PDA

View Full Version : Why do folks not like the P-51?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Ernst_Rohr
08-03-2006, 01:10 PM
I got the chance to run a P-51 for a change last night and I was surprised on a couple of things with the 51. I usually fly 38's in the PTO, so the 51 was new to me, along with the occassional 47.

1st off, despite getting shot down on the 1st pass (damn 190s!), when I got back up, the 51 cleaned up!

I KNOW I bagged one 109 due to engine heat! I ran that 51 hell bent for leather at 92%+ the entire time and only had the overheat message come up once. I never came down below 90% in the 51 and it was never an issue, and that sucker is FAST and accellerates quickly!

I was having no problems catching up to the blue flyers, even in a climb (no 109K4's on this map). And despite the complaining, six .50's seem to do quite well even against the 190's.

End result;
1st Map= 5 kills for 1 loss
2nd Map= 2 kills, 2 RTB for no loss
3rd Map= 3 kills for 1 loss
4th Map= 2 kills, 1 RTB for 1 damaged and RTB

And I thought the 51 kinda sucked from all the comments here?!? What gives? I am NOT that good of a pilot!

NOTE: this was a mix of human and AI opponents.

To be fair, there were some things about the 51 I did notice that I did NOT like;
#1- VERY sensitive to heavy stick in a turn! Pull too hard and the &^%&@ plane IMMEDIATELY stalled.
#2- Flimsy! 1st pass on 1st run up, I lost a wing to a 20mm hit from a 190. One or two hits from just about anything had the 51 flopping around like a gutted fish.
#3- Not much of a diver. Had on REALLY good 190 Experte who kept getting away with a dive/barrel roll combo. 51 couldnt keep up with him at all. Lost a couple of kills to 47's that way.
#4- abolutely a totally sorry pig a slow speeds. Low and slow in a turn= stall and die in a 51!

I am used to flying Russian/German/Japanese birds, with the odd P-39/38/47 thrown in, so I was kind of surprised by the 51. Its the first time I have really flown the AC (never have been a fan of the 51) and I dont understand why it gets badmouthed here, seems to be a pretty good AC.

Can anyone explain why folks here dont like it?

Ernst_Rohr
08-03-2006, 01:10 PM
I got the chance to run a P-51 for a change last night and I was surprised on a couple of things with the 51. I usually fly 38's in the PTO, so the 51 was new to me, along with the occassional 47.

1st off, despite getting shot down on the 1st pass (damn 190s!), when I got back up, the 51 cleaned up!

I KNOW I bagged one 109 due to engine heat! I ran that 51 hell bent for leather at 92%+ the entire time and only had the overheat message come up once. I never came down below 90% in the 51 and it was never an issue, and that sucker is FAST and accellerates quickly!

I was having no problems catching up to the blue flyers, even in a climb (no 109K4's on this map). And despite the complaining, six .50's seem to do quite well even against the 190's.

End result;
1st Map= 5 kills for 1 loss
2nd Map= 2 kills, 2 RTB for no loss
3rd Map= 3 kills for 1 loss
4th Map= 2 kills, 1 RTB for 1 damaged and RTB

And I thought the 51 kinda sucked from all the comments here?!? What gives? I am NOT that good of a pilot!

NOTE: this was a mix of human and AI opponents.

To be fair, there were some things about the 51 I did notice that I did NOT like;
#1- VERY sensitive to heavy stick in a turn! Pull too hard and the &^%&@ plane IMMEDIATELY stalled.
#2- Flimsy! 1st pass on 1st run up, I lost a wing to a 20mm hit from a 190. One or two hits from just about anything had the 51 flopping around like a gutted fish.
#3- Not much of a diver. Had on REALLY good 190 Experte who kept getting away with a dive/barrel roll combo. 51 couldnt keep up with him at all. Lost a couple of kills to 47's that way.
#4- abolutely a totally sorry pig a slow speeds. Low and slow in a turn= stall and die in a 51!

I am used to flying Russian/German/Japanese birds, with the odd P-39/38/47 thrown in, so I was kind of surprised by the 51. Its the first time I have really flown the AC (never have been a fan of the 51) and I dont understand why it gets badmouthed here, seems to be a pretty good AC.

Can anyone explain why folks here dont like it?

F6_Ace
08-03-2006, 01:22 PM
I normally fly the 190 but I always do well in the P-51. You can quite easily put the enemy out of the fight with a well placed burst + you have a speed advantage over 109s (well, none have ever caught me after bnz'ing them) or a climb advantage over 190s.

If you fly it like a 190, staying fast and avoiding getting sucked into dogfights, it's a relatively easy ride. Especially compared to the P47.

GH_Klingstroem
08-03-2006, 01:23 PM
she is a great plane if flown like she should! no sustained turns for example! She actually dives very very well if you keep the ball in the middle and coarsen your prop pitch and the speed comes up! Do that and you will see a truly amazing energy fighter!!! The P51 was somewhat famous for "biting back" when treated too rough! Dont pull to hard! I have read many reports where the P51 will snap stall if you pull too hard too quickly!! But I agree!! she is one hell of a nice plane if you fly her like she likes to be flown!
Most pilots in here dont have the patience to stay high and attack on their own terms. They simply end up in low and slow sustained turns where they will get shot down vs Spits for example...
Anyway, glad you noticed that she is a nice bird!!!
Only thing I dont like is the lack of visible tracers...
cheers

RCAF_Irish_403
08-03-2006, 01:23 PM
It's the "D" model thats off...i have plenty of love for the rest.

It accelerates too slowly and is twitchy/prone to stalls

JtD
08-03-2006, 01:24 PM
Because people prefer easy rides and whining over smart fighting with the means given.

Haigotron
08-03-2006, 01:29 PM
Animal rights activists complained that shooting down a mustang is animal cruelty...i dont give a damn

seriously though, I prefer the the 190, but if i fly the stang in the same way, it handles pretty well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Crash_Moses
08-03-2006, 01:34 PM
Because it's not an SBD! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Howdy, Ernst! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ColoradoBBQ
08-03-2006, 01:39 PM
Usually its somebody posting a report that a P-51 could out-turn or out-climbing a Bf-109 and whining about the porked model with others jumping on the bandwagon. Its one of the best planes in the game which when I fly it, I only fear the Fw-190 D9, Ta-152, Yak 3P and the La-7. Any other plane is just a target.

Ernst_Rohr
08-03-2006, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Because it's not an SBD! Big Grin

Howdy, Ernst! Smile </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Hey Crash! Thanks for reminding me, I need to take my Ki-84 out for a spin again and SBD hunting again! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-03-2006, 01:42 PM
I must agree with you. The in-game Mustangs have some very nice redeeming qualities. Perception is one of its biggest enemies. Let's face it, while we can jokingly say "Teh P-51 won teh war!", there are many who really believe it. They also believe it to be a world-beater in every regard...which it aint.

1. The pony is fast as feck and in a mid to high altitude DF it is a strong performer, especially if you are good at retaining your energy. But as you stated, get low and slow and you're done.

2. The M2 .50's aren't the worst, but using them effectively is nothing like using the Mk108 nukes. A good concentration at convergence is key to their effectiveness. Sure I still get the occassional golden BB, PK or smoked engine, but those are more the exception and NOT the rule. One-pass kills are rare.

3. The DM may be accurate, or it may not. The reality is, you want to fly it like a Zero...don't get hit. While you won't catch fire, lose a wing or spontaneously explode, you'll have your hands full simply trying to get accross the fence much less land it.

4. It looks cool...(well, it does)

I fly them sporadically, but if given the choice between a P-51D20 or a P-47D(1944), I'll take the jug most of the time.


TB

Ernst_Rohr
08-03-2006, 01:46 PM
Acutally, I found that I fly the 51 pretty similar to the way I fly the Ki-84;

#1- Go like hell!

#2- Get high!

#3- Spot the enemy, boom the enemy!

#4- Run away like a scared little school girl!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I find that I am more of a B&Z flyer outside of the A6M and Ki-43, compared to them, NOTHING else is a turn fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
08-03-2006, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
if given the choice between a P-51D20 or a P-47D(1944), I'll take the jug most of the time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

HellToupee
08-03-2006, 01:57 PM
the guns, dosnt matter how well it flys if it cant consistanty kill or cripple in one pass its not going to be popular.

Targ
08-03-2006, 02:23 PM
The main reason people complain about the performance of any plane is mostly ignored.
It's the pilot, plain and simple. EGO is the main reason for perceived poor flight models. Get shot down often and you will look almost any ware for a reason other than in the mirror.
Let€s be honest and just admit that many of the constant plane whiners are poor sports who refuse to own the problem.
You want to be an ace? You need to spend a few hours a night every night online just to be good and few possess the analytical skills needed to assess the enemy and yourself.
So much simpler to say the FM is messed up or the other guy cheated.

Xiolablu3
08-03-2006, 02:34 PM
I think Thunderbolts and Targs posts sum it up perfectly.


Its not easy to fly, but once you learn the basics of energy fighting, she is a sweet bird.

The nasty stall can surprise you, but you learn not to yank and bank too hard.

People dont like it because it is not a pure close in dogfighter like the Spitfire.

You need to use your brains and fly the P51 as if your life depended on it, not yank and bank as in a computer game.
Then you discover she is a nice fast plane if you treat her right. I fly her the same way I fly a FW190A, hardly any turning, keeping very fast. (Thats what she was built for after all) That way you stay pretty untouchable.

Wasnt it Bud Anderson or some other top US pilot who said something like 'I didnt dogfight/turnfight much, why take the risk?'?

MrMojok
08-03-2006, 02:39 PM
Hartmann said that. I seem to remember Anderson saying that he would turnfight against 109s or 190s, made no difference to him.

Xiolablu3
08-03-2006, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Hartmann said that. I seem to remember Anderson saying that he would turnfight against 109s or 190s, made no difference to him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I thought it was a P51 pilot.

Thx for correcting.

Ernst_Rohr
08-03-2006, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The main reason people complain about the performance of any plane is mostly ignored.
It's the pilot, plain and simple. EGO is the main reason for perceived poor flight models. Get shot down often and you will look almost any ware for a reason other than in the mirror.
Let€s be honest and just admit that many of the constant plane whiners are poor sports who refuse to own the problem.
You want to be an ace? You need to spend a few hours a night every night online just to be good and few possess the analytical skills needed to assess the enemy and yourself.
So much simpler to say the FM is messed up or the other guy cheated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Probably a lot of truth to that Targ.

My take on that was always "How the hell did the DO that?!?!?" Then I go and figure out how he did! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have flown against folks who have given me TOUGH fights even when I am flying a plane that should have completely outclassed what they are flying. I dont get mad, I want to know what they did, so I can add that to my own skill set! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
08-03-2006, 03:06 PM
There are guys at my gliding club who can take a thermal in the DG505 and attain almost twice the rate of climb I can manage. They can do this because, due to experience, or talent or whatever they are better than me. Simple as that. The thing is, it's real, so I can't complain that the FM is wrong or that cheating was involved. All I can do is try to improve.

So, put Bud Anderson in a P-51 and I'm sure he'd out turn Bf-109s left right and centre. But the chances are that if you put him in a Bf-109 he'd out turn P-51s with equal ease.

The trouble is that most pilots, online or IRL aren't Bud Anderson. But the online pilot is often very disinclined to admit it, and it's easier to complain than to improve.

In the right hands, the Mustang III is one of the best piston engined fighter in this game, but for some reason it's nothing like as popular as the Dora. Since I'm a 190 pilot, I'm rather glad about this!

VW-IceFire
08-03-2006, 03:12 PM
The P-51 is a tricky one to fly...in 4.04 its crippled with a horrible stall...in 4.05 its back to normal again and quite flyable. I got nailed a few times last night but I did alright and I was starting to feel the plane again.

You need alot of practice to feel the Mustang's quirks and get around them. I believe it has problems but its not more crippled than anything else.

F6_Ace
08-03-2006, 03:12 PM
Isn't it odd that people say they fare better flying a plane 'like they fly the FW190'? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cajun76
08-03-2006, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
if given the choice between a P-51D20 or a P-47D(1944), I'll take the jug most of the time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

but change the "most" to "99.9%" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MrMojok
08-03-2006, 03:28 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 MrMojok:
Hartmann said that. I seem to remember Anderson saying that he would turnfight against 109s or 190s, made no difference to him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I thought it was a P51 pilot.

Thx for correcting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xio--- A p51 driver may well have said so... I am not sure. I just remember that being one of Hartmann's more famous quotes.

Edit: I'd like to add that what I said about Anderson was not meant to start another 'P51 is porked' debate. I agree with what someone said above that Anderson and others may well have turnfought against Germans in 1944 in it. THat doesn't mean we can.

Targ
08-03-2006, 03:38 PM
Personally I take the game as is and not worry about the FM's much.
I accept that Maddox games has decided to the best of there abilty that what we get is what we get in this computer game.
I do this to have fun and often do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I mostly turn and burn low and slow so I find it difficult to complain about anything in the game other than myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

slipBall
08-03-2006, 04:01 PM
Fun, is what its all about, I agree

Lordbutter4
08-03-2006, 04:04 PM
Its the online mentallity that has alot to do with why people dont like the 51. The majority of red pilots are just spit jocks who jump in and ram rod to the furball. Most american planes take patience to fly. Which is exactly why blue Fw pilots can usually adjust to flying them quite easily (aside from the armaments).

If you do use them consistantly you will start to notice that on most online servers (expecially late war) the germans advantages are nill against american planes. Sure a FW can always dive/extend from a spit, but its not as easy against a 51/47. They usually have to commit some energy to escape, or rely on a wing man. And if you are willing or able to bleed energy you can keep that FW in your sights with ease.

Another reason I think is the 50's. They take time to learn. You cant pop off a quick burst to kill, you have to let them have it for a second. This is why most blue players have troubles with american stuff. In a FW you have that 4 X 20mm so u dont have to be as dedicated or accurate.

Kocur_
08-03-2006, 04:06 PM
Las, Yaks, Spitfires, Ki-84 dedicated flyers dont like P-51 for reasons too obvious to mention. Players, who like/can E-fight will find P-51 an exellent weapon! The only problem will be differece in armament as 2 x MG-151/20, not to mention four of them are far more than .50s (as should be) not to mention that 8&gt;4 and 6.
Fw-190 and P-47D10/22 pilots, who would like to take a brake from their favourite rides, should try P-51 B/C - they will find themselves feeling like at home, i.e. with porked gunsight view http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
Btw.: guys from Mustangsmustangs forum have nothing (http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=766&sid=3ba8428e4c82eda7c86976ca6e796417) on N-9 gunsight in P-51B/C. Funny, huh?
Apart from above my problem with P-51 is bogus overheat, as material from Spitfireperormance indicates, that they could CLIMB to the absolute ceiling with rads in auto mode, where they were in partially opened position, yet all temperatures were normal all the way.
The other thing is probably realistic modelling of in-line engine vulnerability. The problem is, that in my experience other planes have that non-realistic, i.e. their in-line engines, especially their Merlins are way tougher than V-1650.

Bearcat99
08-03-2006, 04:23 PM
I fly it all the time... and it is a lot better in 4.05 than in 4.04 for sure.... It could handle better down low... and I think if the whiole fuel tank issue was resolved that might change.... as far as the stalling goes.... but it is what it is.. and I'm a Mustang lover so Ill fly it regardless.

MrMojok
08-03-2006, 04:26 PM
Same goes for me, Bearcat.

I recently installed 4.05 but believe it or not, have not flown the Mustang yet with it. I am too busy flying planes in BirdBrain's ElAlamein campaign.

How is it better in 4.05?

GR142-Pipper
08-03-2006, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Las, Yaks, Spitfires, Ki-84 dedicated flyers dont like P-51 for reasons too obvious to mention. Players, who like/can E-fight will find P-51 an exellent weapon!.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I both like to and can e-fight just fine and find the P-51 a hopeless pig. Others who are skilled do too. Why do you think so few fly it? That no one likes to or is able to e-fight? People don't fly it for a very valid reason: it's weak.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

GBrutus
08-03-2006, 05:51 PM
Good grief, here we go again. "Fly it like a Fw190", "blue players are Gods in it..." and so on and so forth. The fact remains that while the "experten" constantly tell red pilots to fly Mustangs the P-47 is a far superior ride in this sim. Yes, it is possible to survive very nicely in the P-51 but most people don't want to hang about at 7k for hours spotting pixels. Sorry but it's bollocks.

