a couple of passes are needed to do the damage but it is fast and agile when at high speed. I dont often - in fact never- get outright kills online on warclouds with it but I get hits and make the bandits break out the fight- sometimes 5mins later an enemy aircraft destroyed will pop up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . Off line or on co-ops I can do better and at convergence 0f 200m inflict instant kills.

You dont need to hang around - yeah if you zoom up and away, sometimes someone will kindly finish off your kill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif for you but you will be fast , high and safe when the bandits pals arrive. The doras are hard to tag but you can still be effective against them ,I have cleared teammates 6 just boomin and zoomin above the fight and then the bandits shed E turning and make them vulnerable for teammates - thats the big key - teamwork


Some folk do well down low with it but I find they are unsuited to this and havnt mastered it well enough to do well there so play to my strengths.

WRT compairing to real life then I think DKoor is right - this is just a game. There is no comparison - especially on DF servers e.g.
we dont fly in flights, with a trained wingman, using WW2 tactics. We dont have mission breifs we are required to follow and dedicated flight paths, we dont have to put up with cold, stress, G force or be in fear for our life so the longer I play this game then the more tenuous I find the link between the game and quoted performance figures or pilot stories.

dont mean to say I dont enjoy the experience any less


S

Xiolablu3
05-31-2008, 02:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Trouble is when one tries to connect this game to a RL.

As I learn about subject and go deeper...

I personally do not see much more than a pretty game.

Even if we discount possible flight model errors, we are still stuck with funny gun/dm box modeling which cripples machine guns to a fairly good extent... and that's just top of an iceberg.
Flight models changed patch after patch, and every time it was supposed to resemble 'reality'.
Every patch was compared to RL, pilot quotes, charts, performance... not to mention the gray zone of overall "aircraft handling" which is a subject of steamy discussions even now...
It's quite ridiculous now when we think about it...

So how can we in any serious way go ahead and compare it to a RL?

I know I made that mistake a lot in the past.

I can go ahead and explain further what I mean by all this, but I wont.
Those who want, who are willing, understand perfectly clear especially if they are playing the game for few years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can compare it to RL becasue its an attempt to make a WW2 flight game that is more realistic than any other, and I think Maddox Games have definitely succeded in that part.

However anything based on real life needs constant tweaking, it will NEVER be perfect, so we/they need to work and work at making it better and better. Sure this is a game, but its also a very good attempt at a WW2 Air sim.

I am impressed how the SPitfire is so easy to fly, but other planes require more skill, just like we read from real pilots.

I am awed by how fighting between a Fw190A4 and a Spitfire mkV is just like Eric Brown described it.

Its fantastic how the Zero can turn better at low speed, but the Wildcat can turn better at high speeds.

I am blown away by how the Bf109 is slightly superior to the Spitfire mkV, just like the history books tell us.


And so on. Maddax just need to bring the P51 up to that level of realism. I cant help but think its a bit out.

The good news is that Oleg is still hard at work making it better with the SOW series. Constanly improving it when he find better ways, new data, more info, better gfx sound etc. A sim is really a constant Beta which needs improving.

As the game/sim is an attempt to create the best WW2 flight experience on a home computer, Oleg is glad of any real data/info which is useful for improving the series.

Ollivaan
05-31-2008, 02:56 AM
The best fighter of the war was me 262, no doubt. Mustang was one of the best piston engined fighters

Xiolablu3
05-31-2008, 02:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:

Flight models changed patch after patch, and every time it was supposed to resemble 'reality'.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course they change, it will NEVER be perfect. its a constant ongoing process to make it better with each patch.

The odd time an effort to improve something may go in the wrong direction, and it may have to be put back. But in general it will get more and more realistic the more work is done on it.

Making a sim is constanly working to push it closer to reality.

Oleg had to accept long ago that it would never be perfect but the flight models certainly resemble reality as far as you can go with a home computer. They will NEVER be perfect.

However as long as Oleg is working hard on the /a sim it WILL get closer and closer.

Thats part of why we need to talk things over and bring any new data/reading to the table. I am absolutely sure Oleg reads the data on this forum and decides what is worthwhile, and what isnt.

DKoor
05-31-2008, 04:43 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">Originally posted by DKoor:

Flight models changed patch after patch, and every time it was supposed to resemble 'reality'.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Of course they change, it will NEVER be perfect. its a constant ongoing process to make it better with each patch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Xio I think you haven't catch my drift, because if you did then we disagree.

It cannot be that we have many different FM's yet whenever one gets out community compares it to RL as it is some kind of a gospel that IL2.
And when they find discrepancies they are utterly disappointed and are whining on forum/online...

Now if we assume that they got planes 100% right there is still so many things lacking, and I don't mean things like fear, other real life experience, physical forces etc.

I mean this game limitations.

Like lacking DM boxes/machine gun issues (practically all MG equipped planes, but still some more some less), non-jamming cannons/guns, not be able to get a nice look from cockpit therefore some airplanes have unrealistic issues with aiming (FW-190), pure view from cockpit is obstructed (Tempest), huge framing (Bf-109 - for instance check out the new sow frames are twice times thinned or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), not being able to select proper fuel tanks (P-51D- stability probs).. etc. etc. etc.

Another word, our sim matured into an old lady, from what was once an unique beauty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The odd time an effort to improve something may go in the wrong direction, and it may have to be put back. But in general it will get more and more realistic the more work is done on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well... sort of, but still I believe that huge amount of work on this simulation is just - wasted.
For instance check out the skins.
Very simple thing like skins.

We have gawdlike skinners in community such are CanonUK, Hammerd, FBS and many many others yet no one even bothered in all these years to implement their skins in game.
Sure eventually (after years) some are implemented, but I dare to say that most gems are not in the game.

And that's only about skins...

Issues like solving current sim problems and not going more-planes path would be probably more satisfying to majority of users in the end... but - nah.
They all are whining more planes, more planes perhaps maybe because they are aware that nothing else is gonna change much?
I don't know...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Making a sim is constanly working to push it closer to reality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. That's true. I just hope the next sim in line will really be worked on improving reality for the most part (dev decision) and not concentrating on a forum BS whining corrections.
With that, in the end all wins.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oleg had to accept long ago that it would never be perfect but the flight models certainly resemble reality as far as you can go with a home computer. They will NEVER be perfect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, it's up to our dev team to bring us the goods http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

They decided to follow great path IMO, concentrating on fewer models and in combination of updated everything, now they will easily be able to concentrate on fixes for a few models instead of hundreds in IL2 which is an impossible, Siziphus work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However as long as Oleg is working hard on the /a sim it WILL get closer and closer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thats part of why we need to talk things over and bring any new data/reading to the table. I am absolutely sure Oleg reads the data on this forum and decides what is worthwhile, and what isnt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well... I hope he's got some easier source of info, because frankly 99% of useful things posted on this forum are covered with tons of usual BS here.

X32Wright
05-31-2008, 05:47 AM
In my opinion for a real fli-sim with VERY REAL 'feelings' (in how they handle), they would need 'finite element analysis' type of computation for parts plus fluid dynamics for the control surfaces and Thermal layers in the atmosphere plus tons more of stuff modeling engine mechanics.

Surely a fli-sim of this nature is possible but would probably only accomodate 6-8 players with very limited planeset. Why? Very large polygon loads plus simultaneous datastreams going back and forsth which would limit this to a LAN situation than a WAN for multi-player.

Heck as for 'looks', Oleg isn't even using 'texture baking' for really nice lighting derived from 'global illumination' solutions plus using shaders to attenuate these 'surfaces'.

Ultimately this setup would probably need a Quad-Quad core with quad SLI to just get 30fps.
a real fli-sim would need more than just 'vector computations' (quarternions etc) to determine relative plane position.

As of right now I doubt 'media participation' is even computed IF at all! Nothing is being modelled when it comes to control surfaces, engine and atmopsheric interaction relating to air pressure, temp, manifold issues etc.

Forget your 30-60 people multiplayer BOMBER WAR scenarios with B-17s, mustangs with FW-190 and Bf-109 Rammjaegers in a coop or DF!