The reason why the Dora is more popular than the Mustang III is because the Dora has a couple of very handy 20mm's to compliment it's MG 131s. Even though the Dora is thought of as lightly armed compared to the Antons it still packs far more punch than any Mustang can. And yes, I know convergence and accuracy are vital, but you need to hose the enemy with those .50's while hoping they will be sporting and "hold still" long enough for you to inflict some damage.

The P-51 does climb ok and it does pick up speed reasonably when you push the nose down but that's about it. It should excell in high speed manoeuvres but it has a h3ll of alot of nasty quirks that just spoil it's handling. There are like a handful of P-51 virtual aces compared to those flying Fw190s. I agree that the 190 takes a certain amount of skill to be successful in but at least it has enough hitting power to count.

Sorry, drunk rant over. Carry on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brain32
08-03-2006, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I both like to and can e-fight just fine and find the P-51 a hopeless pig. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's contradictory http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You either don't really know what E-fighting is or you are totally hopeless with the P51.
P51 in the game has the best dive and zoom capatibilities of all prop planes. Nothing accelerates in a dive like a P51, not even the P47. It's turn abilities are completely sufficient against German planes, you can tnb with the FW's as much as you want and you can hang with a 109 for a big part of it's turn having a decent angle on it, but don't feckin stall fight with them because you will loose, get that? No won t3h war John Wayne moves, Rambo style, Texas ranger(C.Norris) etc.
Also what's with the wing braking routine, what are you guys, heavy weight lifting champions? I have all 100, on Saitek EVO with worn out pots and I don't break them but you do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif Easy with the elevator, and trim nose down, I use 9-12 clicks, some people even go to 14, it retains E better and reduces the chances of you hamfisting the poor thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Try it, you may like it.
What really sucks about the P51 is it's stability, is it a CoG issue? I don't know, but the darn thing is just a horrible weapons platform and I never saw that being mentioned as one of it's downsides and this would IMO be a huge improvement. I also think that is why people prefer the P47(Atleast that's my reason), because it's so much easier to hit with it, more stable that's all...

GBrutus
08-03-2006, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

What really sucks about the P51 is it's stability, is it a CoG issue? I don't know, but the darn thing is just a horrible weapons platform and I never saw that being mentioned as one of it's downsides and this would IMO be a huge improvement. I also think that is why people prefer the P47(Atleast that's my reason), because it's so much easier to hit with it, more stable that's all... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's exactly what I was trying to get across with my Jack D fuelled rant. The P-51 is just so unforgiving it's unreal. Even if you b@lls up a bounce in a P-47 you have more options open to you. Flying a sortie in a P-51 is comparable to the concentration required to land a space shuttle with an equally comparable margin of error. No, it wasn't a turn fighter but that shouldn't be an issue against late war Luftwaffe aircraft anyway. I've backed off my joystick inputs to about 75% deflection (in pitch at least) and this goes some way to adding stability. Not an ideal solution though.

zero85ZEN
08-03-2006, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Isn't it odd that people say they fare better flying a plane 'like they fly the FW190'? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason for this, I think, is that to fly the 190 well you have to learn BnZ tactics and E retention. And once you learn sound tactics in one bird you can apply them well to any other. I've focused on flying 190's for the past 5 months and my skills have improved markedly as far as situational awareness, gaining altitute advantage and using it, trimming for maximum performance and etc.... In the Anton's in particular you practically HAVE to fly BnZ tactics and Energy fight just to stay alive online. Learning how to fly 190's has made me a much better pilot in all the planes. Of course sometimes, on my off nights especially, I'm still just meat on the table.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I'm just not good enough a marksmen (or pilot, I suppose) to have much luck with the Mustang's .50's. I do appreciate the firepower of the LW planes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Bearcat99
08-03-2006, 08:01 PM
It still kills me that for whatever reason.. when it comes to the guns and hitting what you aim at.. I do a lot better in the P-40.... I still dont get it.

Viper2005_
08-03-2006, 08:21 PM
As a blue pilot, I tell red pilots to fly the Mustang III for the following reasons:

i) It can carry double the bomb load of my Fw190A9

ii) It can run faster than my A9

iii) It can out turn my A9

It is therefore an extremely effective ground attack aeroplane. Ground attack wins maps. But it can also outrun and out turn the Anton. In fact, its turn capability is such that it can give the 109 a run for its money. If you are a good shot with the .50s, the Mustang III is a deadly machine.

Pirschjaeger
08-03-2006, 08:41 PM
TBH, I was pretty excited to hear we were getting the P-51. The forum was full of threads praising the P-51 long before we even got it. I always found it was a nice looking plane.

However, after all the hype, once we got it I was really disappointed, and not just because my razor sounds more gutsy. It didn't fly and all the faithfully blind had claimed. To add, the guns were messed up and all the noobs were spraying and praying. The Oleg good was answering all their prayers. I didn't fly it much. Instead, it became my favorite target due to it's first damage model which was really unbalanced. The air turbulance of a close pass from a 108 could take out the engine. But hit the P-51 with the 108 and there was little effect.

But, after reading a few honest posts in this thread, I feel like flying the P-51 again and getting used to it.

Fritz

fordfan25
08-03-2006, 08:42 PM
problem i have with the 51 is that its not as stable as i would think a plane that heavy and areo dynamic should be. also like most heavy us fighters it dive excellaration rate when compaired to even a spit is FUBAR. critcle speed is fine its just sad how easy a spit or 109 ect can keep up with me even in high alt steep dives. same with p47 and hellcat. dive advantge is just not there from my exp. also I have turned to the FW as my main ride. I find it in this sim to be a better all around fighter than the 51 and 47 at all but the highst alt. used to it handled like a pig but in 4.04 i find it equal to the 51 and 47 in knife fights and a match for all but the most effeciant 38 piolets. i love it i can even leed my targets at high deflection better long as im in WW veiw lol. its guns are the bomb

BfHeFwMe
08-03-2006, 10:48 PM
Yeah, leave it as it is, all those blue players can enjoy it so. Meanwhile Reds are flying Spitfires gobbling up their behinds, and they can't figure out why. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Let em whine about that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

geetarman
08-03-2006, 11:49 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 MrMojok:
Hartmann said that. I seem to remember Anderson saying that he would turnfight against 109s or 190s, made no difference to him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I thought it was a P51 pilot.

Thx for correcting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct Xio. It was John C. Meyer, the 4th leading scorer in the West for the Americans.

Targ
08-04-2006, 12:29 AM
This thread got me to dig out VIII fighter command book, It was book with short blurbs from Aces with tips and tricks to new pilots.
One was done for the Pacific and one for the West.

"Capt D W Beeson
334th FS/4th FG
It's sort of like sneaking up behind and hitting him with a baseball bat. When this is done, a pilot will have to be careful not to ram the other aircraft on the breakaway. As he overshoots and pulls up sharply above the Hun, he can take a quick look around to clear his tail, and then concentrate on his hun again, making as many passes and overshoots as necessary to finish him off.
Whats interesting is that Preddy says the P-51 and 109 are on par regarding dive and low alt speed.
But that the P-51 can outurn the 109 at aANY ALT UP TO 25,000 FT.
He also notes that it is difficult to out turn the 190.
What is clear is that all of the aces used the bounce and altitude and tried very hard to maintain the advantage.
Who ever lost the advantage first suffered.

HellToupee
08-04-2006, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
As a blue pilot, I tell red pilots to fly the Mustang III for the following reasons:

i) It can carry double the bomb load of my Fw190A9
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

both bombs drop at the same time thus the majority of the time 2 bombs = effect of one much like 3 1000lbs in b25 practically same effect as single 1000lbs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
ii) It can run faster than my A9
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes but then on the downside on most planesets its up against much faster planes than the anton is only really the tempest other than the mkIII can run down the a9.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
iii) It can out turn my A9

It is therefore an extremely effective ground attack aeroplane. Ground attack wins maps. But it can also outrun and out turn the Anton. In fact, its turn capability is such that it can give the 109 a run for its money. If you are a good shot with the .50s, the Mustang III is a deadly machine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its turn capability is very close to the d9, ive never had trouble outturing a mkIII wuth a d9 but also can outloop a d9 with a mkiii, vs 109 its only going to give it a run for its money if speed is kept fast, in which case a tempest or a 47, hell everything bar the p38 will give it a run.

it lacks the ability to strafe targets, its an ok tip and run plane but if u want to hang around and annihilate soft targets well ur outa luck.

As an e fighter its good dive and zoom traits are nullified by its firepower if it takes u 2 passes in a 51 and 1 in a spitfire ur better off e fighting in the spit hell its climb rate makes up for any dive and zoom avantages of the 51. With the dammage models the way they are 190s can absorb even 50 hispano rounds.

IMO the 51 is not a bad plane to fly its elevator is super senstive which does give it a very unstable feeling coupled with the yawing left and right when pitching up and down its got a fantastic cogpit view in the D model and very easy to manage overheat much like d9 and its got good speed, accelerate and climb bit low but it seems to hold speed well, just ild throw away all 6 of those guns for a single cannon its my main hate i like flying it i just hate fighting with it unless its pacfic theater vs zeros 5 kill sorties in a 4 gun b/c is quite easy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F6_Ace
08-04-2006, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zero85ZEN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Isn't it odd that people say they fare better flying a plane 'like they fly the FW190'? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason for this, I think, is that to fly the 190 well you have to learn BnZ tactics and E retention. And once you learn sound tactics in one bird you can apply them well to any other. I've focused on flying 190's for the past 5 months and my skills have improved markedly as far as situational awareness, gaining altitute advantage and using it, trimming for maximum performance and etc.... In the Anton's in particular you practically HAVE to fly BnZ tactics and Energy fight just to stay alive online. Learning how to fly 190's has made me a much better pilot in all the planes. Of course sometimes, on my off nights especially, I'm still just meat on the table.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I'm just not good enough a marksmen (or pilot, I suppose) to have much luck with the Mustang's .50's. I do appreciate the firepower of the LW planes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Preciseamundo. Although you did miss out the FW190 "experten's" other secret weapon - risk assessment; rather than wading in and hoping for the best, he assumes the worst and makes plans accordingly.

Fly any plane like you are really in it and you'll automatically fare better. Gaming the game then getting out-gamed but then whining about historical accuracy is daft.

Brain32
08-04-2006, 06:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> With the dammage models the way they are 190s can absorb even 50 hispano rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG ROTFL, yes, yes, it takes 5.000.000.000 rounds of 400mm cannons from battle ship to slightly damage FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

BTW Mustang3 outturns a dora hands down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-04-2006, 06:31 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 still kills me that for whatever reason.. when it comes to the guns and hitting what you aim at.. I do a lot better in the P-40.... I still dont get it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


BINGO! The P-40's guns (and the F4F's for that matter) seem to hit much harder than the pony's. I don't know but it could be the DM of the prospective opponents. Obviously (in historical planesets) the P-40's and F4F's will typically be taking on some earlier-war opponents...not the Doras and A-9's that seem to be the preferred rides later on.

I do better against the 109 G2's in a Wildcat than I do in a Mustang and the P-40 seems to be a bit tougher than the Mustang.


TB

Brain32
08-04-2006, 06:39 AM
I think it's stability again, P40 is IMO also much stable than P51, I mean which plane isn't? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JtD
08-04-2006, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> With the dammage models the way they are 190s can absorb even 50 hispano rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG ROTFL, yes, yes, it takes 5.000.000.000 rounds of 400mm cannons from battle ship to slightly damage FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a matter of fact it can survive 50 hispano rounds. It is just not likely.

carguy_
08-04-2006, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Targ:
As he overshoots and pulls up sharply above the Hun, he can take a quick look around to clear his tail, and then concentrate on his hun again, making as many passes and overshoots as necessary to finish him off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Don`t think I should correct a real P51 pilot so I`ll just say how is it compared to IL2 online.
That is not a good tactic even in a 1v1.

1v1: pulling up sharply causes the P51 to lose as much E as in the FW190A.Do it two or three times and you find yourself in a similar energy state as the 109 you just jumped.Against 109 you have a chance,dive down and run away,against 190 you fall into the gunsite it`s all over.
Last time I witnessed this I downed three human P51,all attacked me with advantage and ended with slightly higher speed at overshot state.MK108 did the rest.

1v? : Pulling up sharply makes you a very easy prey for any 109 pilot that is there to help his mate.FYI 109/190 pilots cover their mates by keeping superior energy state above them and bounce anyone willing to take on the lone Luftwaffle.I myself do this.Often this is the only way to bang eastern T&Bers.Needless to say it`s far easier against B&Z planes.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
But that the P-51 can outurn the 109 at aANY ALT UP TO 25,000 FT.
He also notes that it is difficult to out turn the 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS from game`s POV.Seems the guy should switch the 190 with 109 and 109 with 190.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
What is clear is that all of the aces used the bounce and altitude and tried very hard to maintain the advantage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bounce&altitude tactics executed as described above do opposite online ie. cause the advantage to disappear in few passes.

With a huge number superiority though,it`s more than legitimate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
08-04-2006, 07:01 AM
I think the critical thing here is a real pilot's interpretation of 'pulls up sharply' may be slighty different than ours.

carguy_
08-04-2006, 07:05 AM
PFFT stop thinking other ppl are idiots please.

The guy said pulling above the hun,that`s quite clear of a maneuver.

JtD
08-04-2006, 07:08 AM
I think Stathem is spot on.

Brain32
08-04-2006, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> With the dammage models the way they are 190s can absorb even 50 hispano rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG ROTFL, yes, yes, it takes 5.000.000.000 rounds of 400mm cannons from battle ship to slightly damage FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a matter of fact it can survive 50 hispano rounds. It is just not likely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once, and I repeat ONCE I needed to put 22 Hispano rounds into a FW190, and that was only because I was pissed at the guy and didn't even want to give him a chance to bail. Usually it takes just one good burst to completely remove it from fight, if it stays in one piece ofcourse.
50 rounds is just plain ridiculous, SFS extractor maybe?

Ernst_Rohr
08-04-2006, 07:35 AM
The 51 isnt an insta-kill bird, and I think that has a lot to do with it.

I have my convergence set to 400, since it takes a little longer to kill something with .50s. HOWEVER, a good long burst of six .50s will tear up a 109 right nicely!

I had a chance to fly it again last night, D-5 and D-20 varients. The acemaker sight is SICK! Dial in the wing dimensions and BANG! I lit up some poor guy in a 109 right at 400, good 2 second burst and he was smoking like a French nightclub! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I did however have a much harder time against blue this time through. We had a couple of GOOD Luft flyers, and in particular a pair that were flying 109/190 combo that was just flat annoying as hell to tackle. One brief opening, and I got zapped a couple of times by a snap shot, and in the 51, the glass jaw damage model is telling.

I still think the 51 is highly underrated. I would say it takes more of a Ki-84 mentality to fly it. Its fast, it B&Z's well, but its paper thin. I still think its accelleration and E retention are top notch, the airframe is just so slick, extending away from a fight is pretty easy, particuarly if you have a speed advantage.

One other thing I noticed is that you REALLY have to manage the rudder in the 51, although having the ball up on the sight helps immensely.

Im going to play with it more after my rudder pedals show up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

geetarman
08-04-2006, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
PFFT stop thinking other ppl are idiots please.

The guy said pulling above the hun,that`s quite clear of a maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think what you want - it seems clear he was referring to an enemy that was struck on the first pass.

Even in this sim, any 190,109 whatever, that gets hit with a solid burst of .50's is not going to be thinking too agressively at that moment and will go defensive. The attacking fighter regains alt and comes down again, and again. Note, the ace does mention that your tail must be cleared (obviously).

The tactic is valid, proven and was used throughout the war on all sides (and to this day). It's kind of elementary IMO.

JtD
08-04-2006, 07:42 AM
I jsut emptied all the P-39D's hispano ammo (60 shots) into one FW. Not a single miss. Result? Dead engine, nothing else. Sure that is no fighting condition, but that wasn't my point. The plane survived, and so did the pilot.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/60hits.jpg

Xiolablu3
08-04-2006, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zero85ZEN:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Isn't it odd that people say they fare better flying a plane 'like they fly the FW190'? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason for this, I think, is that to fly the 190 well you have to learn BnZ tactics and E retention. And once you learn sound tactics in one bird you can apply them well to any other. I've focused on flying 190's for the past 5 months and my skills have improved markedly as far as situational awareness, gaining altitute advantage and using it, trimming for maximum performance and etc.... In the Anton's in particular you practically HAVE to fly BnZ tactics and Energy fight just to stay alive online. Learning how to fly 190's has made me a much better pilot in all the planes. Of course sometimes, on my off nights especially, I'm still just meat on the table.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I'm just not good enough a marksmen (or pilot, I suppose) to have much luck with the Mustang's .50's. I do appreciate the firepower of the LW planes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOu should use the D20NA gunsight, mate.

Bind a key to 'Gyro Gunsight' in the P51D20NA and never have to worry about deflection again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was pulling off some great deflection shots last night, on the server I was on, I had to swap teams to blue because it was red 19, blue 9, there was ONE SPitfire MkIX and all the rest were P51's,P38's,P47's,A20's.

Spitfire will always be better for being a pure short range fighter, range doesnt matter online so thats one of th P51's advantages lost straight away.

Its no wonder people pick the SPit as a fighter over the P51 a lot of the time,


Mustang III (faster than the P51D) tests vs Spitfire by the RAF :-


Compressibility Speeds
12. Because the Mustang III increases speed so rapidly in the dive, it is not difficult to enter compressibility range at high altitudes (approaching the speed of sound). This can only be done in a dive. The maximum permissible airspeeds at various heights are: -


I.A.S HEIGHT
298mph at 35,000ft
336mph " 30,000ft
376mph " 25,000ft
422mph " 20,000ft
468mph " 15,000ft
520mph " 10,000ft
574mph " 5,000ft

13. The following is a summary of the R.A.E€s instructions (Report No. Aero.1906). Should the speeds at height be exceeded by any type of aircraft. In the dive, the nose may suddenly tend to drop. On no account must the trimming wheel be used to prevent it doing so, but only backward pressure on the stick. When the aircraft has reached a lower altitude where the speed of sound is greater, the aircraft will come out of the compressibility range and behave normally, being pulled out of the dive. Had the trimming wheel been used to prevent the nose dropping when in the compressibility range, there would have been a very sudden nose up tendency on coming out of the compressibility range. The result of such a sudden change of trim is liable to cause structural failure.


TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX

14. A very close comparison can be made because the engines are of very similar design and capacity. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Mustang III is a much cleaner aircraft, is slightly heavier, and has a higher wing loading than the Spitfire IX (43.8lbs. per sq.ft of the Mustang III. against 31 lbs. Per sq.ft)

Endurance
15. The Mustang III with maximum fuel load has between 1.5 and 1.75 the range of a Spitfire IX with maximum fuel load. The fuel and oil capacities are 154 gallons and 11.2 gallons respectively, as opposed to 85 gallons 7.5 gallons of the Spitfire IX, both without long-range tanks. With long range tanks, the Mustang can carry a total of 279 gallons of petrol ( 2 62.5 gall. long range tanks) as opposed to the Spitfire IX€s maximum of 177 gallons ( 1 90 gall. €œSlipper tank€).

16. The fuel consumption at similar boost and rev settings is approximately the same for the two aircraft, but the Mustang is approximately 20 mph faster in level flight. Therefore if the ranges are compared directly according to the fuel capacities of the two aircraft when the long-range tanks are fitted, the Mustang will still have something in hand.

Speeds
17. The official speed curves are not yet available. This units speeds runs have therefore not been confirmed. They show, however, that in general for the same engine settings the Mustang III is always 20-30mph faster in level flight at all heights. This is also true for the maximum engine setting of 3,000 rpm 76€hg(+18lbs) or what ever is available, depending on the height. The best performance heights are similar, being between 10,000ft and 15,000ft and between 25,000ft and 32,000ft.

Climbs
18. The Mustang III has a considerably lower rate of climb at full power at all heights. (In a formation take off, Spitfire IX maintains formation with 5lbs less boost). At other engine settings and 175mph the 2 aircraft have a similar climb. The Mustang has, however, a better zoom climb in that it can dive 5,000ft or more and regain its original altitude at a greater speed. It needs less increase of power to regain its previous altitude and speed.

Dives
19. The Mustang III pulls away very rapidly in a slight dive. At the same revs the Spitfire IX requires from 4 to 6lb more boost to remain in formation.

Turning Circle
20. The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle. There is adequate warning of the high-speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting.

Rate of Roll
21. Although the ailerons feel light, the Mustang III cannot roll as quickly as the Spitfire IX at normal speeds. The ailerons stiffen up only slightly at high speeds and the rates of roll become the same at about 400mph.

Search
22. The all-round view from the pilot€s cockpit is the same as the Mustang 1, therefore generally inferior to the Spitfire IX, but better forwards and downwards on either side of the fuselage. A sliding hood has been designed and is being fitted to service Mustangs. This makes its rear view at least equal to, if not better than the Spitfire IX.

Sighting View and Firepower
23. The aircraft is fitted with an American 70mph sight. A bracket for the G.M.2 sight has been designed and is fitted to most aircraft. If it is not fitted, a universal adaptor as shown at Appendix €œB€ (not included here) can be made and fitted by the squadron. Due to the fact that it is most unlikely that the aircraft will be used against ground targets, the highest possible setting for the guns and sights has been chosen to produce the maximum amount of sighting view over the nose. This gives a vertical view of 180mph cruising speed, increasing to an unrestricted view at approximately 45 deg to the vertical, with guns cocked from aircraft datum. This is considerably better than the Spitfire IX. The guns are cocked up about 2 deg above the aircrafts cruising line of flight. The fire-power consists of four .5 Browning€s in the wings. This is very little compared with the Spitfire.

Armour
24. Armour plating on the Mustang III is provided for the pilot by means of two plate located behind the pilots seat. One 5/16€œ thick extends from just below the bottom of the seat to a point just level with the pilots shoulders. The other 7/16€ thick is attached to the top of this plate and affords protection to the pilot€s head. Otherwise protection is provided by the € armour plate fire-wall, the engine, and the 1 € armour plate glass windshield. € armour plate is also located immediately forward of the coolant tank on the forward end of the engine. There is no armour plate on the fuel tanks, but the tanks themselves are self-sealing.


BRIEF TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE XIV
Maximum Endurance
25. By comparison the Spitfire XIV has no endurance.

Maximum speed
26. There is practically nothing to choose in maximum speed.

Maximum climb
27. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

Dive
28. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away; but less markedly.

Turning Circle
29. The Spitfire XIV is better.

Rate of Roll
30. Advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.

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

Crash_Moses
08-04-2006, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
I had a chance to fly it again last night, D-5 and D-20 varients. The acemaker sight is SICK! Dial in the wing dimensions and BANG! I lit up some poor guy in a 109 right at 400, good 2 second burst and he was smoking like a French nightclub! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

So THAT's where you've been!

HayateAce
08-04-2006, 08:32 AM
1-Too twitchy, fix the CoG

2-Install code for P40's guns

3-Off you go

Put the @#$*&%^#! plane back to where it was just prior to 4.0.

F6_Ace
08-04-2006, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I jsut emptied all the P-39D's hispano ammo (60 shots) into one FW. Not a single miss. Result? Dead engine, nothing else. Sure that is no fighting condition, but that wasn't my point. The plane survived, and so did the pilot.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/60hits.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you will find that was because the said FW190 has Russian markings (see the tail). Make it a proper Luftwaffe aircraft and the pilot would be dead following running over a pebble on that road he's taxiing along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
08-04-2006, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Mustang III (faster than the P51D) tests vs Spitfire by the RAF :-
(...)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slightly faster I'd say! The difference in favour of P-51B/C aka Mustang Mk.III in RAF, was made by bit more dragy bubble top fuselage, but later blocks of P-51Ds ('unpainted') received special factory finish on wings (putty applied by air brush, high polished and laquered - entire upper surface except for flaps and ailerons, lower with exception for tanks 'doors' and main gear doors - in result entitre surface of wings was perfectly smooth, no rivets visible). Also when wingracks were installed the differece in favour of B/Cs decreaced further (was any left?) because Ds had less draggy racks (4 mph vs. 12 mph loss at unspecified alt - http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51-tactical-chart.jpg in "remarks" of lower table).

But most importantly this was Mustang Mk.III at 'normal' 67''Hg or 18lbs boost - NOT at 80'' Hg/25lbs boost as our in-game "Mustang Mk.III" is. In another words both Spitfire and Mustang in the test had engines at the same setings.

This
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Speeds
17. The official speed curves are not yet available. This units speeds runs have therefore not been confirmed. They show, however, that in general for the same engine settings the Mustang III is always 20-30mph faster in level flight at all heights. This is also true for the maximum engine setting of 3,000 rpm 76€hg(+18lbs) or what ever is available, depending on the height. The best performance heights are similar, being between 10,000ft and 15,000ft and between 25,000ft and 32,000ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
is obviously a typo - digits of "67" are simply swapped.

Pirschjaeger
08-04-2006, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I think Stathem is spot on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too. I don't feel the G's much when I pull back on the joystick.

Fritz

Viper2005_
08-04-2006, 09:10 AM
I suspect that the Mustang III's guns are further apart than the guns on the Wildcat or the Warhawk. This would increases their sensitivity to convergence, and therefore make them appear less effective when used off convergence.

Helltoupee, the trick to using the Mustang's bombs effectively is to make a point of dropping across, rather than along a column. This means that the spread of the bombs will be put to good effect. Hanging around to hit soft targets is generally a bad career move, so this "feature" probably makes the Mustang more survivable. Personally I think that its greatest weakness is the lack of ammo counters, but then it shares this weakness with most allied aircraft...

As for the Bf-109 vs Fw-190 turning contest, at high speed I would imagine that it would be quite easy for a Mustang to out turn a Bf-109, and much harder for it to out turn an Fw-190; at low speed the Fw-190 would be easily out turned, whilst the Bf-109 would pose a much more serious problem.

Kocur_
08-04-2006, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
As for the Bf-109 vs Fw-190 turning contest, at high speed I would imagine that it would be quite easy for a Mustang to out turn a Bf-109, and much harder for it to out turn an Fw-190; at low speed the Fw-190 would be easily out turned, whilst the Bf-109 would pose a much more serious problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! Furthermore I belive that checking at what speed Bf-109 controls were already considerably heavier than P-51s and Fw-190's would be a good way of establishing at what speeds fights, where P-51 pilots held Fw-190s for MORE maouverable than Bf-109, were fought. Which btw. would be good tip for those, who dont like P-51s, why it is so...

Kurfurst__
08-04-2006, 09:24 AM
Just keep in mind that in the game the stickforces are modelled for only one hand - ie you can only apply half the strenght compared to real life, and this heavily penelizes for heavier controls.

IRL no pilot would hasitate to use his left hand on the stick when needed...

Pirschjaeger
08-04-2006, 09:32 AM
Just tried the P-51. Guess it takes getting used to. Still not interested.

Then I tried the Tempest. What was all the fuss about? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Viper2005_
08-04-2006, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Just keep in mind that in the game the stickforces are modelled for only one hand - ie you can only apply half the strenght compared to real life, and this heavily penelizes for heavier controls.

IRL no pilot would hasitate to use his left hand on the stick when needed... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're pulling lots of g, it's not quite so easy as you might think to move your hand from throttle to stick.

If you know that you're about to need both hands on the stick ahead of time it's a different matter...

I would also point out that accurate flying can become somewhat more difficult if you're attacking the problem with both hands, which means that it's probably only useful defensively.

HellToupee
08-04-2006, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> With the dammage models the way they are 190s can absorb even 50 hispano rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG ROTFL, yes, yes, it takes 5.000.000.000 rounds of 400mm cannons from battle ship to slightly damage FW190. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a matter of fact it can survive 50 hispano rounds. It is just not likely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once, and I repeat ONCE I needed to put 22 Hispano rounds into a FW190, and that was only because I was pissed at the guy and didn't even want to give him a chance to bail. Usually it takes just one good burst to completely remove it from fight, if it stays in one piece ofcourse.
50 rounds is just plain ridiculous, SFS extractor maybe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

50 rounds is not rediculous ive put around that many times ususally from dead six and they remained flyable, with .50s many times i have required more than 100 hits to nock them out of the fight, including a case bit like jtds test from the rear turret of a b25 120 hits into the engine and nothing.

HayateAce
08-04-2006, 01:43 PM
Long time problem with the VulcherBird Run-Ninety. DM is too tough, and of course the .50cals are underdone in Oleg world.....except for the Russian variant P40.

Go figure.

Brain32
08-04-2006, 01:55 PM
Why is this bullsh1t? Well look at it this way, Tempest has 800 shells full ammo load, providing you have a gunstat of 10% which is quite remarkable, you have 80 shells, so in your theory it is impossible to shoot down two FW190's with the Tempest while with the Spitfire it is impossible to shoot down even a single Fw190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
08-04-2006, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Long time problem with the VulcherBird Run-Ninety. DM is too tough, and of course the .50cals are underdone in Oleg world.....except for the Russian variant P40.

Go figure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 50 cals are most likely not underpowered.

Movie of 50 cals in action saved for the good quality, NOT for the spectacular explosions (which most clips are saved for).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4980033002660319852&q=p51+109

Effect very much like in game, no explosions, but fuel leaks and most likely controls hit/pilot wounded.

HellToupee
08-04-2006, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Why is this bullsh1t? Well look at it this way, Tempest has 800 shells full ammo load, providing you have a gunstat of 10% which is quite remarkable, you have 80 shells, so in your theory it is impossible to shoot down two FW190's with the Tempest while with the Spitfire it is impossible to shoot down even a single Fw190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no its why people take tempest so shooters with their 10 % accuracy atleast have a chance of downing a 190 :P

Its not downing them its that sometimes the amount of hits required with cannons suspends belief and this carries over to guys struggling with guns many many times less powerful.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Effect very much like in game, no explosions, but fuel leaks and most likely controls hit/pilot wounded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

vast majority of my kills with .50s vs 190s being control loss kills however it feels totally random much like pk, had cases like in ju88 control lost one hit or rear gunner killed single .50 hit yet had a mauling of 5 aircraft taking hundreds and hundreds of hits yet all crew alive and well and no controls lost. Consistant results are what most people want with their guns.

For fighters loaded with fuel and ammo things like fires and such seem very rare i belive in real life fire was one of the biggest results of downed planes, yet most of the planes rarely catch fire most will have 2 wings and their tail shot off sooner than catch fire.

Xiolablu3
08-04-2006, 11:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:


For fighters loaded with fuel and ammo things like fires and such seem very rare i belive in real life fire was one of the biggest results of downed planes, yet most of the planes rarely catch fire most will have 2 wings and their tail shot off sooner than catch fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Japanese plnes flame up with mg hits quite often, in guncam footage and in game.(sometimes one hit can flame an Oscar or Zero) I have yet to see a guncam clip where 50's set a German plane on fire tho, maybe you could show us one?

JtD
08-05-2006, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:

I think you will find that was because the said FW190 has Russian markings (see the tail). Make it a proper Luftwaffe aircraft and the pilot would be dead following running over a pebble on that road he's taxiing along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, ****. I didn't think the red star shielding would reach up to the engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
08-05-2006, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Why is this bullsh1t? Well look at it this way, Tempest has 800 shells full ammo load, providing you have a gunstat of 10% which is quite remarkable, you have 80 shells, so in your theory it is impossible to shoot down two FW190's with the Tempest while with the Spitfire it is impossible to shoot down even a single Fw190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The theory is "it can take as many" not "it will always take as many". In fact, I don't know any plane in the game I could not kill with a single hit from a small machine gun.

F6_Ace
08-05-2006, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:

I think you will find that was because the said FW190 has Russian markings (see the tail). Make it a proper Luftwaffe aircraft and the pilot would be dead following running over a pebble on that road he's taxiing along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, ****. I didn't think the red star shielding would reach up to the engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid it does. Oleg modelled this from the old C&C Red Alert game:

http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/63/others/ironcurtain.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is the infamous iron curtain. When it is charged, it will temporarily make 1 unit or structure invincible for about 20 seconds. It cannot be used on infantry though. It takes about 8 minutes to charge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so I'm making it up but it seemed feasible at the time(!)