Everything has limittaiosn and everything is a compromise BUT you won't find me flying another game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And I wont complain either (and won't fly MS CFS/FSX uggh!) because for the price of this fun its 'the only game' I would fly in right now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jayhall0315
05-31-2008, 06:14 AM
What did I just hear that crazy master flying guru of a trainer say, FEA and fluid dynamics ? (lol) Alright, alright, ... all joking aside I just think the P-51 and many other American aircraft arent properly integrated into the source code. As Wright has correctly pointed out, this has absolutely nothing to do with how or what or which airframe was actually better in WWII. I have no doubt that on some special historical server there is some expert flyer WHO can use the P51 to down five guys in a row, it is just that it is not common. I always recommend to noobs that they start off with the La-7 or Spit 25 lbs when available because they handle well and have good armaments. The Corsair, which I love is a flopping mess in this game. When I fight a Zero in IL2 with a Corsair, I can never get away in a dive or with my speed (which was a common escape tactic in WWII) but with the La-7, I just point the nose down and dive a little and so long Zero. If they dont fire very accurately and quickly, I will extend and re-engage on MY terms.
I also love the argument that I hear from some veterans that the la-7 is a uber plane or gives an unfair advantage, so I should really fly the Bf109 or F4F to learn "how real planes handle". But that is like going to an illegal street race and saying, "You know, tonight, I am just not going to use my Ferrari, because it is too fast. I think I am going to race in my Dodge Plymouth, because then I will know what a real challenge is. Why would I want to choose the P51, Corsair or any other American aircraft when I can get the Super Ginsu (La-7) and block cutter with chopping board for only $19.95. I never ever choose American aircraft in IL2 unless I am on a historical server with no better choices.

Which is sad, cause I am an American (at least when George 'Nukcleare Strategery' Bush is not around) and I love the Corsair and P51 !

Jay

AnaK774
05-31-2008, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:

I also love the argument that I hear from some veterans that the la-7 is a uber plane or gives an unfair advantage, so I should really fly the Bf109 or F4F to learn "how real planes handle".

Jay </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats for simple reason of getting rid of bad flying habits... flying lala's and late spits enforces bad combat habits that wont work with other planes really well.

Idea is to let your head go in first, evaluate and then let rest of your body to fight and out of it 2.

Airmail109
05-31-2008, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
As of right now I doubt 'media participation' is even computed IF at all! Nothing is being modelled when it comes to control surfaces, engine and atmopsheric interaction relating to air pressure, temp, manifold issues etc.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats all in Storm of War.

Aaron_GT
05-31-2008, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Corsair, which I love is a flopping mess in this game. When I fight a Zero in IL2 with a Corsair, I can never get away in a dive or with my speed (which was a common escape tactic in WWII) but with the La-7, I just point the nose down and dive a little and so long Zero. If they dont fire very accurately and quickly, I will extend and re-engage on MY terms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might be getting too slow. BnZ them.

Von_Rat
05-31-2008, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no doubt that on some special historical server there is some expert flyer WHO can use the P51 to down five guys in a row, it is just that it is not common. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


actually i have done this myself, as im sure quite a few others have.

but maybe not in the way you mean. ive gotten 5 kills in a single mission with p51, heck i once caused 3 enemy planes go down within seconds of each other.

but this happened something like 5 or 10 mins after i shot them. lol.

Metatron_123
05-31-2008, 11:36 AM
Put into consideration the tactical differences of what you may find online to RL.

If everyone's going round and round at 1000 meters altitude, sure the La-7 is the best.

I still firmly believe that the Mustang (and Corsair) are among the hottest rides if flown properly.

DKoor
05-31-2008, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Put into consideration the tactical differences of what you may find online to RL.

If everyone's going round and round at 1000 meters altitude, sure the La-7 is the best.

I still firmly believe that the Mustang (and Corsair) are among the hottest rides if flown properly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

******

LA-7 is far from being superior even on average quake server... as much as you play this game you see what the ace planes really are.

There are few of them and they are all good in BnZ without exception.

A6M? LA-7? Spitfire?

Feck them.

Just because something is easy to fly doesn't mean it's good.

Even in this game.

When you join quake server you see this pretty clearly. Few guys choose FW-190A9 and blow everything from the sky. FW-190D9 is an overkill on quake server, a true noob_ride-among-the-experienced plane.

Funny thing how this game works.
Once you get really used to it... you realize that planes you once considered to be a sucker planes, suddenly turn into a real killers.

And like I already said, if they put just 2 x Hispano on P-51 it would create funny effects...
1.a lot more people flying it
2.P-51D achieving noticeably better results

No magic there.

In this game speed & cannons simply - rule regarding K/D.

r.beamont
05-31-2008, 04:11 PM
Try a reduced fuel setting. 50-75 percent. The P-51 was difficult, even dangerous to manuver in when the fuselage tank was full or near full, due to center of gravity being too far aft. Pilots would routinely attempt to use up much of that tank asap.

SeaFireLIV
05-31-2008, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metatron_123:


Funny thing how this game works.
Once you get really used to it... you realize that planes you once considered to be a sucker planes, suddenly turn into a real killers.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is pretty true. though I`m pretty old fashioned in that I don`t pick a plane for how `good` or `uber` it is, but whether I like it or not. Then I stick with it. It`s why i still like and fly the I16, P39, P40 and the La5fn, Spit. I`m not a fan of the LA7 - too fast and that speed often means I black out in the middle of a dogfight.

mortoma
05-31-2008, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
It's hard to fly, but I suppose it wasn't "pleasant" and "forgiving" plane IRL either... in comparison with some other planes like Spitfire, Lavochkin or Bf-109.
However, that plane sports some serious performance!
When someone mention top WW2 plane performers among others I always think of P-51!

About how effective it can be vs hard targets such is FW, check out the track from my sig, "Power of .50cal". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ! One of the great German aces was allowed to fly one after the war and he was very delighted at the light controls and general handling qualites. I can't remember which ace it was but it was a big one. I would almost describe his reation as "blown away". At the very least very impressed. And that was the D model too IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P51 in game is light at the controls, take note of its handling at high speed compared to the 109.

The 190 was generally lighter at the controls than the Spitfire, doesn't mean it was more forgiving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have never read one single account from any P-51 pilot, living or dead that describes it as an "unforgiving" aircraft. Quite the contrary. From many accounts one can easily surmise it must have indeed been a very forgiving aircraft. At any altitude it was/is not stall or spin prone. No moreso than any average fighter in any case. No doubt there were a whole slew of aircraft of the time period that were far less forgiving. Let's start with the P-39, for example. Someone please find me a quote from any pilot worth a you know what that ever described the P-51 as unforgiving. I don't know where people get their ideas on this forum, I really don't.

M_Gunz
05-31-2008, 07:15 PM
If you get used to certain planes and tactics then try to jump to another very different,
especially if you don't use suitable tactics for it then you will suck at that plane.

Fast planes that don't turn well are made for slashing attacks where you don't want to turn
on horizontal by more than about 10-15 degrees. Look at how you fight against them.. your
goal is to sucker them into the extra bit of turn to slow them down where they maneuver even
worse and can't get away. You work on their greed and impatience and ego. Whereas in the
fast plane you need to set up a run and depending on how aware the target may be that can take
a lot of very energy conscious maneuvering and management, none of which is easy to learn.

That's why time after time you get two guys doing the old "switch planes and the better plane
wins both times" "test". All they're testing most often is which plane both are better suited
to.

It's the pilot, not the plane.

Brain32
05-31-2008, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I have never read one single account from any P-51 pilot, living or dead that describes it as an "unforgiving" aircraft. Quite the contrary. From many accounts one can easily surmise it must have indeed been a very forgiving aircraft. At any altitude it was/is not stall or spin prone. No moreso than any average fighter in any case. No doubt there were a whole slew of aircraft of the time period that were far less forgiving. Let's start with the P-39, for example. Someone please find me a quote from any pilot worth a you know what that ever described the P-51 as unforgiving. I don't know where people get their ideas on this forum, I really don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL, have you ever read the Mustang manual? Apparently not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
05-31-2008, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
I have never read one single account from any P-51 pilot, living or dead that describes it as an "unforgiving" aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You never read about how the P-51 can flip in under 1 second if you don't handle it right
anywhere near stall? Then you need to read more, not just from the old hands.

You never read from Godfrey who described control reversal while in combat?

Consider how much schooling those pilots had and how well they knew those planes.
Then consider your average gamer who is still working on rudder and trim.

We don't have full length joysticks. Most of us have zero control feedback.
We are not in the seats feeling how the plane is moving.
What kind of (r@p is it for mostly self-taught gamers to expect to equal WWII Aces ++AND++
if they don't then it's the GAME that's not realistic?

Do you guys complaining really take yourselves so seriously?
Or is there just some lack of brain function going on there?
It's a freaking PC SIM!

Airmail109
05-31-2008, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
I have never read one single account from any P-51 pilot, living or dead that describes it as an "unforgiving" aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You never read about how the P-51 can flip in under 1 second if you don't handle it right
anywhere near stall? Then you need to read more, not just from the old hands.

You never read from Godfrey who described control reversal while in combat?

Consider how much schooling those pilots had and how well they knew those planes.
Then consider your average gamer who is still working on rudder and trim.

We don't have full length joysticks. Most of us have zero control feedback.
We are not in the seats feeling how the plane is moving.
What kind of (r@p is it for mostly self-taught gamers to expect to equal WWII Aces ++AND++
if they don't then it's the GAME that's not realistic?

Do you guys complaining really take yourselves so seriously?
Or is there just some lack of brain function going on there?
It's a freaking PC SIM! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some ways its easier to fly in game, it doesnt take 9000 feet to recover from a spin. More like a few hundred feet.

Guess that applies to all the fighters though. On the input bit, I had an ex-fighter pilot try it and although he liked it he needed a hell of a lot of time to get used to the lack of G-forces and feeling. Was stalling all the time.

M_Gunz
06-01-2008, 01:59 AM
There are unique aspects to sim combat, where you take your cues from and the view are the
biggest difference I can think of. Online vs offline I've always found it's best to be a
bit more relaxed with the stick, esp when there's signs of lag at your end.
Always watch your speed. The responses to your controls tell you when to keep adding or to
loosen up. Never just pull to some spot and expect results, the plane can't hear you wh.....

DKoor
06-01-2008, 03:34 AM
I read a few stories of unfortunate US airmen (stationed in England) who stalled and crashed in P-51, IIRC that fuel thing was also mentioned (Osprey books). That wasn't an issue with the Spitfire, or at least I haven't read about it.
Too bad one can't select specific fuel tank in IL2.

Now that I think of it, I really look forward to sow.

ICDP
06-01-2008, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
I have never read one single account from any P-51 pilot, living or dead that describes it as an "unforgiving" aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You never read about how the P-51 can flip in under 1 second if you don't handle it right
anywhere near stall? Then you need to read more, not just from the old hands.

You never read from Godfrey who described control reversal while in combat?

Consider how much schooling those pilots had and how well they knew those planes.
Then consider your average gamer who is still working on rudder and trim.

We don't have full length joysticks. Most of us have zero control feedback.
We are not in the seats feeling how the plane is moving.
What kind of (r@p is it for mostly self-taught gamers to expect to equal WWII Aces ++AND++
if they don't then it's the GAME that's not realistic?

Do you guys complaining really take yourselves so seriously?
Or is there just some lack of brain function going on there?
It's a freaking PC SIM! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

QFT!

Aaron_GT
06-01-2008, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That wasn't an issue with the Spitfire, or at least I haven't read about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In those Spitfires with a rear tanks (mostly XVIs) the same sort of restrictions applied as to the P51B with the rear tank.

M_Gunz
06-01-2008, 08:53 AM
I only use the Spits to see what someone is talking about, which ain't much.
I find the IX's especially to be very hard to keep in coordinated flight.
How come I don't read about that everywhere?

Xiolablu3
06-01-2008, 10:28 AM
The MkVIII's extra fuel was carried by using 29 gallons in the wings and a little extra in the main tank, this was no problem for stability.

Some later MkIX's and MkXIV's had large rear fuel tanks.

However, like Aaron says, while the large rear tanks were full the Spit was very unstable, and restrictions were placed on manouvres while this was still being used.

From wiki - Late production Mk IXs were fitted with additional internal self-sealing fuel tanks in the rear fuselage: the upper tank carried 41 Gallons and the lower 34 Gallons. When both were full this enabled a range of over 1,200 miles (1,900 km) at the expense of manoeuvrability

By late 1944, Spitfire XIVs were fitted with an extra 75 gallons in two rear fuselage fuel tanks, extending the fighter's range to about 780 miles (1,260 km) on internal fuel. Mk XIVs with "tear-drop" canopies had 64 gallons.

DKoor
06-01-2008, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I only use the Spits to see what someone is talking about, which ain't much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

For some really odd reason, I enjoy flying a Spitfire Mk.V, other variants not so much...

mbfRoy
06-01-2008, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Maybe because you don't do it like this...
Me109 V4.08 ntrk (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/DesertDF.ntrk)

Although this is a Me109.. the story is the same.
Look and see (in cockpit)
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice track, but your aim sucks and your landing was a bit too rough imo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
very entertaining and nice tricks to clear your 6!

Airmail109
06-01-2008, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Maybe because you don't do it like this...
Me109 V4.08 ntrk (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/DesertDF.ntrk)

Although this is a Me109.. the story is the same.
Look and see (in cockpit)
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice track, but your aim sucks and your landing was a bit too rough imo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
very entertaining and nice tricks to clear your 6! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my aims better than yours.

n00b

mbfRoy
06-01-2008, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Maybe because you don't do it like this...
Me109 V4.08 ntrk (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/DesertDF.ntrk)

Although this is a Me109.. the story is the same.
Look and see (in cockpit)
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice track, but your aim sucks and your landing was a bit too rough imo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
very entertaining and nice tricks to clear your 6! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my aims better than yours.

n00b </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who are you?

Bearcat99
06-02-2008, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
I have never read one single account from any P-51 pilot, living or dead that describes it as an "unforgiving" aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You never read about how the P-51 can flip in under 1 second if you don't handle it right
anywhere near stall? Then you need to read more, not just from the old hands.

You never read from Godfrey who described control reversal while in combat?

Consider how much schooling those pilots had and how well they knew those planes.
Then consider your average gamer who is still working on rudder and trim.

We don't have full length joysticks. Most of us have zero control feedback.
We are not in the seats feeling how the plane is moving.
What kind of (r@p is it for mostly self-taught gamers to expect to equal WWII Aces ++AND++
if they don't then it's the GAME that's not realistic?

Do you guys complaining really take yourselves so seriously?
Or is there just some lack of brain function going on there?
It's a freaking PC SIM! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some ways its easier to fly in game, it doesnt take 9000 feet to recover from a spin. More like a few hundred feet.

Guess that applies to all the fighters though. On the input bit, I had an ex-fighter pilot try it and although he liked it he needed a hell of a lot of time to get used to the lack of G-forces and feeling. Was stalling all the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this sim it is a loit easier to fly... tourque is still way undermodelled... if it were not then it would be possible to flip the P-51 in particular by throttleing up too fast..

as for the changing FMs.. although they have changed somewhat with every patch I do believe that they get better with every patch...

Trim in the P-51.. If you have it on a slider.. ala an X-45/52 or something along those lines.... trim in small moves.. even for trim climbing... small moves.. I have found that in the P-51 if you watch your gauges and learn to scan them and read them accurately and do all the other stuff like keeping the speed up and the attutude & trim right you will do well in a P-51, or at least better than you have in the past.

Swivet
06-02-2008, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">why is it so freakin hard to fly? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your not flying it right! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.......lol

The P-51 likes trim, and combat flaps and lots of speed...That's the only way i fly it, is to keep it fast.