GR142-Pipper
08-06-2006, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
[QUOTE] I both like to and can e-fight just fine and find the P-51 a hopeless pig. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's contradictory http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You either don't really know what E-fighting is or you are totally hopeless with the P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I'm pretty familiar with what e-fighting is about and I know that doing it in a P-51 in this game isn't a good idea.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P51 in the game has the best dive and zoom capatibilities of all prop planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You must be a blue flyer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing accelerates in a dive like a P51, not even the P47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, indeed. It gets left in the dust most of the time.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's turn abilities are completely sufficient against German planes, you can tnb with the FW's as much as you want and you can hang with a 109 for a big part of it's turn having a decent angle on it, but don't feckin stall fight with them because you will loose, get that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It can mix it reasonably with a 190 but not really with a 109 (unless the 109 driver is a complete grape, of course).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also what's with the wing braking routine, what are you guys, heavy weight lifting champions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Contrary to real life, it's just not that hard to do even with mild control input. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have all 100, on Saitek EVO with worn out pots and I don't break them but you do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, and relatively easily...not to mention it's fairly vicious stall/departure characteristics. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Easy with the elevator, and trim nose down, I use 9-12 clicks, some people even go to 14, it retains E better and reduces the chances of you hamfisting the poor thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Try it, you may like it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True...and this does help a little. However, I have a better solution. Lose the 51 and fly a Yak-3, an LA-5FN or a Spit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You'll be glad you did.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What really sucks about the P51 is it's stability, is it a CoG issue? I don't know, but the darn thing is just a horrible weapons platform and I never saw that being mentioned as one of it's downsides and this would IMO be a huge improvement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed. But first I'd rather have its wings stay on and its Ps characteristics done properly. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also think that is why people prefer the P47(Atleast that's my reason), because it's so much easier to hit with it, more stable that's all... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's true and the fact that it's wings stay on...and it's diving characteristics are significantly better than the P-51...and it accelerates better...and it has two more enemic 50's...and it doesn't depart at the drop of a hat...(But other than "that" Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?....LOL)

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-06-2006, 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 geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
PFFT stop thinking other ppl are idiots please.

The guy said pulling above the hun,that`s quite clear of a maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think what you want - it seems clear he was referring to an enemy that was struck on the first pass.

Even in this sim, any 190,109 whatever, that gets hit with a solid burst of .50's is not going to be thinking too agressively at that moment and will go defensive. The attacking fighter regains alt and comes down again, and again. Note, the ace does mention that your tail must be cleared (obviously).

The tactic is valid, proven and was used throughout the war on all sides (and to this day). It's kind of elementary IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, one of the MOST elementary. It's called a yo-yo.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
08-06-2006, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
]True...and this does help a little. However, I have a better solution. Lose the 51 and fly a Yak-3, an LA-5FN or a Spit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You'll be glad you did.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


BUt thats just history mate, the Spitfire could dogfight better, the P51 was a long range escort fighter.

To have anything else in the game would not be true to life.

You seem to be complaining about the P51's real life characteristics with this statement. The P51 is faster and better in a dive, the Spitfire can turn and roll and climb better. Its no surprise with these characteristics that the Spitfire is the better dogfighter.

Are you saying that the p51 should be able to dogfight like a Spitfire or a 109?

Brain32
08-06-2006, 06:16 AM
Piper I don't know what to say about wing brake, as it's individual, personally I have apsolutely no problems with it, but I admit I keep that fact in mind every time I fly P51 or a Tempest for that matter...
Regarding dive and zoom, I have results of actual v402 testing done by Robban75 on CWOS forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I hope he will not mind I post it here...
First, Dive and climb angle 30 degrees:
Alt -- A-5 - D-9 - La5 - La7 - P47 - P51 - VIII

3000 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 303
2500 - 495 - 502 - 500 - 502 - 506 - 508 - 501
2000 - 616 - 626 - 622 - 628 - 625 - 629 - 618
1500 - 703 - 718 - 710 - 719 - 712 - 720 - 699
Level- 723 - 742 - 727 - 732 - 736 - 743 - 716
1500 - 651 - 675 - 665 - 678 - 662 - 677 - 636
2000 - 541 - 575 - 560 - 577 - 557 - 577 - 525
2500 - 429 - 476 - 448 - 470 - 453 - 474 - 416
3000 - 305 - 375 - 328 - 357 - 353 - 372 - 316
3250 - 250 - 328 - 266 - 304 - 307 - 319 - 276
3500 - N/A - 289 - N/A - 256 - 267 - 269 - N/A

P51 either overtakes or is at the same level with FW190D9 for which most people here will say it's the best fighter in the game, P47 is slightly worse than a Dora but kicks Anton in the nuts, also notice how Anton can't hope to get away in a dive against Spitfire and zooming is apsolute death for it - WRONG. It's also better than La7 or La5. Sorry I don't have a test of F16 for a comparision so P51 couldn't look bad here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now look at the situation at 15deg dive and zoom between Dora and the P51:
Alt -- D-9 - P51

3000 - 400 - 400
2500 - 581 - 593
2000 - 681 - 694
1500 - 753 - 764
Level- 759 - 768
1500 - 726 - 735
2000 - 620 - 633
2500 - 528 - 545
3000 - 462 - 474
3250 - 438 - 445
3500 - 422 - 420
4000 - 410 - 380
All in all I don't see just how is P51 such a pig as you claim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Lose the 51 and fly a Yak-3, an LA-5FN or a Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you serious lol, I mean OK Yak-3 is a really nice aircraft, SpitfireIX has ridiculous capatibility of pulling extreme AoA at very poor E-state but atleast it's not very fast, and I will not even comment La5FN which is overmodelled in every aspect, speed, climb, and the fact you can pull the stick all the way making constant loops at ridiculous speed without ever stalling, little to no torque, DM of a tiger tank etc... Didn't you once said you were/are a real pilot? How can you even mention La5FN, it's ridiculous http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Kocur_
08-06-2006, 06:26 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Viper2005_
08-06-2006, 06:27 AM
Here's some interesting gun camera footage. Count the strikes if you want, and compare with the game...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75277905547951258&q=%22gun+camera%22

Kocur_
08-06-2006, 06:40 AM
Which is why I go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif about the guys who f...cked up US Hispano evey time I see
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/27/p51rg1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

CUJO_1970
08-06-2006, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I will not even comment La5FN which is overmodelled in every aspect, speed, climb, and the fact you can pull the stick all the way making constant loops at ridiculous speed without ever stalling, little to no torque, DM of a tiger tank etc... Didn't you once said you were/are a real pilot? How can you even mention La5FN, it's ridiculous http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is the truth.

It cracks me up that people allow the La-5FN in the 1943 planeset online, but there they are - flying around with their pink training wheels and their big clown shoes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
08-06-2006, 07:39 AM
The La-5FN should be in planesets that start in fall of 1944. There it is realistic and historical to the situation. Use the La-5F to represent the early FN's which we simply do not have.

Viper2005_
08-06-2006, 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 Kocur_:
Which is why I go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif about the guys who f...cked up US Hispano evey time I see </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yes, it is rather a shame that they had to stick with .50s for so long. It's also a shame that so many people around here seem to expect the .50s to be as effective as 20 mm...

GR142-Pipper
08-06-2006, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Are you saying that the p51 should be able to dogfight like a Spitfire or a 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all. Actually, I'm trying to steer the conversation AWAY from a dogfight scenario and concentrate on energy matters but I don't seem to be succeeding in that regard. To restate, energy issues are why I would choose a Spit over ANY of the U.S. mid/late war aircraft.

Yes, the Spit can turn better but that aspect doesn't matter that much because most of its opponents aren't engaging in turning fights. It does, however, have excellent energy characteristics.

To be clear, my issues with the P-51 (and other mid/late war U.S. fighters) have to do with three main areas: 1) poor energy characteristics, 2) poor gun platform stability and 3) very weak 50's.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-06-2006, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Piper I don't know what to say about wing brake, as it's individual, personally I have apsolutely no problems with it, but I admit I keep that fact in mind every time I fly P51 or a Tempest for that matter...
Regarding dive and zoom, I have results of actual v402 testing done by Robban75 on CWOS forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I hope he will not mind I post it here...
First, Dive and climb angle 30 degrees:
Alt -- A-5 - D-9 - La5 - La7 - P47 - P51 - VIII

3000 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 303 - 303
2500 - 495 - 502 - 500 - 502 - 506 - 508 - 501
2000 - 616 - 626 - 622 - 628 - 625 - 629 - 618
1500 - 703 - 718 - 710 - 719 - 712 - 720 - 699
Level- 723 - 742 - 727 - 732 - 736 - 743 - 716
1500 - 651 - 675 - 665 - 678 - 662 - 677 - 636
2000 - 541 - 575 - 560 - 577 - 557 - 577 - 525
2500 - 429 - 476 - 448 - 470 - 453 - 474 - 416
3000 - 305 - 375 - 328 - 357 - 353 - 372 - 316
3250 - 250 - 328 - 266 - 304 - 307 - 319 - 276
3500 - N/A - 289 - N/A - 256 - 267 - 269 - N/A

P51 either overtakes or is at the same level with FW190D9 for which most people here will say it's the best fighter in the game, P47 is slightly worse than a Dora but kicks Anton in the nuts, also notice how Anton can't hope to get away in a dive against Spitfire and zooming is apsolute death for it - WRONG. It's also better than La7 or La5. Sorry I don't have a test of F16 for a comparision so P51 couldn't look bad here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaking of F-16, I never got a chance to fly that plane. Bummer. I have flown against them however. Bigger bummer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now look at the situation at 15deg dive and zoom between Dora and the P51:
Alt -- D-9 - P51

3000 - 400 - 400
2500 - 581 - 593
2000 - 681 - 694
1500 - 753 - 764
Level- 759 - 768
1500 - 726 - 735
2000 - 620 - 633
2500 - 528 - 545
3000 - 462 - 474
3250 - 438 - 445
3500 - 422 - 420
4000 - 410 - 380
All in all I don't see just how is P51 such a pig as you claim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Lose the 51 and fly a Yak-3, an LA-5FN or a Spit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you serious lol, I mean OK Yak-3 is a really nice aircraft, SpitfireIX has ridiculous capatibility of pulling extreme AoA at very poor E-state but atleast it's not very fast, and I will not even comment La5FN which is overmodelled in every aspect, speed, climb, and the fact you can pull the stick all the way making constant loops at ridiculous speed without ever stalling, little to no torque, DM of a tiger tank etc... Didn't you once said you were/are a real pilot? How can you even mention La5FN, it's ridiculous http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What the charts don't reflect are the RATES of acceleration as these are critical in engagements. It's not just flat out speed. The rates are just as critical (and sometimes much more so) as the absolute limits.

Regarding the LA-5FN, if it needs fixing, then it should be fixed (like soooo many others that aren't). Anyway, regarding the P-51 wing issue, pilots really shouldn't have to consider this at all but we do. I'm not talking about Vne either. This trait of the P-51 should simply be written out of the code. It was a bad idea to begin with and it remains a bad idea (that's very easily fixed, btw). As an aside, these are the types of rinky-**** flaws that compromise this wonderful game. R2800 vulnerability, P-51 wings flying off, weak 50's., etc. are all issues that are completely counter to real life and allowed remain as they are.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-06-2006, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Here's some interesting gun camera footage. Count the strikes if you want, and compare with the game...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75277905547951258&q=%22gun+camera%22 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Great footage!

GR142-Pipper

Von_Rat
08-07-2006, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Are you saying that the p51 should be able to dogfight like a Spitfire or a 109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all. Actually, I'm trying to steer the conversation AWAY from a dogfight scenario and concentrate on energy matters but I don't seem to be succeeding in that regard. To restate, energy issues are why I would choose a Spit over ANY of the U.S. mid/late war aircraft.

Yes, the Spit can turn better but that aspect doesn't matter that much because most of its opponents aren't engaging in turning fights. It does, however, have excellent energy characteristics.

To be clear, my issues with the P-51 (and other mid/late war U.S. fighters) have to do with three main areas: 1) poor energy characteristics, 2) poor gun platform stability and 3) very weak 50's.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i have to agree with pipper on this,, adding very poor acceleration to it.

ive been flying the stang 3 alot lately it doesnt suffer as badly from poor fm as much as regular p51, but its level acceleration isnt nothing to write home about either.

all things considered i think regular p51 should handle more like the stang3. nothing ive ever read said the p51 is a death trap below 3km, but in this game it is. even the mustang 3 must be extremly careful at 2km, and its made for low alt.

as i said ive been flyin stang3 and found if im very careful i can mix it up at 2km and get kills, but you have to take big chances staying on a fw long enough to kill it. so as far as stang3 goes its biggest drawback is weak guns. but imo all fighters in this game are to tough, so it might be DMS of fighters thats the problem, not weak fiftys. also tracers on 50s suc.

i switched from stang3 to p51 for one flight. i quickly switched back cause the p51 is very unstable for shooting or flying compared to stang3.

now people say only reason p51 is unstable is because im not centering the ball, this may be true. but on other planes you can ignore the ball and there's almost no penalty for sloppy flying. why is the p51 the only plane, at least that ive flown, that has to be trimed correctly to be stable enough to shoot. if its that important in p51 it should be at least a little important in other planes. its not though.

as for wing break, a little down trim will stop that, but why do you have to do that on p51 to keep wings on, other planes dont need it to keep wings, besides ive found that to be sure to keep wings i have to put on so much down trim it messes up my shooting.

HellToupee
08-07-2006, 12:54 AM
the wings are the way they are because people felt nefore it was that way the p51s elevator was too heavy at speed, now it has the lighest elevator and easily pulls the most gs and gives it a very unstable feeling.

HellToupee
08-07-2006, 01:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Japanese plnes flame up with mg hits quite often, in guncam footage and in game.(sometimes one hit can flame an Oscar or Zero) I have yet to see a guncam clip where 50's set a German plane on fire tho, maybe you could show us one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

just go through pilot accounts, u can find hundreds on spitfire performance, most seem to descibe the ac went down thick black smoke the word flames also crops up in nearly every second account against german planes.

"opening fire I obtained more strikes. A red glow appeared at the port wing root and the E/A trailed black smoke."


"who attacked two FW 190s while I acted as his No. 2 and covered him as he went down. F/Lt. Checketts fired at a FW 190 and I saw pieces flying off it, and it went down in flames"

"I saw strikes all over the wings and fuselage; the starboard wing was seen to be on fire. I then broke to rejoin my No. 3, eventually joining up with my C.O. "

"I saw cannon strikes, and his tank burst. Then, after about another second, black smoke and flames poured from his tail. "

Yes japanese planes light up quite easily tho they lose their wings just as easily as they catch fire and the zero has been modeled as the most flamable fighter in the game rember.

Slickun
08-07-2006, 06:06 AM
Acceleration.

The P-51D Mustang, at 67" HG, accelerated slightly less quickly than the P-47M and P-38J. The P-51B/C accelerated better.

P-51's, at higher boost, accelerated better than any US plane, except the P-38L SOMETIMES. It all depended on model, boost etc.

The Mustang III, at 81"/25 lbs, accelerated better than the P-38L at whatever boost. The P-51D at 80", a la PTO Mustangs, was basically the same.

P-51B/C models, at 75", were about like the D model at 80".

The P-51D/67 was the poorest accelerating mark of the Merlins, yet it did better than any other US plane except the rare P-47M and the P-38J/L.

As you lighten the mark, or add power, it passes the P-47M and P-38J, finally the P-38L, and becomes the #1 acceleration champ of the US. This includes Navy types like the Corsair and Hellcat, neither of which are really in the same league.

I don't think this is reflected in the game.

The Mustang III should be an acceleration animal, beating every other US plane by a wide margin. The Mustang B/C should beat all but the P-38L "Late", where it is nosed out. The D versions should out-accelerate all US planes except the P-38 J and L versions.

JtD
08-07-2006, 08:37 AM
The only US planes that beat the P-51 D-5 in level acceleration at sea level from 350-500 kph are the P-47D-27, the P-47D-27 late and the P-38L late.

Slickun
08-07-2006, 01:19 PM
The P-47D-27 beating the P-51 is a crock.

The P-38L Late is correct. As I posted, the P-38 J had a slight edge, the L a bit more.

Kocur_
08-07-2006, 01:48 PM
Comparing fully loaded Spitfire LF Mk.IX and very lightly loaded P-51C might be surprising too, considering that both have equal power and weight, - they wont accelerate equally, not even close... 'Surprise' goes to ratio between weights of very lightly loaded P-51 and at full load and their respective accelerations - not so proportional they are...

geetarman
08-07-2006, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:



now people say only reason p51 is unstable is because im not centering the ball, this may be true. but on other planes you can ignore the ball and there's almost no penalty for sloppy flying. why is the p51 the only plane, at least that ive flown, that has to be trimed correctly to be stable enough to shoot. if its that important in p51 it should be at least a little important in other planes. its not though.

as for wing break, a little down trim will stop that, but why do you have to do that on p51 to keep wings on, other planes dont need it to keep wings, besides ive found that to be sure to keep wings i have to put on so much down trim it messes up my shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points:

Read ANY account from war-time or current Mustang pilots:

1. The Mustang needs constant rudder trimming.

2. The Mustang flys best with slight nose-down trim.

Slickun
08-07-2006, 08:48 PM
You are correct.

Per the trimming...I don't think it was just rudder trimming. And, the pilots (including my Pop) will also tell you it became second nature.

han freak solo
08-07-2006, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
but there they are - flying around with their pink training wheels and their big clown shoes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make me miss Hristos. He was sheer entertainment when he trolled through these forums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

JtD
08-08-2006, 09:25 AM
Afaik the P-47D-27 does have a better power/weight ratio than the P-51. I am surprised it is supposed to have a general disadvantage in acceleration.

Brain32
08-08-2006, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Afaik the P-47D-27 does have a better power/weight ratio than the P-51. I am surprised it is supposed to have a general disadvantage in acceleration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Drag? I think P47 can't compete with the P51 in this category...

Kocur_
08-08-2006, 09:58 AM
Another factor, as usual in case of P-51, is amount of fuel on board. All three tanks full, rear tank partially filled, rear tank empty, wing tanks full or with enough fuel to reach certain range (say equal to P-47's at full internal fuel)?

Viper2005_
08-08-2006, 10:03 AM
Cooling drag in particular I would expect to favour the P-51.

I would also be rather surprised if the P-47 had a significantly better power:weight than the P-51 at combat weight except at very high altitude.

The P-47 is a heavy aeroplane:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

Realistically, you're talking about a 14,500 lb aeroplane when battle is joined. Its engine is rated at 2300 bhp.

That's 6.3 lb/hp.

The Mustang IV has a mean weight of 8540 lb. Its engine will give 1680 bhp in MS gear. That's 5.1 lb/hp.

But of course, that's only +18 psi boost.

At altitudes above about 25,000 feet I'd expect the P-47 to have a power:weight advantage, but lower down the P-51 is likely to have an advantage assuming 100/130 grade fuel. If you improve the fuel, the critical altitude will decrease slightly, but the general trend will be the same; the P-47 only really shines at altitude.

JtD
08-08-2006, 12:26 PM
But 2300 is not the figure for a D-27 as in game, I think it has about 2500. Also, at sea level the Merlin gives 1580 or so hp. In game weights 100% fuel etc. are about

6100 kg P-47D-27
4600 P-51D

Makes
2.44 kg/hp for the 47 and
2.91 kg/hp for the 51.

Of course, all varies with fuel loadout and other factor like alt, but I don't see a general disadvantage for the jug.

Viper2005_
08-08-2006, 12:27 PM
Incidently, you may be interested to know that after a little offline testing I have learned several things about the .50.

Firstly, it is actually a pretty effective weapon, contrary to popular belief.

Secondly, to get the best out of it, you need to attack at short range. So, whereas I set up my Fw-190 to converge MGs at 300 m and cannon at 274 m (300 yards), I find that the .50s seem to like a convergence of 200 m. Shorter ranges may be even better.

Thirdly, whereas the cannon on the Fw-190 may be effective out to 2x convergence range, the .50 should not be used at ranges greater than 1.5x convergence. They should also not be used at ranges less than about 0.3-0.5x convergence.

Fourthly, if used within the guidelines outlined above, 4 .50s are quite capable of de-winging or setting alight Fw-190A9s. To de-wing, aim for the middle of the wing. To start a fire, aim for the aft fuselage. A trail of dark grey smoke signifies that the next accurate burst will probably do the job.

The .50 will never be as useful as a cannon. But it is a lot more effective than many around here would suggest, provided that it is used with care.

Oh and I also learned that the Mustang III is a real terror if you stay fast and take about 50% fuel. It's not a machine for the neophyte, but it is the ultimate piston engined B&Z fighter.

Viper2005_
08-08-2006, 12:32 PM
4600 kg is rather on the heavy side. See the following data sheets:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-IV-ads.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

If we use 1580 bhp, and 8540 lb, that's a power loading of 5.4 lb/hp.

Now let's look at the P-47. Using a combat weight of 14,500 lb, the P-47D would require 2685 bhp to attain parity with the Mustang IV.

JtD
08-08-2006, 12:34 PM
But 14500 is on the heavy side, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
08-08-2006, 12:49 PM
Nope; that's combat weight for the D-25 and D-26.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg

If you want to go back to a D-22 or earlier you can knock 1000 lb off.

At 13,500 lb, the P-47 attains parity with the P-51 if it is given 2500 bhp, and the Mustang is limited to 1580 bhp.

However, that means that the P-47 needs better fuel than the P-51...

Kocur_
08-08-2006, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

Firstly, it is actually a pretty effective weapon, contrary to popular belief. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed!

http://img434.imageshack.us/img434/5144/sorties1wu5.th.png (http://img434.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sorties1wu5.png)
http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/9185/sorties2ru6.th.png (http://img472.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sorties2ru6.png)

(Do-335 was fired at from like 600m initially)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Secondly, to get the best out of it, you need to attack at short range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...and preferably NOT at dead 6. Even very short burst but fired from close distance and at say 30 deg deflection to target's wings plane (preferably from front - my favourite firing solution) almost guarantees severe damage, like engine busted, controls cut or pk. Generally speaking the greater deflection angle, at any geometrical plane - the better chaces of severe wounding the target. For .50s rarely kill instantly, but wound nicely.

Bearcat99
08-08-2006, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Another factor, as usual in case of P-51, is amount of fuel on board. All three tanks full, rear tank partially filled, rear tank empty, wing tanks full or with enough fuel to reach certain range (say equal to P-47's at full internal fuel)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this sim the P-51s tanks are set up in gallons as follows:
100% L92 R92 C85 OK.. sounds reasonable
75% L92 R92 C85 Hmmmmmmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif shouldnt there be some loss????
50% L35 R39 C85 the beginning of the problem... in reality the pilot would have drained at least half the center tank first due to the well known instability issue. It should read more like L70 R74 C45
25% LEmpty REmpty C65 Same as above only worse.... at 25% the tanks should read something like L20 R20 C45
Hi Oleg. A question about fuel consumtion in the P-51 and how it is modeled.

http://f10.putfile.com/thumb/8/22001245396.jpg (http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22001245396.jpg&s=f10)
Wing Tanks 100%
http://f10.putfile.com/thumb/8/22001223755.jpg (http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22001223755.jpg&s=f10)
Fuselage Tank 100%
http://f10.putfile.com/thumb/8/22001243041.jpg (http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22001243041.jpg&s=f10)
Wing Tanks 75%
http://f10.putfile.com/thumb/8/22001215115.jpg (http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22001215115.jpg&s=f10)
Fuselage Tank 75%
http://f10.putfile.com/thumb/8/22001240322.jpg (http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22001240322.jpg&s=f10)
Wing Tanks 50%
http://f10.putfile.com/thumb/8/22001212431.jpg (http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22001212431.jpg&s=f10)
Fuselage Tank 50%
http://f10.putfile.com/thumb/8/22001233417.jpg (http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22001233417.jpg&s=f10)
Wing Tanks 25%
http://f10.putfile.com/thumb/8/22001205233.jpg (http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=main/8/22001205233.jpg&s=f10)
Fuselage Tank 25%

Look at these screenshots.. Note that at 100% & 75% there is no change at all in either the wingtanks or the fuselage tank. Note that at 50% the wing tanks have lost some fuel but the fuselage tank remains full. Finally at 25% the wingtanks are both empty and the fuselage tank has 65 gallons.

GR142-Pipper
08-09-2006, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Firstly, it is actually a pretty effective weapon, contrary to popular belief. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully disagree. There are MANY people here who are very experienced with both the plane and the weapon who have come to a very different conclusion (myself included).

As an aside, my experience has been that the only two aircraft in which the 50's seem to function well would be when mounted in the P-40 and the P-39. Fly the P-51 and then the P-40 and see for yourself the stark difference in lethality of the very same weapon.

GR142-Pipper

HellToupee
08-09-2006, 01:51 AM
o there effective, if your comparing 6 .50s to the arment on a ki43, or vs the 303s :P
Came under the guns of serval 47s today in a 190 sometimes 2 at once rtbed everytime.

Viper2005_
08-09-2006, 02:10 AM
Bearcat, none of your pictures work.

HellToupee
08-09-2006, 02:31 AM
work for me

WOLFMondo
08-09-2006, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

Realistically, you're talking about a 14,500 lb aeroplane when battle is joined. Its engine is rated at 2300 bhp.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't it only produce 2300hp once it gets to its last supercharger stage with water injection?

Von_Rat
08-09-2006, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">



now people say only reason p51 is unstable is because im not centering the ball, this may be true. but on other planes you can ignore the ball and there's almost no penalty for sloppy flying. why is the p51 the only plane, at least that ive flown, that has to be trimed correctly to be stable enough to shoot. if its that important in p51 it should be at least a little important in other planes. its not though.

as for wing break, a little down trim will stop that, but why do you have to do that on p51 to keep wings on, other planes dont need it to keep wings, besides ive found that to be sure to keep wings i have to put on so much down trim it messes up my shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points:

Read ANY account from war-time or current Mustang pilots:

1. The Mustang needs constant rudder trimming.

2. The Mustang flys best with slight nose-down trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so your saying of all the planes in the set the mustang was uniqiue in real life, in that it needed constant trimming, and that no other planes needed to do same in real life. because no other plane in set that ive flown reqiures so much trimming.

it has to be more than slight nose down trimming to be sure you keep your wings.

Xiolablu3
08-09-2006, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:



now people say only reason p51 is unstable is because im not centering the ball, this may be true. but on other planes you can ignore the ball and there's almost no penalty for sloppy flying. why is the p51 the only plane, at least that ive flown, that has to be trimed correctly to be stable enough to shoot. if its that important in p51 it should be at least a little important in other planes. its not though.

as for wing break, a little down trim will stop that, but why do you have to do that on p51 to keep wings on, other planes dont need it to keep wings, besides ive found that to be sure to keep wings i have to put on so much down trim it messes up my shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points:

Read ANY account from war-time or current Mustang pilots:

1. The Mustang needs constant rudder trimming.

2. The Mustang flys best with slight nose-down trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol I didnt write this, please get your quotes correct. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
08-09-2006, 06:43 AM
wolf, p47 has a turbo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif there is no supercharger stage in effect, or only 1.

and personaly, if i can hit any part of the plane, i shoot it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JtD
08-09-2006, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
... getting back to that P-47 / P-51 comparism </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

14500 lbs for the P-47 is the weight of the ac with full internal fuel, from my understanding. Also, fully armed.

The same figure for the P-51 9478 lbs, you can't take mean weight with half the fuel and ammo expended for comparism.

The 2500hp are not with 150 octane fuel, but 100 octane with water injection. 150 octane and higher boost will give you even more power.

14500/2500: 5.8 lb/hp
9400/1580: 5.9 lb/hp

All of the above afaik.

Ratsack
08-09-2006, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
... getting back to that P-47 / P-51 comparism </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 2500hp are not with 150 octane fuel, but 100 octane with water injection. 150 octane and higher boost will give you even more power.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You get 2,600 B.hp from the R-2800-59 running at 64€ with 100/150 juice. This is basically the late model bubble top in the game. To the get the higher figures (2,800 B.hp), you need a different engine: the R-2800-57. This the motor for the M and N series.

cheers,
Ratsack

JtD
08-09-2006, 09:43 AM
What do you think is the boost P-47D-27 NOT late?

Von_Rat
08-09-2006, 09:50 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 geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:



now people say only reason p51 is unstable is because im not centering the ball, this may be true. but on other planes you can ignore the ball and there's almost no penalty for sloppy flying. why is the p51 the only plane, at least that ive flown, that has to be trimed correctly to be stable enough to shoot. if its that important in p51 it should be at least a little important in other planes. its not though.

as for wing break, a little down trim will stop that, but why do you have to do that on p51 to keep wings on, other planes dont need it to keep wings, besides ive found that to be sure to keep wings i have to put on so much down trim it messes up my shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points:

Read ANY account from war-time or current Mustang pilots:

1. The Mustang needs constant rudder trimming.

2. The Mustang flys best with slight nose-down trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol I didnt write this, please get your quotes correct. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


hey, i just qouted his post, he had your name over my post. i didnt notice.

Ratsack
08-09-2006, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
What do you think is the boost P-47D-27 NOT late? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good question.

Disregarding what the manifold pressure gauge shows, the P-47D-27 has the performance of a Thunderbolt running at 56" boost. That is to say, it manages about 425-430 mph at 28,000 feet. The manifold pressure gauge shows 64", but the performance is for 56".

Similarly, the late model gets up to 443 mph at 28,000 feet. This matches very closely what the USN got out of a late-model D running at 64" boost. Again, the dial says it's pushing 72", but it doesn't perform that way.

I think the two bubble top P-47s we have in the game match their historical maximum speeds pretty well. I know people have said they should roll better, but I've not ever looked into that so I have no particular opinion one way or the other.

In any case, we shouldn't be seeing 72" from B series engines like the -59.

cheers,
Ratsack

WOLFMondo
08-09-2006, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
wolf, p47 has a turbo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif there is no supercharger stage in effect, or only 1.

and personaly, if i can hit any part of the plane, i shoot it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should go back and edit it, I meant Turbosupercharger, which I think the P47 has a 2 speed, 3 stage one.

lrrp22
08-09-2006, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:


You get 2,600 B.hp from the R-2800-59 running at 64€ with 100/150 juice. This is basically the late model bubble top in the game. To the get the higher figures (2,800 B.hp), you need a different engine: the R-2800-57. This the motor for the M and N series.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratsack,

The 64" Hg/2500-2600 HP setting is for 100/130 grade with water injection. The 150 grade WEP with W.I. is 67-70" Hg (70" in the P-47D, 1944) which should yield somewhere around 2,800 HP, albeit at a much lower critical altitude than the -57's 2,800 HP at 32,000 ft.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/brentce/P-47D-25_thru_35.jpg

LRRP

Slickun
08-09-2006, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Afaik the P-47D-27 does have a better power/weight ratio than the P-51. I am surprised it is supposed to have a general disadvantage in acceleration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drag is as big a factor as power and weight.

How else to explain the stellar performance of a rather heavy, average powered ride?

Top_Gun_1_0_1
08-09-2006, 02:53 PM
The P-51's flight model in the game is UN-real!

They should improve it at SOW!

HayateAce
08-09-2006, 03:24 PM
Don't hold ur breath. A chance to give the Mustang's reputation a black eye is too tempting for folks who are technically dishonest.

Viper2005_
08-09-2006, 05:10 PM
The Mustang's reputation is probably its biggest problem, because so many people around here seem to expect it to be magic, and are then incredibly disappointed when it isn't.

The same could equally be said of the .50...

HayateAce
08-09-2006, 05:45 PM
keep dreaming

lrrp22
08-09-2006, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The Mustang's reputation is probably its biggest problem, because so many people around here seem to expect it to be magic, and are then incredibly disappointed when it isn't.

The same could equally be said of the .50... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but an alternate and equally inaccurate 'reputation' exists on these boards as well. There are many here who seem to want to believe that the Mustang's only virtues were fuel capacity and overwhelming numbers.

Brent

faustnik
08-09-2006, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
There are many here who seem to want to believe that the Mustang's only virtues were fuel capacity and overwhelming numbers.

Brent </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Who? There is maybe one guy who really believes that. There are many who don't believe the P-51 was a good low speed T&B fighter, but, there isn't much doubt of the Mustang's ability at high speeds.

geetarman
08-09-2006, 07:16 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 geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:



now people say only reason p51 is unstable is because im not centering the ball, this may be true. but on other planes you can ignore the ball and there's almost no penalty for sloppy flying. why is the p51 the only plane, at least that ive flown, that has to be trimed correctly to be stable enough to shoot. if its that important in p51 it should be at least a little important in other planes. its not though.

as for wing break, a little down trim will stop that, but why do you have to do that on p51 to keep wings on, other planes dont need it to keep wings, besides ive found that to be sure to keep wings i have to put on so much down trim it messes up my shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points:

Read ANY account from war-time or current Mustang pilots:

1. The Mustang needs constant rudder trimming.

2. The Mustang flys best with slight nose-down trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol I didnt write this, please get your quotes correct. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chill out dude - as to your first statement - the mustang needs trimming constantly, as it did in real life. It's not important in some other planes. Your "statement" reads as if that's a IL-2 "problem" for the P-51 vis. others. It's not.

Same for the second statement - You infer that there is a problem with the Mustang in IL-2 because you have to do things that aren't needed in other planes in IL-2. The things you complain about are relefted accurately in the game as far as I have read.

I'm a Mustang luver and believe that their are still issues with it or the FM of it's contemporaries. Trimming is not one of them. I think Oleg got that one pretty good.