DKoor
06-02-2008, 02:31 PM
With 608kph @ SL and 726kph @ 7200m, it certainly is fast... belongs among fastest pistons in IL2... and it's speed is distributed just fine; i.e. some fighters are fast at lower alt, some at higher but P-51D similar to the FW-190D is really fast at all alts.

M_Gunz
06-02-2008, 03:14 PM
Once you get the speed up it runs good at reduced RPMs which let you build up a heat reserve
for later.

Wildnoob
06-02-2008, 04:06 PM
I don't have much time rigth now, but I gonna tell my view.

since I started to fly on this sim, I had problems to fly not only the P-51, but all aircraft of it's wheigth classification. (ex : FW-190, F-4U).

I always try to follow more nimble enemy aircraft in turns. in fact, I always thougth that air combat should be in close maneuvers. a big mistake. by this time I already read about energy tactics, but not could put then in pratic because I didn't know how to really use then in combat.

then, one day I discovery how to use the powerful engines of these aircraft to outrun yes, most piston engine enemy aircraft. most pilot's think that only jets against piston engine oponents have advantage in speed.

then, I learned how to engage and how cannot.

when I'm gonna engage the enemy, I only gonna do this when I have advatange in altitude over the enemy. and how I can easly found lot's of aircraft flying in turns.

I gonna find a enemy aircraft, fire on then and run.

if I hit the enemy or not, I gonna run, run for 1 or 2 minutes until I have sure that I'm not been pursuited.

that's the way I figth.

now, I gonna talk about using the aircraft speed.

in the specific case, you pilot's that are having difficult to use the P-51, learn one thing - THE P-51 CAN OUTRUN MOST ENEMY AIRCRAFT !!!

I can cite the BF-109 and the KI-61 on this list.

you guys read my explanation about how I fly in combat above, isn't ?

ok, let's say you meet a BF-109 head on, wat you should do ?

RUN !

full open your trottle and run. at least on deck, the P-51 gonna easly outrun the BF-109. LW pilot's gonna considerate why they don't have a FW-190 on this case.

again, run like I've cited above, and only turn back when you have sure that you are not being pursuit.

the same can be apply if you see a BF-109 diving on you on the last second. again, DIVE and use your superior diving speed and power plant to avoid the enemy.

turns are just allowed for corrections on high speed firing passes. other way, NEVER try turn with aircraft like the BF-109.

the run tactic can be apply to aircraft like the BF-109, MC series, KI-43/61.

aircraft like the FW-190 from A series at lower and medium altitude, and the D9 at all altitudes the P-51 cannot outrun. to figth then I sugest the same tactics, but you cannot run for then. in case of combat, standard combat tactics need to be apply.

and of course, a lot of trainning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

just keep in mind that your airspeed is your only advantage.

I cited the P-51, but these tactics can be apply to the FW-190 on the Russian front until 1943, and the Hellcat and Corsair in the Pacific.

good lucky !

any doubths, please, post then.

PS : I could't do a better post, sorry.

K_Freddie
06-02-2008, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mbfRoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Maybe because you don't do it like this...
Me109 V4.08 ntrk (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/DesertDF.ntrk)

Although this is a Me109.. the story is the same.
Look and see (in cockpit)
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice track, but your aim sucks and your landing was a bit too rough imo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
very entertaining and nice tricks to clear your 6! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my aims better than yours.

n00b </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who are you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who.. me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
My aim was not good that day... first time in the pit after 2-3weeks.
But it was annoying enough to cause a bit of 'panic'.

If there's anybody that could fly a P51, it was this one guy on SpitsvsME109's about a year ago.
I think he was Spanish, but I was in a ME and in a 'local' with a typhoon/tempest which I downed,
but as this happened this P51 arrived. 'Easy Meat' I thought, but hells a few minutes later we were
still exchanging shells at stall speeds and at zero altitude, until I clipped his outer wing with a 'lucky' shot.

This was a fine example of what one can do with an a/c. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Pumpkin1965
06-02-2008, 05:22 PM
Well, I'm not positive, but it might have something to do with the fact that Oleg used to be a Russian aviation engineer during the cold war. Now I don't own a P51 so I can't say for sure, but I've never read anywhere in history that the P51 was a sloppy mess of a plane to fly. But then again, I never heard that the La was hands down the best WW2 fighter either. If it weren't exactly like that in the game, I could probably give Oleg the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunatley that is how it is. That said Il2 IS hands down the best WW2 flight sim in the world. Sad aint it. Now for the fireworks!

M_Gunz
06-02-2008, 05:35 PM
If you turn while descending or rising then gravity will assist your turn. It will directly
reduce the loading on your wings.

Couple that with having higher speed than your target, flying extra distance doing yo-yo's
along his flight path means you will be able to cross his path without matching his speed
+and+ maybe able to do it without matching the G's he pulls, depending on your flight. Too
much speed difference and it just won't work that way but don't slow down, change tactics.
If he's too good to yoyo that then get above and work on something else.

Always keep an eye out for the wingmates. If your target always jinks just as you have the
perfect shot from his blind side then he's probably part of a team using voice comms. If you
are alone then you are the target, not the other way around.

SeaFireLIV
06-02-2008, 05:36 PM
I don`t usually break comments down, but I have to in this case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pumpkin1965:
Well, I'm not positive, but it might have something to do with the fact that Oleg used to be a Russian aviation engineer during the cold war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So that means what? If it was done by an American it would be better? But what about American bias to other aircraft, or do you believe Americans don`t suffer bias at all?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pumpkin1965:
Now I don't own a P51 so I can't say for sure, but I've never read anywhere in history that the P51 was a sloppy mess of a plane to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sloppy mess to fly? Or are you being the sloppy mess in flying it? This was already addresses by others like Gunz, but you choose to ignore it. A bad workman blames his tools.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pumpkin1965:
But then again, I never heard that the La was hands down the best WW2 fighter either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What makes you think it`s the best plane in the game? Have you actually tried flying it for a bit online? have you shot down 190s and 109s easily? Maybe once, but through successive patches they were heavily toned down to a realistic level. Also which La are you taking about? ALL of them?

More `I think Oleg is a commie` bias rubbish.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pumpkin1965:
If it weren't exactly like that in the game, I could probably give Oleg the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunatley that is how it is. That said Il2 IS hands down the best WW2 flight sim in the world. Sad aint it. Now for the fireworks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sad? Good, I say. It shows that there are other parts of the world that actually has skill in making flight sims. competition is always good.

I said it before, but in my view Oleg has been fairest with all aircraft in this sim, just cos you can`t instantly shoot 4 109s down like the real life Aces without effort do not make the P51 bad.

Sigh, I thought these kinds of comments were buried 3 years ago! But there are new ones born everyday.

M_Gunz
06-02-2008, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pumpkin1965:
Well, I'm not positive, but it might have something to do with the fact that Oleg used to be a Russian aviation engineer during the cold war. Now I don't own a P51 so I can't say for sure, but I've never read anywhere in history that the P51 was a sloppy mess of a plane to fly. But then again, I never heard that the La was hands down the best WW2 fighter either. If it weren't exactly like that in the game, I could probably give Oleg the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunatley that is how it is. That said Il2 IS hands down the best WW2 flight sim in the world. Sad aint it. Now for the fireworks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you ever read about the post war fighter competition held in Italy?

BTW at least you expect some fire back when you've slandered a game developer.

Bearcat99
06-02-2008, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pumpkin1965:
Well, I'm not positive, but it might have something to do with the fact that Oleg used to be a Russian aviation engineer during the cold war. Now I don't own a P51 so I can't say for sure, but I've never read anywhere in history that the P51 was a sloppy mess of a plane to fly. But then again, I never heard that the La was hands down the best WW2 fighter either. If it weren't exactly like that in the game, I could probably give Oleg the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunatley that is how it is. That said Il2 IS hands down the best WW2 flight sim in the world. Sad aint it. Now for the fireworks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything Seafire said... not only that... every WWII pilot I have ever spoken to or read comments from, and I know several Tuskegee Airmen from my local chapter (http://www.ecctai.org/) I met Bud Anderson and spoke to him at length about the P-51, read books by Bu8d Firtier, Chuck Yeager, George Loving and others... and even accounts of current day Mustang pilots.. who arent flying in combat.. just doing airshows, and they all to a man said that The Mustang was a dream to fly but it was tricky and you could not get lazy while flying it.. or it would "bite you in the @ss.. " and that is something most of the ones I spoke to all said.. almost verbatim. To a man the things they all agreed upon were it's speed, the susceptibility of it's engine to weapons fire, it's torque (the Merlin) and it's maneuverability.. which the Mustang in thsi sim has.. except the torque.. and I think that's a good thing.. Tourque is toned down in most sims..