There are some great Mustang fliers OL too. Check WC and a few others. Maybe you're there already.

Slickun
08-09-2006, 09:14 PM
faustnik, c'mon.

I see it all the time.

"The Mustang won the war" thrown out with contempt, followed by: but it was really just a big, fat, underpowered escort fighter with long range that was able to whup up on the dregs of the LW after the Jug and Lightning did all the hard work, and that only because of overwhelming numbers.

I know you have seen these posts as well.

faustnik
08-09-2006, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
faustnik, c'mon.

I see it all the time.

"The Mustang won the war" thrown out with contempt, followed by: but it was really just a big, fat, underpowered escort fighter with long range that was able to whup up on the dregs of the LW after the Jug and Lightning did all the hard work, and that only because of overwhelming numbers.

I know you have seen these posts as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I haven't. You might be exaggerating a little. Got link? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think a lot of people get upset when they read a post saying that their favorite plane did not do everything well. The reaction is to think that the "other guy" is saying the plane sucks, when he is really only saying that it has limits.

I can't think of any a/c that did everything well. The P-51 would probably be one of the closest to that ideal, but, I'm sure it had limits too.

Bearcat99
08-09-2006, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
faustnik, c'mon.
I see it all the time.
"The Mustang won the war" thrown out with contempt, followed by: but it was really just a big, fat, underpowered escort fighter with long range that was able to whup up on the dregs of the LW after the Jug and Lightning did all the hard work, and that only because of overwhelming numbers.

I know you have seen these posts as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I haven't. You might be exaggerating a little. Got link? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think a lot of people get upset when they read a post saying that their favorite plane did not do everything well. The reaction is to think that the "other guy" is saying the plane sucks, when he is really only saying that it has limits.

I can't think of any a/c that did everything well. The P-51 would probably be one of the closest to that ideal, but, I'm sure it had limits too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it did have limits... but it did do everything well. From every account I have heard.. and I have personally heard several dozen... and read hundreds. It had flaws yes... it wasnt a superplane... it was so unstable that it had to be constantly trimmed.... just leaning forward a few inches in hands free fligt was enough to throw it off.... and dont even get into the notorious fuselage tank issue... but once you learned and came to know the plane as most of the pilots who flew it for any lenth of time did.... you knew how far you could go. From ALL accounts I have heard the Mustang was a good plane.... up high... down low.... as long as you kept your speed up and didnt try to push it beyond what it was capable of... it was a contender and could compete against ANY axis fighter built during WWII. Yet like slickun said.. I cant tell ou how many posts I have read here with "The P-51s main strentgh was it's range..." or something like that. Got link? Weeeee don neeeed no stinkin link...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif just do a search for any post extolling the virtues of the P-51 in it and I can almost gaurantee that you will find at least one such post in it.

lrrp22
08-09-2006, 10:20 PM
Faustnik- It's definitely not an exaggeration. Those kind of posts are legion. I'm with Slickun and Bearcat on this- a very vocal segment here are firmly wedded to the belief that the P-51 was 'no dogfighter' and had no business engaging without a clear situational advantage. Clearly this isn't reflected in the historical (or technical) record.

LRRP

JtD
08-09-2006, 10:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:

Drag is as big a factor as power and weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but it counts most at high speeds. From 500-550, the P-51 is the 2nd best US accelarator, just behind the P-38L late and ahead of the P-47.

Oh, and for the record, I think the P-51 was mediocre with the exception of excellent speed and very good high speed handling. If you ask me, these were/are two of the most important performance figures. It offered this at 2/3 the price of other US models. This guaranteeed a lot of propaganda and a too good reputation in popular history.

faustnik
08-09-2006, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
it did do everything well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there you go...

faustnik
08-09-2006, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I think the P-51 was mediocre with the exception of excellent speed and very good high speed handling. If you ask me, these were/are two of the most important performance figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, having the high speed maneuver ability that the P-51 did, mediocre isn't a word I'd get anywhere near a P-51 description.

A lot of people expect it to be the best at low speed, low altitude maneuvers too. I don't think it was any better than the Fw190 in this area, which isn't all that good.

JtD
08-09-2006, 11:03 PM
It had mediocre climb, mediocre acceleration, mediocre low speed handling, mediocre firepower, mediocre stability, mediocre toughness...

Pretty easy to use "mediocre" to describe the P-51.

Bearcat99
08-09-2006, 11:05 PM
Historically the P-51 did do everything well... but it didnt do anything GREAT.. except long range escort.... it was a good bomber... not a jUG by any stretch... but as good a inline engined bomber as any other... it was a good dogfighter... it had to be flown properly.. and you couldnt fly it the same way against a Zero that you would against say a 190... but it could beat both..... in the right hands.

The problem here in the sim that I see is that many of us tend to forget the pilot factor.

I know guys who have been killers in the 190 since the very first night I came to Hyperlobby... in 02 and they still are.... Me? Pfft!! I could never get anywhere in the durn thing.... I have yet to land one online.. I always go down in the air... usually in flames or pieces. I have known pilots who were killers in the Jug early on.. and even in the 2.0 Jug they were competent.... It took me months to become surviveable in the Jug....

Historically the Mustang was a great aircraft.... NOTHING can change that fact... it didnt have the finesse of the Spit.. or the maneuverability of a Yak... it didnt have the firepower of any of the German birds.... but it was a great plane... yet in the hands of lesser pilots it was a coffin. The survivors can tell thier tales and write thier memoirs.... the others? They go in the stats....

The Mustang in this sim is flawed... but so are most of the planes in it. It still blows me away that the 6 50s in the P-51 dont seem to do the same damage as the ones in the P-40... or the 4 in the B dont do the same as the 4 in the P-39. It is what is is... but it is a decent plane... and with practice it does get better. The other night I set a plane on fire with a less than 1 second burst. It blew me away... and it was online too... One of the main things that will always endear me to this sim is that I had to learn to virually fly..... and I have to constantly recertify so to speak.

Im enjoying it all..... and I will until such time as it is no longer possible. For me.. all this is a childhood dream come true... and unless I strike it rich this is the closest I will ever come to flying a P-51 for the moment.

GR142-Pipper
08-09-2006, 11:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I think the P-51 was mediocre with the exception of excellent speed and very good high speed handling. If you ask me, these were/are two of the most important performance figures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, having the high speed maneuver ability that the P-51 did, mediocre isn't a word I'd get anywhere near a P-51 description.

A lot of people expect it to be the best at low speed, low altitude maneuvers too. I don't think it was any better than the Fw190 in this area, which isn't all that good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully Faustnik, with an even cursory examination of P-51 combat exploits you just can't escape the fact that this plane was truly extraordinary. While it excelled up high, it could fight well at all altitudes. If you have an extra few minutes, do a search and read what REAL WWII P-51 pilots had to say about this plane. It was nothing less than kick a$$ as it's war record AND safety record attest.

If one looks at the tenor of the remarks coming from experienced players of the "P-51 is broken" group, you'll see that they tend NOT to focus on it's horizontal turning capabilities. Rather they center mostly on energy issues (retention/acceleration/etc.), gun platform stability, catastrophic wing loss, weakness in the 50's, and unduly vicious stall/departure characteristics of this plane as currently modeled. NONE of these matters were associated with REAL P-51 combat experiences. None. Yet they're modeled in this game...and have been allowed to remain in this highly flawed state despite overwealming evidence to the contrary (and NO evidence that supports the current P-51 game condition). Many of these very same game issues to varying degree plague virtually all of the mid/late war U.S. fighter aircraft despite (yet again) a lack of evidence to support these modeling conditions. After all this time there is little wonder why sometimes the technical honesty of the developer gets called into question. Sorry to say, but that's the way it is. These planes were simply too big of players in the WWII combat arena to deserve this type of chronic negligence. Keep in mind that I'm a very big enthusiast of this game but these matters are very disappointing and deserve better.

Rather than constantly putting more gimmicks into the game (to wit: poorly done torque effects, dust on take off, bumpy grass near the runways, having planes getting fragged when the plane they destroy explodes, etc., etc.), spend the time on scrubbing the flight models of ALL the aircraft. At the end of the day this is what really counts and would be welcome by all the players regardless of side.

As a rhetorical aside, I really find it amusing how the biggest defenders of the existing P-51 modeling (..and P-47, and P38) tend to be mostly blue flyers.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
08-10-2006, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully Faustnik, with an even cursory examination of P-51 combat exploits you just can't escape the fact that this plane was truly extraordinary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're preaching to the chior with that statement, I'm in complete agreement.

******************

As for you comments on Oleg, well, those are falling on deaf ears. So many people make statements like that when their favorite a/c isn't as uber as they want it to be. I have questions on a lot of FM issues, but, their just questions. Calling Oleg dishonest because he doesn't see things your way well, that's just...well...it says a lot about the person making the accusation. I'd tell you to help make the changes your complaining about but, you told me before that you are above all that, so, nevermind.

Kurfurst__
08-10-2006, 01:28 AM
I am amused with this non-stop whining about the Mustang. What's the problem with it at all?

It doesn't turn well enough? Well, test it, show the RL figures and then you are having some point.

Doesn't climb well enough? Isn't fast enough? Doesn't accelerate? Or what? All I can see is overwhelming amount of generalised whining (from a few guys with conspiracy theories, I must add) without any testing done without any comparison made to real life figures.

It's just whining from certain boys I am afraid, it's been going on from the very day the first USAAF plane got into the sim and failed to become a complete wrath of god sweeping all that pathetic opposition away...

JamesBlonde888
08-10-2006, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Targ:
The main reason people complain about the performance of any plane is mostly ignored.
It's the pilot, plain and simple. EGO is the main reason for perceived poor flight models. Get shot down often and you will look almost any ware for a reason other than in the mirror.
Let€s be honest and just admit that many of the constant plane whiners are poor sports who refuse to own the problem.
You want to be an ace? You need to spend a few hours a night every night online just to be good and few possess the analytical skills needed to assess the enemy and yourself.
So much simpler to say the FM is messed up or the other guy cheated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2006, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
As for you comments on Oleg, well, those are falling on deaf ears. So many people make statements like that when their favorite a/c isn't as uber as they want it to be. I have questions on a lot of FM issues, but, their just questions. Calling Oleg dishonest because he doesn't see things your way well, that's just...well...it says a lot about the person making the accusation. I'd tell you to help make the changes your complaining about but, you told me before that you are above all that, so, nevermind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Faustnik, you really need to get your facts straight. First, the P-51 is not my favorite aircraft in this game...far from it for the very reasons that are currently being discussed. It's a turd.

Second, it's not that Oleg doesn't "see things my way". It's that he doesn't seem to have any regard for the aircraft's actual (and well documented) war record and proven capabilities as attested to by countless REAL WWII combat pilots. The same can be said regarding the modeling of the P-47 and P-38. So if you have trouble choking down "technically dishonest" perhaps we can find another candy-coated politically correct word that says the same thing.

Lastly, please provide a link where I have EVER said that "I'm above all that". If you want to disagree with me, that's perfectly fine. However, please don't assign words to me that both you and I know I have never spoken and that you can't back up with a link. I would never tag you in that manner so all I'm asking is that you simply return the favor. Fair enough?

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2006, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am amused with this non-stop whining about the Mustang. What's the problem with it at all? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just go back a few pages in this very thread and the issues being discussed are as plain as day. They have little to do with turning and much to do with all else.

GR142-Pipper

Bearcat99
08-10-2006, 03:49 AM
Also keep in mind that this thread was about "Why do folks not like the P-51?" Many of the posters in here myself included have undeniably stated that they fly the P-51.. warts and all.. but in this sim it does indeed have warts... like all the planes in here to some degree or other.... but in this Pony lover's opinion.. noe of them are show stoppers... they just take some adjusting to get used to. Would we like to see some things done differently? Sure.... but I for one will not give up on the sim or the plane just because it doesnt do what many pilots who flew it said it could do.

WOLFMondo
08-10-2006, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:


As a rhetorical aside, I really find it amusing how the biggest defenders of the existing P-51 modeling (..and P-47, and P38) tend to be mostly blue flyers.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll find many 'blue' fliers or those you label blue are just at home in a Jug or P51 as they are in a 190. I know I am.

And Oleg won't use annecdotal pilot reports to base performance, that would loose this sim all credibility.

Kurfurst__
08-10-2006, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am amused with this non-stop whining about the Mustang. What's the problem with it at all? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just go back a few pages in this very thread and the issues being discussed are as plain as day. They have little to do with turning and much to do with all else.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah.

"Fifties too weak!" (repeat)
"P-51 wings fly off" (despite it was told repeatadly all planes loose wings at the same, 15Gs...)

Plain as day, true..

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2006, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am amused with this non-stop whining about the Mustang. What's the problem with it at all? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just go back a few pages in this very thread and the issues being discussed are as plain as day. They have little to do with turning and much to do with all else.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah.

"Fifties too weak!" (repeat)
"P-51 wings fly off" (despite it was told repeatadly all planes loose wings at the same, 15Gs...)

Plain as day, true.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Look, we're talking mostly about ENERGY issues. Yes, the 50's have been mentioned and the phoney wing failure has also been listed as has the P-51's instability as a gun platform. So yes, it IS as plain as day if you bothered to go back just a few pages read the posts as was recommended.

Oh btw, there is NO way that a real P-51 going 650 kph with only mild stick movement (in the ROLL axis no less) is pulling 15 G's yet the wings can come off the aircraft under those conditions. But they can in skies over Oleg-land. Oh well. It's like Bearcat says...it is what it is (melanoma and all).

GR142-Pipper

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The performance in level flight will be commented on later, but suffice it to say at this stage that the Mustang III was very nippy indeed. The Americans in Europe used the aircraft as long range escort for their daylight Flying Fortress raids and for this purpose it carried a 71 Imperial gallon auxilliary tank in the fuselage. This made the Mustang longitudinally unstable, and the Mk. III had a strong tendency to tighten up in turns. The stability problem was not eased by having sensitive elevator trim tabs, but it was considerably alleviated in the Mk. IV by having an inertia weight fitted in the elevator control circuit.

The stalling characteristics of the Mk. III were mild without fuel in the fuselage tank, with slight tail buffeting at some 3-4 mph before the actual all-up stall at 90 mph when the right wing dropped gently. The all-down stall occurred at 75 mph. With full fuselage tank there was no buffet stall warning, but a series of stick reversals just before the wing dropped sharply.

The Mk IV with full fuselage tank stalled at 105 mph all up and 96 mph (all down). In hihg speed stalls either wing could drop very rapidly, preceded by pronounced juddering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Captain Eric Brown, taken from Wings of the Weird & Wonderful Volume 2.

It seems to me that if the Mustang really does suffer from the fuel feed issues suggested by the tank gauges, its handling is perhaps somewhat optimistic...

Now where did I put those pilot's notes?

Von_Rat
08-10-2006, 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 geetarman:
<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 geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:



now people say only reason p51 is unstable is because im not centering the ball, this may be true. but on other planes you can ignore the ball and there's almost no penalty for sloppy flying. why is the p51 the only plane, at least that ive flown, that has to be trimed correctly to be stable enough to shoot. if its that important in p51 it should be at least a little important in other planes. its not though.

as for wing break, a little down trim will stop that, but why do you have to do that on p51 to keep wings on, other planes dont need it to keep wings, besides ive found that to be sure to keep wings i have to put on so much down trim it messes up my shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points:

Read ANY account from war-time or current Mustang pilots:

1. The Mustang needs constant rudder trimming.

2. The Mustang flys best with slight nose-down trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol I didnt write this, please get your quotes correct. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chill out dude - as to your first statement - the mustang needs trimming constantly, as it did in real life. It's not important in some other planes. Your "statement" reads as if that's a IL-2 "problem" for the P-51 vis. others. It's not.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe you should chill out yourself, this is at least the second time i had to read about you nit picking about my quoting, and im sick of it.

so i missed that sombody else had qouted your name over my post,,,,, big fckn deal.


as for the p51, the majority of guys who actually fly it in game, think there is a il2 p51 problem vis others. just read these boards.

Slickun
08-10-2006, 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 faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
faustnik, c'mon.

I see it all the time.

"The Mustang won the war" thrown out with contempt, followed by: but it was really just a big, fat, underpowered escort fighter with long range that was able to whup up on the dregs of the LW after the Jug and Lightning did all the hard work, and that only because of overwhelming numbers.

I know you have seen these posts as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I haven't. You might be exaggerating a little. Got link? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think a lot of people get upset when they read a post saying that their favorite plane did not do everything well. The reaction is to think that the "other guy" is saying the plane sucks, when he is really only saying that it has limits.

I can't think of any a/c that did everything well. The P-51 would probably be one of the closest to that ideal, but, I'm sure it had limits too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm thinking about 2/3 of my posts on these forums have been in response to postings like I listed. If you missed them, so be it.

Me and lrrp are constantly going at it with folks who post exactly such rubbish, and no matter how many times he and I (and others) counter it, it will crop back up.

luftluuver
08-10-2006, 09:16 AM
The lobbying in ORR by a certain member here to pork the Mustang, as well as other western Allied a/c, went a long way in having the Mustang we have now in the game.

Right Piper. If the A-36 can be dived up to 400mph with a 500lb bomb under each wing and survive, then a regular P-51 should be able to manuever without the wings coming off. Since modelling of defincenies is not modelled then wing breakage of the P-51 should not be modelled unless the a/c is really abussed.

Polyperhon
08-10-2006, 09:23 AM
Hello,

is the first time I write in this topic.
I decided to write because I got annoyed by the fanatic support of P-51 from Pipper.What annoyed most is the fact that he questioned the simulation quality of P-51 in IL-2.

I had to point out a few simple things.
If we look at the specs, some very interesting conclusions come to place:
P-51 while was dimensionaly similar with most inline fighters, had a take-off weight of 4.5 tons and a wing loading of 212kg/m2.
This would make it HEAVIER than any other inline fighter of WW II (apart from the Typhoon/Tempest) and actually heavier than most of single-engined,regardless radial or inline.Actually very few single-engined fighters were heavier than P-51:
The 3 "double wasp" american fighters:
F4U,F6F,P-47.
The wing loading was exceptionaly high for a fighter that had a just 27-litre inline engine too.Having a wing of 21.65m2 was very similar with most other fighters, then ALL of them (apart Fw-190 which was at 4.2 tons) had a take-off weight between 3 and 3.7 tons.
This would make P-51 the third highest wing loading single-engined fighter of WW II, apart from Fw-190A-8 (239Kg/m2),P-47D(238Kg/m2)...

Then would be Typhoon (207 Kg/m2), Bf-109G-6 (196kg/m2) and La-5FN (192kg/m2).
We notice here that even the supposely super-high loading Bf-109G had less loading than the P-51!(The reason behind the high wing loading of the german planes was their small wings, not their over-weight.)
The lowest wing loading for a monoplane, canopy & rectactable wheel fighter was of A6M2 with 107 Kg/m2, with Ki-43 being 110 Kg/m2.Early mks of Spitfire had ~120 kg/m2 as had P-36.The majority was between 150 and 180 kg/m2.

After reading all these facts, is not a surpise how the P-51 flies in IL-2 simulator:Actually is the one that someone expects to find, and what is most likely the reality.The plane in IL-2 feels overweight, as it actually was.It makes up some of its limitations with excellent aerodynamics,which help a lot its performance in straight line, however its weight is always felt.

And a few words about the guns.
If you look in your replays, you 'll notice that in 90% of the cases a target is shot down by ONE pair of guns.That means that in a P-51B/C a target is shot down by the left or right pair of 0.50s.Instead if you fly e.g a P-39Q-10, both 0.50s are on the target...That's why germans (and soviets) had such obsession with the "motorcanone"...Now between P-40 and P-51, my impression was that is due to shooting down easier to destroy planes: A6M2/Ki43 and Bf-109E-4 in P-40, ki-84 and Fw-109A-8/9 in P-51...in case someone tries historical scenarios.


Source: The illustrated history of fighters,Mike Spick

faustnik
08-10-2006, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The lobbying in ORR by a certain member here to pork the Mustang, as well as other western Allied a/c, went a long way in having the Mustang we have now in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luft,

That is simply not true. Not that a member didn't try to have US a/c performance reduced but, that Oleg listened to it. Oleg requires solid evidence to make a change and even if he has that, if there is conflicting evidence, the change might not happen. People's perception that Oleg changes things based on whines is just not true.

faustnik
08-10-2006, 09:52 AM
Pipper,

Back up your talk, post test (or don't even bother, just send it to 1C) in the sim with correct historical data to compare it to. You obviously have enough time, you have plenty to post here. Or are you just blowing wind????

Calling Oleg a liar because he doesn't see things your way is arrogant and childish.

JtD
08-10-2006, 09:55 AM
I don't get it. The P-51 in game is a good aircraft. It's not a quick killer, but still a good one.

I can not recall the last time I lost a wing.
It outdives almost anything.
It outzoomclimbs almost anything.
My average kills/sortie over the last month is 4 or so.
My rtb ratio is 100%. In only two sorties I got hit at all.
The guns are accurate over long distances. When you are close, a 2 second burst on target will do the job.

What do you want?

MrMojok
08-10-2006, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It's just whining from the Yank boys I am afraid, it's been going on from the very day the first USAAF plane got into the sim and failed to become a complete wrath of god sweeping all that pathetic opposition away... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now Kurfurst, I don't really think that is very fair.

Kocur_
08-10-2006, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
Source: The illustrated history of fighters,Mike Spick </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all some of debates around here are based on material FAR exceeding in every way such popular books.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:

P-51 while was dimensionaly similar with most inline fighters, had a take-off weight of 4.5 tons and a wing loading of 212kg/m2.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which P-51? And even more importantly: with how much fuel? For P-51s without fuselage tank could take no less than 680 litres of fuel, with rear tank full it would top at 1000 liters! Compare it with 400l of Bf-109 or 386l in most of Spitfires! Counting avgas at 700kg/m^3 thats 476kg to 700kg in case of P-51 and 280kg in case of Bf-109. Makes a difference, doesnt it. Now take a P-51B/C and pour 400l, i.e. equal or more than the other two. at which btw. Mustang would reach further than them due to very low drag and you have t/o weight of 3.980kg! ( http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p-51b-6883.html ) And now you are ready to make comparisons of wing and powerloadings.

Let me recommend careful reading of http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ (but not about German planes)

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
Hello,

is the first time I write in this topic.
I decided to write because I got annoyed by the fanatic support of P-51 from Pipper.What annoyed most is the fact that he questioned the simulation quality of P-51 in IL-2.

Source: The illustrated history of fighters,Mike Spick </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



And here we go... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Polypheron,

You need to dig a little deeper and consult sources a bit more detailed than a general survey book. For instance, if you are going to use a wingloading comparison, even the heaviest P-51D at a full 269 gallons/1018 liters of internal fuel (not a combat weight) has a wingloading of between 42.1 and 43.0 lbs/sq ft. At standard fighter weight it is between 40.0 and 40.6 lbs /sq ft. The P-51B's wingloading ranges anywhere from 36.5 for short range fighter to 42 lbs/sq ft for full internal fuel. Those numbers are equal to or better than any Bf 109's from G-1 (39.43) to K-4 (42.9), and somewhat better than any 190's- Anton or Dora.

Having said that, there is more to turn performance than straight wingloading and I do believe that most 109s had a better low speed turning circle than most P-51s.

LRRP

JtD
08-10-2006, 10:55 AM
Yes, indeed. The laminar flow design airfoil of the P-51 would cause immense drag at high AoA and the not so great powerloading would result in a severe decceleration and a rather poor sustained turn.

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Right Piper. If the A-36 can be dived up to 400mph with a 500lb bomb under each wing and survive, then a regular P-51 should be able to manuever without the wings coming off. Since modelling of defincenies is not modelled then wing breakage of the P-51 should not be modelled unless the a/c is really abussed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If memory serves the P-51 is stressed to the standard american fighter loading of 7.3 g with a 50% safety factor. So you should expect failure at just under 11 g.

The Mustang III stalled at 90 mph in the clean configuration when tested by Eric Brown. Now we can take the old 1/2 roh v^2 lift equation to calculate that it should be able to pull to failure at (11^0.5)*90 mph IAS, or about 300 mph IAS.

Just because it's a fighter aeroplane doesn't mean that it is indestructible. Of course, the heavier the aeroplane, the faster you need to fly in order to pull any given amount of "g". But on the other hand, since the limiting factor is structural strength, the g limits will decrease at higher weights.

I would suggest that the question that we should really be asking is "Why don't all the other aeroplanes suffer from similar structural failures when abused?"

If you apply full control deflection above Va, expect trouble...

I suspect that there are 3 answers.

i) The Mustang is very clean, so it's easy to get build up lots of speed in a dive.

ii) The Mustang has a very effective elevator, so it's quite easy to pull too hard.

iii)Since there is a delay between control application and effect, and also a delay between g onset at blackout, it is possible to command very high g without realising it, and end up breaking the aeroplane.

faustnik
08-10-2006, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:

You need to dig a little deeper and consult sources a bit more detailed than a general survey book. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I find it strange how such high weights are quoted in many books for the P-51. AHT list a P-51D at fighter load (no fuel in rear tank) at 9,611 lbs. That is very close to the Fw190A8 and lighter than the Dora.

Kocur_
08-10-2006, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ii) The Mustang has a very effective elevator, so it's quite easy to pull too hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And the problem is that it took flying with considerable amount of fuel in rear tank for the elevator to get effective enough to make it dangerous for the plane... So CoG may not be modelled in the game, but everything else (including fuel gauges!) seems to work as if the rear tank was full, which is obviously wrong, as it would take having no less than 68% fuel, to use game's language, to have a drop of fuel there.

OD_79
08-10-2006, 11:15 AM
Got to be honest for once I agree with Kurfurst. The P-51 is fine, looks great...but that is about all that is really great about it, other than it's range nothing about it was that amazing, though it had a high top speed. It never did anything brilliantly but it did everything and did it to a good standard.
Problem is the same as with all the top aircraft from WW2, Spitfire, 109 etc. people expect it to fly rings around everything else. The P-51 doesn't unless you can fly it properly, and not many people do.
I like it, need to fly it more often to get the hang of it better, but I will use it gladly. Just people have to get over this wonder plane image.
Other thing people should remember is the huge over claiming by the USAAF on kills - check out RAF doubts before D-Day. USAAF claimed to have destroyed the Luftwaffe about three times over on it's own!!! No question it was a great plane in some ways, but a close in dogfighting supremo it is not.

OD.

Slickun
08-10-2006, 11:18 AM
There is also a test on spitfire performance that shows the speed a P-51D @ 67" hg over Germany would be expected to fly at.

Wing racks, some fuel burned off, it goes 442 mph.

Rumor Don Gentile was the pilot.

I don't think many P-51's were in combat with a cog problem. Only on the longest flights was a problematic amount of fuel kept in the fuselage tank. On any normal flight, immediately after take-off the fuselage tank would be drained to a managable level. Then the drop tanks.

When it was combat time, the drop tanks go, and the P-51 would have full wing, maybe 1/2 fuselage tank when it started tangling with the LW.

From what I gather, over Japan on VLR flights, the massive drop tanks gave plenty of fuel to make it to Japan, the problem was getting back only on internals.

HayateAce
08-10-2006, 11:26 AM
TurdFurst signs up as Polyperhon and posts some krap. Typical manuevering of the il2 forum anti-P51 dweebs.

Some folks just cannot deal with the fact that the Mustang handily beat the tar out of all comers. Period.

http://members.cox.net/sparksco/Klown109.jpg

Xiolablu3
08-10-2006, 11:30 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:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by geetarman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:



now people say only reason p51 is unstable is because im not centering the ball, this may be true. but on other planes you can ignore the ball and there's almost no penalty for sloppy flying. why is the p51 the only plane, at least that ive flown, that has to be trimed correctly to be stable enough to shoot. if its that important in p51 it should be at least a little important in other planes. its not though.

as for wing break, a little down trim will stop that, but why do you have to do that on p51 to keep wings on, other planes dont need it to keep wings, besides ive found that to be sure to keep wings i have to put on so much down trim it messes up my shooting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two points:

Read ANY account from war-time or current Mustang pilots:

1. The Mustang needs constant rudder trimming.

2. The Mustang flys best with slight nose-down trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol I didnt write this, please get your quotes correct. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chill out dude - as to your first statement - the mustang needs trimming constantly, as it did in real life. It's not important in some other planes. Your "statement" reads as if that's a IL-2 "problem" for the P-51 vis. others. It's not.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe you should chill out yourself, this is at least the second time i had to read about you nit picking about my quoting, and im sick of it.

so i missed that sombody else had qouted your name over my post,,,,, big fckn deal.


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Stop the bus I want to get off!!! I am confused as to whether this was to me or Geeterman.

I was trying to HELP you with the quoting before Vonrat, to save you trouble, not nitpicking. Also I shouldnt be in this argument I dont htink, so I will step outside http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
08-10-2006, 11:40 AM
i think the problem is its got a really effective controls at the intial part, so its really easy to have a spike of high g and the wings pop off. ive had one wing pop off while i was adusting the throttle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

imo the main selling point of the p51 was that it was a) better than the p40 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, and later on, longer range.

was really quick, good at most things, but the standout feature was range. other than range, the p47 is there or there abouts

Kocur_
08-10-2006, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-51 is fine, looks great...but that is about all that is really great about it, other than it's range nothing about it was that amazing, though it had a high top speed. It never did anything brilliantly but it did everything and did it to a good standard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If being the only allied plane to be FASTER, (which means ability to outclimb at high speed too) than Luftwaffe not only high, but also at mid and low alts is not brilliant, especially compared to Spitfire and doing it in area, that was German safe playground until Mustangs arrived, for nothing was able to reach there before, not to mention great high speed acceleration, especially, but not limited to dive and best zoom climb than your concept of WW2 fighter combat flying is different to mine.
Speed is life! Not 17s of 360 deg sustained turn or ability to climb very quickly at 230kmh.

faustnik
08-10-2006, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:

If being the only allied plane to be FASTER, (which means ability to outclimb at high speed too) than Luftwaffe not only high, but also at mid and low alts is not brilliant, especially compared to Spitfire and doing it in area, that was German safe playground until Mustangs arrived, for nothing was able to reach there before, not to mention great high speed acceleration, especially, but not limited to dive and best zoom climb than your concept of WW2 fighter combat flying is different to mine.
Speed is life! Not 17s of 360 deg sustained turn or ability to climb very quickly at 230kmh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget that the P-51 not only had the ability to reach those high speeds, but, also the ability to maneuver very effectively at those speeds. A Bf109K could go pretty fast too, but, it couldn't maneuver with a P-51 over 350 mph. The Fw190s could maneuver with the P-51 at high speed, but, didn't have the power to stay with the Mustang over 20,000 feet. So, it wasn't just fast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
08-10-2006, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
TurdFurst signs up as Polyperhon and posts some krap. Typical manuevering of the il2 forum anti-P51 dweebs.

Some folks just cannot deal with the fact that the Mustang handily beat the tar out of all comers. Period.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already warned you about personal attacks... that`s strike 2. I could care less what is your personal beef with him. Strike 2....1 more and you out.


@Kurfurst__ Personally, I dislike reference such as Yank boys, i would strongly suggest to change it to something else. I remember you being offended when someone called you a nazi. It`s no different to me.


@Everybody else... avoid personal attacks, it`s getting tiring.

Xiolablu3
08-10-2006, 12:11 PM
P51 was a great fighter, but it didnt dogfight well at the slower speeds, becasue it couldnt turn tight, especially not at slow speeds. Most online fights degenerate into slow speed turnfights if the players are not very good, and this is where the P51 will be at its worst.

A 109 could outmanouvre a P51 at slow speeds, quite easily, from everything I have read from qualified sources.

BUT of course its easier for a P51 pilot to stay fast and untouchable than it is for a Bf109 pilot to force him down to slow speeds.

Therefore, I cant help but think its pilot error which causes most of these whines.

I think many people are believing too much History Channel propaganda, and are falling victim to their own coutries hype.

Sure the P51 was a great plane, especially becasue of its range, but it wasnt a fantastic dogfighter, you can dogfight in ANY plane, but that doesnt mean it is good at it. I am sure US and UK pilots DID dogfight in the P51, as some pilots would do in any plane, FW190 pilots dogfought (is that a word? :P) too, but that doesnt mean its particularly good at it, just the pilots style.

As for the 50's just watch any of the colour footage clips (not the many spectacular B&W ones which have been saved for their explosive effect)

The Bf109 in that P47 guncam clip someone posted takes many many MANY hits from the 8x50's of the P47 and only SEEMS to get a glycol leak, he also mangages to land/crash land, we see his wheels going down as he nears the gorund in the last clip. The 50's in the game are definitely not too weak judging by these clips.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75277905547951258&q=%22gun+camera%22


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4980033002660319852&q=p51+109

P51 was a great plane, firstly for its range, secondly for its fast speed. But dont expect it to turn with a Zero if you get below 400kph. If you ARE under 400kph, then ask what you are doing there, you are not using your planes greatest strengths.