Xiolablu3
06-02-2008, 08:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pumpkin1965:
Well, I'm not positive, but it might have something to do with the fact that Oleg used to be a Russian aviation engineer during the cold war. Now I don't own a P51 so I can't say for sure, but I've never read anywhere in history that the P51 was a sloppy mess of a plane to fly. But then again, I never heard that the La was hands down the best WW2 fighter either. If it weren't exactly like that in the game, I could probably give Oleg the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunatley that is how it is. That said Il2 IS hands down the best WW2 flight sim in the world. Sad aint it. Now for the fireworks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you ever read about the post war fighter competition held in Italy?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt mate, can you elaborate?

I heard of one where the French had the choice of aircraft from all the Allies, P51, Spitfire IX's, etc and they chose the Yak3. But I think you mean a different one??

VN-philong
06-02-2008, 10:14 PM
I have played this game for 3 years and still consider myself a noob. I started flying P51 ten months ago because of the beautiful look of theplane. I experienced stalling, spinning and of course got killed countless times on War_Clouds_WF and Spit-vs-109 server.

However, I learned by watching the recorded session to see my mistakes and my opponent's moves.

Also watched tracks from Klingstroem, DKOOR and other P51 aces. Occasionally received advises from good and friendly pilots how to fly the P51.

I finally got my lucky day: shooting down two Bf109 and one FW190 on Warclouds.
http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/67657/WC-P51-2xBf...W190-Kills-ntrk.html (http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/67657/WC-P51-2xBf109-1xFW190-Kills-ntrk.html)

I also have some successful turn fights (head-on encounter) against Bf109.

I'm still looking to join a squad to improve my knowledge with this bird.

~S~

K_Freddie
06-03-2008, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
.... it's torque (the Merlin) and it's maneuverability.. which the Mustang in thsi sim has.. except the torque.. and I think that's a good thing.. Tourque is toned down in most sims.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nooooooo, I want more torque !!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Hopefully BoB has it all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I saw one doccy where the pilot explained either on the ground or altitude, if you 'walled' the throttle, the plane would flip on it's back and you could do nothing to stop it.. we really should have this.

luftluuver
06-03-2008, 06:27 AM
In the air Freddie especially when doing a go around in an aborted landing if the throttle is opened too fast.

If there is no torque BC, then why can one make the wing tips touch the ground when standing still on the ground?

R_Target
06-03-2008, 06:40 AM
Torque seems to have been toned down since 4.03, but for all planes, not just the -51.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 07:19 AM
I would imagine one of the worst planes for torque would be the Spitfire XIV.

Rather than rotating the opposite way to the prop, as in the Merlin, the Griffon made the torque effect even worse by rotating the SAME way as the prop.

ALso having such a massive powerful engine attached to such a small light airframe, I cant help but think the torque would be incredible.

I have just been reading about Griffon powered Mustangs used in Air races, very interesting.

luftluuver
06-03-2008, 07:32 AM
Xio, you do know that the Griffon rotated opposite to the Merlin.

Think what it would be in a 2000hp, with fat blades, 109.

M_Gunz
06-03-2008, 10:48 AM
It's probably not good to use ground handling in a sim as a measure of the flight model.
Get the P-51 slow with low rpms at low power and crank the beast up fast then.
Or just do a hard climbing turn at full go and let the speed drop while holding the course.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Xio, you do know that the Griffon rotated opposite to the Merlin.

Think what it would be in a 2000hp, with fat blades, 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I do realise that , mate.

but didnt the Merlin dampen the torque by reversing the drive shaft 'spin' to the prop? So that the spinning part of the drive shaft that powered the prop was rotating one way, and the actual prop rotating the other?

I read something about that somewhere. Or did I dream it? :P

M_Gunz
06-03-2008, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would imagine one of the worst planes for torque would be the Spitfire XIV.

Rather than rotating the opposite way to the prop, as in the Merlin, the Griffon made the torque effect even worse by rotating the SAME way as the prop.

ALso having such a massive powerful engine attached to such a small light airframe, I cant help but think the torque would be incredible.

I have just been reading about Griffon powered Mustangs used in Air races, very interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is wing twist, tail offset and speed to account for when expecting torque.
I remember a huge flap in RB3D about the planes not gliding straight that never got answered
at the time (Sept-Oct 1998) but the simple matter is those planes were rigged to run at full
power and when the power is off the rigging does not change. Rigging was an art, btw. It is
why you don't see wing twist in the plans for those planes yet they still flew straight enough
despite huge prop forces relative to plane weight.

TinyTim
06-03-2008, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Rather than rotating the opposite way to the prop, as in the Merlin, the Griffon made the torque effect even worse by rotating the SAME way as the prop.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Torque always tends to rotate the plane in the opposite directin than the propeller. If you go sit on a rotatable chair, and hold a heavy screwdriving machine in the vertical, your seat and you will start to (rather slowly) rotate in the oposite direction than the machine rotor once you press the switch. Conservation of rotational momentum.

M_Gunz
06-03-2008, 10:56 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">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Xio, you do know that the Griffon rotated opposite to the Merlin.

Think what it would be in a 2000hp, with fat blades, 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I do realise that , mate.

but didnt the Merlin dampen the torque by reversing the engine 'spin' to the prop? So that the spinning part that powered the prop was rotating one way, and the actual prop rotating the other?

I read something about that somewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the crankshaft? Cause the Merlin is not a rotary.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I would imagine one of the worst planes for torque would be the Spitfire XIV.

Rather than rotating the opposite way to the prop, as in the Merlin, the Griffon made the torque effect even worse by rotating the SAME way as the prop.

ALso having such a massive powerful engine attached to such a small light airframe, I cant help but think the torque would be incredible.

I have just been reading about Griffon powered Mustangs used in Air races, very interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is wing twist, tail offset and speed to account for when expecting torque.
I remember a huge flap in RB3D about the planes not gliding straight that never got answered
at the time (Sept-Oct 1998) but the simple matter is those planes were rigged to run at full
power and when the power is off the rigging does not change. Rigging was an art, btw. It is
why you don't see wing twist in the plans for those planes yet they still flew straight enough
despite huge prop forces relative to plane weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer to the planes not gliding straight is obvious to anyone with a normal IQ I would have thought, an dto you I would imagine.

These old WW1 planes were trimmed for power on flight to counter the torque (made even worse by rotary engines). When the plane is gliding there is no torque.

M_Gunz
06-03-2008, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Did you ever read about the post war fighter competition held in Italy?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt mate, can you elaborate?

I heard of one where the French had the choice of aircraft from all the Allies, P51, Spitfire IX's, etc and they chose the Yak3. But I think you mean a different one?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yak 9 (IIRC the DD model) won cleanly, hehehe.
The account of that was posted here back in 2002 or so as answer to a challenge of bias.
I bet that Crazy Ivan has info.

The thing about the P-51 as with any plane or tool is that you use it wrong, it's c.r.a.p.
A P-40 will out turn a P-51 at less than high speed and most if not all 109's will out turn
a P-40 at moderate to low speed -- all given equally skilled pilots in their respective planes.

A screwdriver makes a poor chisel, a wrench makes a poor hammer, a P-51 makes a poor lowspeed
fighter. It's that simple.

M_Gunz
06-03-2008, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The answer to the planes not gliding straight is obvious to anyone with a normal IQ I would have thought, an dto you I would imagine.

These old WW1 planes were trimmed for power on flight to counter the torque (made even worse by rotary engines). When the plane is gliding there is no torque. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the time, no one posted the answer. I was still learning and hadn't put the picture together.
There was a lot of emotion over the issue which did not help and Tucker Hatfield who might have
supplied the answer had left the team to work for Micro$oft. We missed him greatly but Sierra
was in the habit of jerking their talent around badly.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<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">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Xio, you do know that the Griffon rotated opposite to the Merlin.

Think what it would be in a 2000hp, with fat blades, 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I do realise that , mate.

but didnt the Merlin dampen the torque by reversing the engine 'spin' to the prop? So that the spinning part that powered the prop was rotating one way, and the actual prop rotating the other?

I read something about that somewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the crankshaft? Cause the Merlin is not a rotary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah I realise that mate, I guess that it must have meant the crankshaft.

I dont know if its true or not, but I definitely read about it somewhere. That the Merlin lessened torque because the prop was spinning one way and 'something' was spinning/ pushing/pulling the other way. Whereas on the Griffon both 'things' rotated the same way.

It may be absolutely false, maybe someone can tell us.

luftluuver
06-03-2008, 11:34 AM
Pilot conversion from Merlin- to Griffon-engined Spitfires was not without teething troubles, the most common problem being the ingrained habit of applying a starboard trim to the aircraft's rudder to offset the tremendous torque produced at takeoff power. As the Griffon's crankshaft rotated in the opposite direction to the Merlin (a legacy of its intended use for naval aircraft, where it is desirable for aircraft to swing to port, away from the superstructure), a starboard bias increased, instead of compensating for, the undesirable effects of torque.

M_Gunz
06-03-2008, 11:40 AM
Xio:
Probably not false at all but crankshaft has a much smaller radius than the prop. It is much
longer and the two are separated. I would still think it's a good idea but there may be some
drawback even if it's just in production or what side of the teeth in the reduction gear are
engaged.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Pilot conversion from Merlin- to Griffon-engined Spitfires was not without teething troubles, the most common problem being the ingrained habit of applying a starboard trim to the aircraft's rudder to offset the tremendous torque produced at takeoff power. As the Griffon's crankshaft rotated in the opposite direction to the Merlin (a legacy of its intended use for naval aircraft, where it is desirable for aircraft to swing to port, away from the superstructure), a starboard bias increased, instead of compensating for, the undesirable effects of torque. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

THATS what I read, so it was nothing to do with the crankshaft, sorry guys.

The Spitfire apparantly just had a natural Starboard bias.

Aaron_GT
06-03-2008, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but I've never read anywhere in history that the P51 was a sloppy mess of a plane to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It did have some flaws. One was with the rear tank full (just like Spitfires with rear tanks). The other was its longitudinal stability. The USN felt it was marginal on stability as a gun platform, and it got a number of demerits on this in the JFC. It was also known to have a slightly tricky accelerated stall. Other issues were common to many high performance single engined fighters - e.g. don't slam full power on suddenly unless you want to go inverted.

But overall - speed, agility, range, the Mustang was superb. If they'd kept the Mustang IA armament throughout the armament would have been powerful too - like a more maneouverable Tempest V with more than twice the range.

The -H was very hot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But then again, I never heard that the La was hands down the best WW2 fighter either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LaGG-1 was poor, the LaGG-3 was not so great. The La-5FN was very good, the La-7 was excellent, the La-9 (post war) was superb. So it depends on the model. The La series took a while to get right! The La-7 at medium to low altitudes was the equal of the P-51, witjh a better fixed armament. Up high the P-51 was superior (like the P-47 to some extent it comes down to turbo/super charging and radiator andother equipment design)

One often forgotten area is in the other equipment. The P-51 had a good set of radios, etc and an ergonomic layout that was well regarded, which meant lower pilot strain, especially on long missions. A plane with the same performance as the P-51 with a badly laid set of controls would not have been nearly as good an escort as the crews would have been exhausted by the time they were needed to keep fighters away.

DKoor
06-03-2008, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VN-philong:
<STRIKE>DKOOR</STRIKE> and other P51 aces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...just a small correction. I don't perceive myself as some kind of an "ace" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif - but thanks for a kind words.

Xiolablu3
06-03-2008, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VN-philong:
<STRIKE>DKOOR</STRIKE> and other P51 aces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...just a small correction. I don't perceive myself as some kind of an "ace" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif - but thanks for a kind words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^This is the sign of a true Ace

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

mortoma
06-03-2008, 04:52 PM
<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">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VN-philong:
<STRIKE>DKOOR</STRIKE> and other P51 aces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...just a small correction. I don't perceive myself as some kind of an "ace" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif - but thanks for a kind words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^This is the sign of a true Ace

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Anyone with a muppet for an avatar surely is an ace!! He should paint that muppet on the nose of his plane.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2008, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> instead of compensating for, the undesirable effects of torque.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is highly unlikely that it is torque.

Most likely it is the increased power loading on the propeller. Just like higher wing loaded aircraft have higher energy vortices; higher loaded propellers have stronger spiral slipstreams. As the velocity decreases, the slipstream compacts and creates a turning moment.

Gyroscopic procession and some P-factor if on a climb out are at play as well.

Bearcat99
06-03-2008, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
In the air Freddie especially when doing a go around in an aborted landing if the throttle is opened too fast.

If there is no torque BC, then why can one make the wing tips touch the ground when standing still on the ground? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say there was no torque.. I said it was toned down.. Try though you might you cannot flip a Mustang in this sim with the throttle.. In real life there were several pilots who were injured or killed throttling up too fast causing the plane to flip.

M_Gunz
06-03-2008, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Gyroscopic procession and some P-factor if on a climb out are at play as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll get precession any time the nose pitches or yaws in direct proportion to the change.

And P-factor in a hard turn, wherever wing AOA is high though I can't remember right now if
the P-factor and precession work opposite to or reinforce each other in turns. Just a quick
look suggests the former.

From a quick look:

If my prop is turning CW as seen from behind then P-factor in a turn will pull left.
But the same prop will push to the right as pitch changes in the turn.

If the gyroscopic precession is stronger than the p-factor that doesn't mean there is no
p-factor though.

Props are funny old things, we should all have sci-fi reactionless drive units.

Kettenhunde
06-03-2008, 09:12 PM
The largest moment is from the spiral slipstream compacting and hitting the horizontal and vertical stabilizers.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
06-04-2008, 01:01 AM
How about on the wings?

And doesn't the impact being the most depend on the plane moving slow?
Or is that a condition to be met before any of those effects affect the flight more than slightly?

Kettenhunde
06-04-2008, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How about on the wings?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the stall the asymmetrical lift will cause a rolling moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And doesn't the impact being the most depend on the plane moving slow?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the slower the velocity the more compact the slipstream.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Or is that a condition to be met before any of those effects affect the flight more than slightly?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can feel gyroscopic procession in a turn at any speed.

As far as games go, most of the propeller effects are overemphasized IMHO.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
06-04-2008, 09:22 AM
With some of these props, the 4 and 5 bladed ones turning at 2400 to 3000 rpm I would expect
more gyroscopic precession and p-factor. The diameters of some ran quite large too but
maybe those were only the 3 bladed props like on FW and F4U.

I expect the nose to go a bit sideways when I pitch up quickly even a small correction.
But I expect less yaw than the pitch change. Perhaps there should be some other coupled
effects like we got more noticeably in 4.01 and perhaps that really did need fixing.

I do remember a lot of debate going on and I do know that a product needs to be usable by
enough customers or you don't stay in business. There's also the no matter what, there
will not be total agreement on the results especially where most users have no experience
or limited experience with the things being modeled.

Reading books is all very fine but the P-51 Ace is not telling us all the things he had to
do and where he knew his envelope of possibilities was. I've seen it written that "whatever
I wanted the plane to do, it did" but that only tells me the pilot did not want to do the
unreasonable and made his tactics fit. It sure does not tell me the P-51 could do anything
that a pilot with limited or no time in a P-51 could imagine!

DKoor
06-04-2008, 05:14 PM
<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">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VN-philong:
<STRIKE>DKOOR</STRIKE> and other P51 aces </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...just a small correction. I don't perceive myself as some kind of an "ace" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif - but thanks for a kind words. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^This is the sign of a true Ace

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
Anyone with a muppet for an avatar surely is an ace!! He should paint that muppet on the nose of his plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Muppets are uber. Fakt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

M_Gunz
06-04-2008, 06:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Muppets won teh war.

Erkki_M
06-26-2008, 09:49 AM
Found this one from American Warplanes of World War II (edited by David Donald, Grange Books, 2000):

'"Getting a fully-loaded Mustang off the ground on a long-range mission was one bear of a job," says former First Lieutenant David Jones of the USAAF 4th Fighter Group. The p-51D loaded with maximum fuel, including drop tanks, tipped the scales at 11,600 lb (5262 kg) and "could scaecely be handled until you'd burned an initial amount of that fuel away," says Jones.

The high risk take-off on a maximum escort mission to Berlin is dramatised in a key crash scene in Len Deighton's novel Goodbye Mickey Mouse. Jones and Deighton, members of Mustang International, a private group devoted to P-51 history and preservation today, agree that, however beautiful, the aircraft was difficult to get going and suffered from serious lateral stability problems. "The pilot had to be constantly alet to the need for opposite rudder to prevent a skid or sideslip which could throw the P-51 into a spin." A dorsal fin corrected this tendency, but reduced manoeuvrability in combat. "But when you'd pickled off the drop tanks," says Jones, "you were on equal with the other guy. The Mustang could manoeuvre with and outgun even the latest models of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. With a teardrop-shaped canopy, you had super visibility and could spot the other guy first." Lieutenant Urban Drew, air ace and kille of Messerschmitt Me 262 jets, flew both the P-51D and the later P-47N. Drew says that he greatly preferred the P-51D and wished that more had been available in the Pacific, where he flew after his European successes.'

Art-J
06-26-2008, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
With some of these props, the 4 and 5 bladed ones turning at 2400 to 3000 rpm I would expect
more gyroscopic precession and p-factor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick note here: these figures are a little bit too high! The engine revs were just like these, but reduction gears lowered them about twice.
For example: default reduction gear on RR Griffons with single prop shaft had 0.5102 (prop) to 1 (crank) ratio. For Griffons with double shaft (for contra-rotating props) it was 0.442 to 1.
Gear on Hellcat was 2:1 (crank to prop), don't know about Corsair, but I suppose it was similar.

Cheers - Art

idonno
06-26-2008, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
My own conclusion, it that Oleg just didnt get down the details as well with many American aircraft as he did with say the Spit, 109s, or La. Consequently, as long as other more sporty aircraft are available in the planeset, I never choose the American aircraft, which is a shame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After reading a bit of your guide, I'm surprised that you would make such a statement as the one above. Much of what I read makes me believe that you have too good an understanding of the airplanes in this sim, and how to effectivly employ them, to think that U.S. stuff should be avoided. You're certainly correct about it being a shame.

idonno
06-26-2008, 02:55 PM
I don't fly the 51 a lot so I wanted to verify the impression I had from what flying of it I have done. I just finished fighting with the Mustang a bit in QMB, and I gotta tell ya all I just don't see it.

I fly it, as I fly everything, with 100% fuel, and I find no problems with the airplane's handling at all.

Stafroty
06-26-2008, 10:37 PM
P-51 is a dream to use against enemy IF u dont have any rush shooting enemies down. Just take your time and first concengrade just to keep ur own 6 and others clear, so enemy is not able to stick on you, keep speed high and DONT fly under any enemy. Ex. if you are finishing one badly beaten enemy at 4000m alt and there enters 2 bogies at horizon higher than u, its wisest to break off and get some more alt far from those 2 high ones..

otherwise they just bounce you leadin to that you have to evade their attacks till ur at deck level on alt..


Just fly carefully like real pilots did, apreciating their life and it will go well.

TinyTim
06-27-2008, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
I don't fly the 51 a lot so I wanted to verify the impression I had from what flying of it I have done. I just finished fighting with the Mustang a bit in <span class="ev_code_RED">QMB</span>, and I gotta tell ya all I just don't see it.

I fly it, as I fly everything, with 100% fuel, and I find no problems with the airplane's handling at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try it online. I never learned how to fly a Fw190 offline, although I was shooting AI aces down in droves.

idonno
06-28-2008, 12:26 AM
I have flown it online as well.

It doesn't matter though. I'm not talking about shooting things down with it, just about the way it flys. No problems with it.

Osprey_334th
06-28-2008, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think we have to remember, that US pilots who used the P51 had been used to the Thunderbolt, so they were definitely used to very heavy planes.


A P47 empty weights almost as much as a Tempest does fully loaded, so these guys will have seen a great improvement with the P51.

I cant help but think that either the P51 is a little hard done by in the sim, or that the P47 is too good. I would have thought that the P51 should be quite a big improvement from the P47, but in the sim I actually prefer the Jug.

For example here is what one US Eagle Squadron pilot said about the Jug....

'One day in January 1943 General Hunter, the Commander of the 8th Fighter Command, came to visit us at Debden. He said he had a 'surprise' for us. We were soon to re-equip with the very latest American fighter, the P-47 Thunderbolt. As he spoke we heard an unusual engine noise outside and one of the new fighters landed and taxied up beside one of our Spitfires. We went outside to look it over. It was huge: the wing tip of the P-47 came higher than the cockpit of the Spitfire. When we strapped into a Spitfire we felt snug and part of the aircraft; the Thunderbolt cockpit, on the other hand, was so large that we felt if we slipped off the *******ed seat we would break a leg! We were horrified at the thought of going to war in such a machine: we had enough trouble with the Focke Wulf 190's in our nimble Spitfire Vs; now this lumbering seven-ton monster seemed infinitely worse, a true 'air inferiority fighter'. Initial mock dog-fights between Thunderbolts and Spitfires seemed to confirm these feelings; we lost four Thunderbolt pilots in rapid succession, spinning in from low level, while trying to match Spitfires in turns. In the end our headquarters issued an order banning mock dog fighting in Thunderbolts below 8,000 feet.

Gradually however, we learnt how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude, she was a 'hot ship' and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to 'mix it' with the enemy, but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory--where the action was. So, reluctantly, we had to give up our beautiful little Spitfires and convert to the new juggernauts. The war was moving on, and we had to move with it.

The change to the Thunderbolt might have been necessary militarily, but my heart remained with the Spitfire. Even now, thirty years after I flew them on operations, the mere sound or sight of a Spitfire brings me a deep feeling of nostalgia, and many pleasant memories. She was such a gentle little airplane, without a trace of viciousness. She was a dream to handle in the air. I feel genuinely sorry for the modern fighter pilot, who has never had the chance to get his hands on a Spitfire; he will never know what real flying was like.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Eagle Squadrons couldn't wait to get shot of the Jug in favour of the Stang. I should know, it's my crew http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-29-2008, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Osprey_334th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think we have to remember, that US pilots who used the P51 had been used to the Thunderbolt, so they were definitely used to very heavy planes.


A P47 empty weights almost as much as a Tempest does fully loaded, so these guys will have seen a great improvement with the P51.

I cant help but think that either the P51 is a little hard done by in the sim, or that the P47 is too good. I would have thought that the P51 should be quite a big improvement from the P47, but in the sim I actually prefer the Jug.

For example here is what one US Eagle Squadron pilot said about the Jug....

'One day in January 1943 General Hunter, the Commander of the 8th Fighter Command, came to visit us at Debden. He said he had a 'surprise' for us. We were soon to re-equip with the very latest American fighter, the P-47 Thunderbolt. As he spoke we heard an unusual engine noise outside and one of the new fighters landed and taxied up beside one of our Spitfires. We went outside to look it over. It was huge: the wing tip of the P-47 came higher than the cockpit of the Spitfire. When we strapped into a Spitfire we felt snug and part of the aircraft; the Thunderbolt cockpit, on the other hand, was so large that we felt if we slipped off the *******ed seat we would break a leg! We were horrified at the thought of going to war in such a machine: we had enough trouble with the Focke Wulf 190's in our nimble Spitfire Vs; now this lumbering seven-ton monster seemed infinitely worse, a true 'air inferiority fighter'. Initial mock dog-fights between Thunderbolts and Spitfires seemed to confirm these feelings; we lost four Thunderbolt pilots in rapid succession, spinning in from low level, while trying to match Spitfires in turns. In the end our headquarters issued an order banning mock dog fighting in Thunderbolts below 8,000 feet.

Gradually however, we learnt how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude, she was a 'hot ship' and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to 'mix it' with the enemy, but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory--where the action was. So, reluctantly, we had to give up our beautiful little Spitfires and convert to the new juggernauts. The war was moving on, and we had to move with it.

The change to the Thunderbolt might have been necessary militarily, but my heart remained with the Spitfire. Even now, thirty years after I flew them on operations, the mere sound or sight of a Spitfire brings me a deep feeling of nostalgia, and many pleasant memories. She was such a gentle little airplane, without a trace of viciousness. She was a dream to handle in the air. I feel genuinely sorry for the modern fighter pilot, who has never had the chance to get his hands on a Spitfire; he will never know what real flying was like.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Eagle Squadrons couldn't wait to get shot of the Jug in favour of the Stang. I should know, it's my crew http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The most revealing statement and one reason why the P-51 was superior to both the Spit and the P-47:
<span class="ev_code_RED">"Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory--where the action was"</span>. Range and speed a tough combination to beat.

Bremspropeller
06-29-2008, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">utgun even the latest models of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Haha, what a BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

idonno
06-29-2008, 10:49 AM
Seven of the top ten U.S. aces in Europe flew 47's, including the two highest scorers. (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html)

Frequent_Flyer
06-29-2008, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Seven of the top ten U.S. aces in Europe flew 47's, including the two highest scorers. (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-47 is credited with downing the most Luftwaffe "Ace's" in the ETO

ElAurens
06-29-2008, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">utgun even the latest models of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Haha, what a BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you draw your conclusion from your vast experience in WW2 flying the real thing?

No.

I thought not.

Bremspropeller
06-29-2008, 04:09 PM
Nice try.

I'll give you a 3.5 for the effort.

ElAurens
06-29-2008, 05:08 PM
It was certainly no worse than your lame attempt.

MB_Avro_UK
06-29-2008, 05:39 PM
Hi all,

There seem to be two choices here:

1) Has Oleg deliberatly 'porked' the P-51?

2) Or has Oleg represented the P-51 accurately?

And if Oleg has 'porked' the P-51, why?

The USA game market is perhaps the biggest in the world. Think about it.

IMO, the P-51 was best at high altitude long range escort. No other allied plane came close to that requirement.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

KrashanTopolova
06-29-2008, 06:28 PM
try the P-40 for an aircraft hard to fly close to RL in the game.

the following is RL from RAF 112 Sqn, Rieti Italy 1944 (Australian pilot Flt Sgt B H Peters):

'...Visibility was poor due to haze, and our top cover of six kittyhawks was 'Blue Section' which stayed up at 9000ft...I now became leader of the flight and climbed into the sun and engaged several FW190's out of a total of 15 plus...While we could out-turn the FW190's, they could outclimb us and were also much faster, being powered by engines ranging from a least 1700hp to more than 2200hp...I used the good old technique of climbing into the sun and then attacking out of the sun...I hit several FW190's from 20 degrees to dead astern at very close range [in the melee]...we lost two Kittyhawks destroyed and several damaged while the Germans lost five FW190's (confirmed by historical records) and several damaged in the air...' (from: The RAAF At War - Jim Turner, Kangaroo Press)

Bobby Gibbes RAAF: '...the P-40 could out-roll the Spitfire (contradicting the game in View Objects)...if flown properly it could out-turn the Spitfire...'

The P-40 in the Pacific was competitive with the Zero in a turn (not bad since the Zero's secret in turning was in its wingtips which were twisted (up at the rear and down at the front I think).

Also contradictory in the game is that the Australian/US P-40 in the Pacific was said to cruise at 220 KIAS and was good for 350 KIAS. Now the game gets nowhere near this and the above info could be wrong...but it could also be right since the Americans used a very high octane fuel to boost performance.

The P-51's major advantages in the European Theatre were its turning circle, ROC, range and its superior high operational altitude. It may feel like a dog of an aircraft in some situations but that's true for all aircraft and if the P-40 can be brilliant against the FW190 it could also be brilliant in comparison with the P-51.

Time spent in exploring the flight instruments on the ground and in the air is time well spent in attaining the ability to fly a certain aircraft because while the game probably gets most things right with a small to medium error it appears to me to not model such things as high octane fuel, differential performance between low, medium and high altitude (except for engine management at medium and high altitude) with any clear effect.

chunkydora
06-29-2008, 08:19 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

good going uh...

what's what name?

Ronbo3
06-30-2008, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Seven of the top ten U.S. aces in Europe flew 47's, including the two highest scorers. (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, its 6 of 10 flew P47s, Gentile got most of his in P51. the site is wrong in showing that.

Brain32
06-30-2008, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">utgun even the latest models of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Haha, what a BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you draw your conclusion from your vast experience in WW2 flying the real thing?

No.

I thought not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have about 8 years expirience in PC service and maintnance and also made a ton of benchmarking, so if I say that PIII Copermine 800MHz beats any Core2Duo CPU in multitasking then it must be true right?

Bremspropeller
06-30-2008, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was certainly no worse than your lame attempt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No attempt hidden there.

Just plain common sense. Your lack thereof is not my fault at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Osprey_334th
06-30-2008, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ronbo3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Seven of the top ten U.S. aces in Europe flew 47's, including the two highest scorers. (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, its 6 of 10 flew P47s, Gentile got most of his in P51. the site is wrong in showing that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, it was Gentile that pressed the USAAF the hardest to get rid of the 47 in favour of the 51. The article also doesn't state which were air to air kills either - 4th FG destroyed more enemy than any other group, yes - that's more than Zemke's 56th, but the 4th hit less in the air and caught more on the ground to make those numbers.

idonno
06-30-2008, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Osprey_334th:
The article also doesn't state which were air to air kills either - 4th FG destroyed more enemy than any other group, yes - that's more than Zemke's 56th, but the 4th hit less in the air and caught more on the ground to make those numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what your point is. The first statement seems to imply that the 51's may have had more air to air victories, but then you point out that they didn't. Did you get that last part of your post backwards, or am I just misunderstanding you?

HayateAce
06-30-2008, 02:35 PM
I love when everyone talks about my favorite war winning birds. Every other plane is a wannabe.

http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

http://mysite.verizon.net/sannabill/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tom.07.p47.1.jpg

http://ar.geocities.com/machtress/p40_warhawk.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/P-51_Mustang_edit1.jpg/800px-P-51_Mustang_edit1.jpg

Aaron_GT
06-30-2008, 03:17 PM
I am confused by this topic. In the game the P-51 is a joy to fly and provided you keep speed up and don't yank the stick around it virtually flies itself. Takeoff is also a lot easier than pilot reports - hard to ground loop, mild swing, etc.

Certainly in various other sims it's much more of a handful (e.g. takeoff in X-Plane where it also needs a lot more trimming) or the nasty accelerated stall in EAW at 20,000 ft.

idonno
06-30-2008, 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 Aaron_GT:
... hard to ground loop... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ground handling of the tail dragger's in this sim is very much overly simplified. When I bought my Cessna 140, the insurance company required me to get not less than ten hours of instruction for my tail wheel endorsement. That's ten hours of almost nothing but touch and go's. On one landing, after all three wheels were down and the airplane was tracking straight down the runway, I looked down for one second to push the carb heat knob in, and when I looked up the airplane was headed for the right side of the runway. A tail wheel airplane can get away from you in an instant if you don't stay on top (or even ahead) of it.

I do find take off's easier in real life though. That dang delay between input and control surface deflection in-game is a real pain.