I have never snapped the wings off a P51 since that problem of the 'easy break' was fixed' a few patches ago. Its much easier to snap any Russian planes wings than a P51, so that puts paid to any 'Oleg Russian bias' rubbish that anyone may quote.

Brain32
08-10-2006, 12:28 PM
Let's face it guys, when were you P51 guys happy? Never. Why? Because the plane itself couldn't make you mega-aces, that's why. If you ask me there was versions where P51 was fine but noooooo, you didn't want to stop until Oleg makes another La7. La7? Hehe, even better, La7 with apsolutely no flaws. So it is you guys(you know who you are) who made the P51 what it is today and screwed up the rest of us in the process http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
BTW I can still fly it and do good with it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 12:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
P51 was a great fighter, but it didnt dogfight well at the slower speeds, becasue it couldnt turn tight, especially not at slow speeds. Most online fights degenerate into slow speed turnfights if the players are not very good, and this is where the P51 will be at its worst.

A 109 could outmanouvre a P51 at slow speeds, quite easily, from everything I have read from qualified sources.

BUT of course its easier for a P51 pilot to stay fast and untouchable than it is for a Bf109 pilot to force him down to slow speeds.

Therefore, I cant help but think its pilot error which causes most of these whines.

I think many people are believing too much History Channel propaganda, and are falling victim to their own coutries hype.

Sure the P51 was a great plane, especially becasue of its range, but it wasnt a fantastic dogfighter, you can dogfight in ANY plane, but that doesnt mean it is good at it. I am sure US and UK pilots DID dogfight in the P51, as some pilots would do in any plane, FW190 pilots dogfought (is that a word? :P) too, but that doesnt mean its particularly good at it, just the pilots style.

As for the 50's just watch any of the colour footage clips (not the many spectacular B&W ones which have been saved for their explosive effect)

The Bf109 in that P47 guncam clip someone posted takes many many MANY hits from the 8x50's of the P47 and only SEEMS to get a glycol leak, he also mangages to land/crash land, we see his wheels going down as he nears the gorund in the last clip. The 50's in the game are definitely not too weak judging by these clips.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75277905547951258&q=%22gun+camera%22


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4980033002660319852&q=p51+109 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
A 109 could outmanouvre a P51 at slow speeds, quite easily, from everything I have read from qualified sources.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And who are these qualified sources? I too believe that the 109 had a low speed advantage, but I don't think it was as pronounced as many here believe. It's interesting that you are willing to dismiss hundreds of first-hand accounts of Mustang pilots dogfighting 109s, yet are willing to use a couple of gun camera clips to prove that the .50s are properly modeled.

LRRP

Xiolablu3
08-10-2006, 12:34 PM
I think many of those 109's on the Western front were probably carrying gunpods like the one in the clips, they were there to get bombers primarily. We all know that we cannot use pilot accounts to model planes, they can give us a general idea, but we know nothing about th energy states, or state of the planes.

I am sure there would be just as many 109 reports, if not more, saying they outturned P51's. WIng loading and power loading also tells us that the 109 could turn better than the P51, if it wsnt hampered by hi-speed compressibility.

SOmeone posted a clip of a guy who had his own 109 and had flown both, he told us that the 109 could EASILY outturn a Mustang, along with another guy who said the same thing.

One of them even said it could outurn a SPitfire. (not sure what was going on there, maybe he hadnt flown a Spit before or he meant at very slow speeds.) Maybe you saw it? The other guy said he wasnt sure between the SPitfire and the 109, both could turn very tight.


Here is the interview :

http://www.ghostskies.com/chinopics/EAA_Interviews.wmv

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Let's face it guys, when were you P51 guys happy? Never. Why? Because the plane itself couldn't make you mega-aces, that's why. If you ask me there was versions where P51 was fine but noooooo, you didn't want to stop until Oleg makes another La7. La7? Hehe, even better, La7 with apsolutely no flaws. So it is you guys(you know who you are) who made the P51 what it is today and screwed up the rest of us in the process http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
BTW I can still fly it and do good with it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"You P-51 guys" is a rather broad term, isn't it? The HayateAce-types are definitely a (vocal) minority. Many of us are just trying to dispell the conventional wisdom here that says the P-51 was a treacherous and tempermantel b!tch that had no business below 20,000 ft. You can quote all the later-day Warbird pilots you want, but the two primary wartime users- the USAAF and RAF- found it a delightful airplane with outstanding handling characteristics. Flawless? Certainly not. Excellent? Absolutely.

I agree that past versions of the FM were pretty good, and the 4.05 FM seems to be somewhat improved, but that doesn't change the fact that the Mustang became somewhat of a dog around v4.00.

LRRP

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 12:43 PM
<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 many of those 109's on the Western front were probably carrying gunpods like the one in the clips, they were there to get bombers primarily. We all know that we cannot use pilot accounts to model planes, they can give us a general idea, but we know nothing about th energy states, or state of the planes.

I am sure there would be just as many 109 reports, if not more, saying they outturned P51's. WIng loading and power loading also tells us that the 109 could turn better than the P51, if it wsnt hampered by hi-speed compressibility.

SOmeone posted a clip of a guy who had his own 109 and had flown both, he told us that the 109 could EASILY outturn a Mustang, along with another guy who said the same thing.

One of them even said it could outurn a SPitfire. (not sure what was going on there, maybe he hadnt flown a Spit before or he meant at very slow speeds.) Maybe you saw it? The other guy said he wasnt sure between the SPitfire and the 109, both could turn very tight.


Here is the interview :

http://www.ghostskies.com/chinopics/EAA_Interviews.wmv </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I'm talking about. First you tell us that the hundreds of wartime combat accounts can't be trusted, but that one of the hokiest warbird "interviews" imaginable is cut and dried proof that the P-51 was easily outturned by the 109. I like how you enthusiastically accept their comments regarding the P-51 yet immediately qualify there opinion of Spit v 109 turn.

BTW, as I pointed out earlier, your wingloading comparisons don't tell you quite what you think they do.

LRRP

Xiolablu3
08-10-2006, 12:50 PM
How can we trust accounts where we dont know the states of the planes or their energy states?

I didnt say that interview was cut and dried proof, just one of the overwhelming accounts where its told that the 109 could oout manouvre the P51 in a dogfight.

The first pilot in that interview has NO REASON to make his part up, he is a Yank, its not his 109, he has not been goaded in any way, he is simply talking from experince of flying both planes, in which we KNOW the states of the planes. They both have extensive experience in a 109 and P51, where one of them 'once' flew a Spitfire.

Mark Hanna states 'I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will DEFINITELY out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better.'

He didnt just fly them, he hammered them as they were his families planes. I trust his judgement.

I believe its pretty obvious that the 109 is a much better dogfighter than the P51 at the lower end of the speed scale.

Can you find us a person who says that the P51 could out dogfight the 109, where we KNOW the states of the planes and that they were comparing definite ;fighter' planes and not bomber destroyers or Luftwaffe planes with very pooor pilots where there is doubt about just what was happening? EVERY account where we know the states of the planes and that we are comparing good pilots etc say that the 109 could outmanouvre the P51 in a slow speed dogfight, the word 'DEFINITELY' is used a lot in these accounts.

Kocur_
08-10-2006, 01:05 PM
Reading some of you guys make me think you are still before having a thorough reading of Mustang section of Spitfireperformance, i.e. what I did and which brought me to following revelations:

Vast majority of Mustangs, i.e. those powered by V-1650-7 were not high alt fighters, they were LOW to MID alts fighters, for -7 was nothing more but US Merlin 66's analogue.

Mustangs were not particularly heavy planes - what makes them look like that in popular books is HUGE internal fuel capacity. Therefore you can put in thrash all the climb performance data or ideas on acceleration in combat that you got from those popular books, which gave you idea what was P-51s performance at weight of ferry condition! With normal combat load Mustang was to say the least a decent sustained climber. And more importantly high top speed made them able to leave almost any opponent in dust in high speed, shallow climb! I can only see Tempest being able to do the same with LW at low and mid alts.

Mustangs were FAST, very fast, no other Allied plane was so universally fast! With any engine they were fast up there, for even with -7 low drag made them make lots of speed from limited power. But the most important thing we should learn is that Mustangs, especially with -7 were VERY FAST LOW ALT FIGHTERS! There was no other Allied fighter to be able to do a crucial thing in defeating LW in spring of 1944, that is to catch Bf-109s and especially Fw-190As at mid and low alts! Before Mustangs if only LW pilots were able do reach low alt in dive after split-S, they were, in general, safe, as Spifires, P-47s and P-38 were slower than them there! Spring 1944 top LW performers: Bf-109G-14 making 560kmh at SL, and Fw-190A7/8 at 1,65ata making 566kmh there, could leave in the dust any allied fighter, trying to catch them! Any but Mustang, for P-51B/Cs at 67''Hg even with wingracks were developing 585kmh at SL! And judging that dont forget about great dive acceleration and high Vne. Now being able to reach deep into enemy territory, which many allied fighters were able to do, and unlike other Allied fighters still being able to pursuit and catch enemy fighters at mid alts and low, was crucial in combating LW! So range was really helpful, but great P-51's dive, speed and high speed climb performance was what made them effective fighters, not "just range" added to "medicore performance".

P-51s did not do well in low speed turning - true! But who needs low speed turning, if he is faster than opponents? And if necessity appeared Mustang pilot could drop combat flaps (or more) and usually be able to out-angle opponent enough to damage him, without need to do many full circles in which Im sure Mustang would inevitably lose against Bf-109.

Low drag meant that even at rather economic power setting Mustangs were able to cruise very fast - the faster you cruise, the more difficult you are to be bounced and the more time you have to react. Nice powerloading at combat weight plus very low drag made Mustangs unmatched among allied fighters in high speed acceleration, say... from high cruise to top speed, level or in dive! Any problems behind as you were flying at high cruise? Just push the throttle and maybe lover your nose to gain separation and just leave or zoom climb (again: low drag!) afterwards or stay at high speed, shallow climb.

And then there was Dora, that was able to match P-51s or do more in some areas.

AmI making things up? Read those combat reports: how many fights above say 7km and how many from there to the deck? In how many P-51 failed to catch running opponents?



Back to the game: set Mustangs in proper historic conditions and using them to their strenghts, i.e. flying fast, horizontally or in shallow climb can guarantee you not only relative safety but also good chances of defeating anything. That is not to say, that there are no problems with their FM, some universal, i.e. unfavourble modelling of E loss in manouvers for all high loading fighters, some specific mostly having source in modelling P-51 according to what they behave like with fuel in rear tank plus certain undermodelling related to drag of bombracks. Universal E-loss problem of high wingloaded planes is even more unfair in case of Mustangs for at combat weight their wingloading wasnt so high really! That lowish wingloading means in my undertanding that as long as they stayed fast, Mustangs were above AoA levels, at which laminar wing would show its ugly face, i.e. higher drag to produce the same lift.

Very specific Mustang problem in the game is incomplete set of versions. Both P-51Ds that we have are both in performance and historic background behind Fw-190D9 or La-7 or Spitfire Mk.IX at 25lbs, as they are just fine only until summer 1944 in case of 8AF. "Mustang Mk.III" is definately not representative for US operated Mustangs after summer of 1944 both by having too good performance and by historical numerical superiority of Ds over B/Cs in later 1944 and 1945. The game really needs P-51D-20 at 75''Hg boost.

faustnik
08-10-2006, 01:15 PM
Great post Kocur! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vast majority of Mustangs, i.e. those powered by V-1650-7 were not high alt fighters, they were LOW to MID alts fighters, for -7 was nothing more but US Merlin 66's analogue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the Merlin 66/V-1650-7 was a lower altitude engine than the earlier Merlin 63 or indeed the V-1650-3, but low is a relative term.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg

At +18, the Merlin 66 gives of its best at about 10,000 feet in MS gear, and about 20,000 feet in FS gear.

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 01:19 PM
Xioablu,

I don't what to say. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif One of the 'overwhelming' accounts? I simply cannot reconcile your affinity for the 'interview' with the mountain of evidence that indicates the Mustang was at the very least competitive with the 109. It seems that your opinion is based on some of the flimsier of the information available, and definitely disregards the majority of actual wartime data. Again, I'm not claiming that the 109 didn't have some definite advantages- but it's 'dogfight' advantage isn't nearly as clear cut as all that.

LRRP

Kocur_
08-10-2006, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but low is a relative term.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relative indeed, but there was no lower Merlin AFAIK. Anyway whatever was LF Spitfires area of optimal performance - V-1650-7 powered Mustangs was the same.

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 01:32 PM
Well, there are plenty of lower altitude Merlins. An example would be the 45M fitted the LF.Vb, which had a cropped supercharger.

But certainly the LF Spitfire and the V-1650-7 engined Mustang are directly comparable.

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but low is a relative term.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relative indeed, but there was no lower Merlin AFAIK. Anyway whatever was LF Spitfires area of optimal performance - V-1650-7 powered Mustangs was the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Almost... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The P-51's higher speed and ram recovery gave it a 4-5,000 higher full throttle height in level flight than the same installation in the Spitfire. One thing that seems to be universally true is that the Mustang always squeezed considerably more speed out of the Merlin while the Spitfire always had a much better sustained climb.

Great post up above, BTW!

LRRP

Kocur_
08-10-2006, 01:42 PM
How I could have forgotten!

Another issue is TOTALLY wrong modelling of P-51B/C cocpit. Gunsight view is inexcusably limitted in absolutely ahistorical way. What was done is obviously that someone built B/C cocpit by cut&paste of D gunsight area. N-9 gunsight may have never been used in B/C and if was ever it was VERY unusual modification. Noone at Mustangsmustangs forum was able to come up with any reference to use of N-9s in P-51 B/C and after seeing hundrets of pic I was able to find ONE that may show N-9 but looks even more like K-14. Anyway if N-9 was used indeed it OBVIOUSLY was mounted far higher above anti-glare panel than in P-51D, for in B/Cs it ran way lower in relation to windscreen - check any pics of pilots head position in cocpit!
In-game P-51 B/C should have N-3B or N-3C gunsight (used historically and modelled nicely in P-40E) and their gunsight forward view should be VERY much like that of P-40E. What is now has nothing to do with reality and has serious impact on gunnery as Mustangs rarely can park at enemy 6 and so often have to shoot at high deflections, which as their armament is relatively weak (and was such IRL!) makes it even more serious. Good forward and gunsight view was needed IRL in case of fast not-t'n'burners and P-51B/C (not to mention P-47 Razorbacks or Fw-190 ) had it IRL!

StellarRat
08-10-2006, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. First you tell us that the hundreds of wartime combat accounts can't be trusted, but that one of the hokiest warbird "interviews" imaginable is cut and dried proof that the P-51 was easily outturned by the 109. I like how you enthusiastically accept their comments regarding the P-51 yet immediately qualify there opinion of Spit v 109 turn.

BTW, as I pointed out earlier, your wingloading comparisons don't tell you quite what you think they do.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure a 109 at low speed can outturn a P-51. It seems pretty obvious just by looking at them. It's half the size and has fairly big wings comparatively. Up high and moving at the highest speed they can manage it would be a different story. Everyone seems to forget that the P-51 and 109 usual fought above 20,000 feet and going as fast as the pilots could make them go (speed is life.) Under these circumstances I think the P-51 would be superior. It is in the game as well.

Going back to the original topic: The P-51 is a good figher. I can fight anything with it one on one and have a good chance to win. The best tactic is to maintain speed and not turn fight. Your first attack should be a straight bounce from altitude (if you're not in a position to do this you shouldn't even start the fight.) If 109 makes a tight turn you Yo-yo up and come back down on him thereby maintaining your energy. If he starts to get behind you, you dive and run out until you can half loop back and re-engage. It's pretty simple really. 90% of the time if I lose in a 51 it's because of another plane getting into the contest while I'm engaged.

carguy_
08-10-2006, 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 Kocur_:
Vast majority of Mustangs, i.e. those powered by V-1650-7 were not high alt fighters, they were LOW to MID alts fighters, for -7 was nothing more but US Merlin 66's analogue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ingame P51B and C models match this picture.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
P-51s did not do well in low speed turning - true! But who needs low speed turning, if he is faster than opponents? And if necessity appeared Mustang pilot could drop combat flaps (or more) and usually be able to out-angle opponent enough to damage him, without need to do many full circles in which Im sure Mustang would inevitably lose against Bf-109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As many think,this game has problems modelling enrgy fighting ie.the penalty for energy fighters when making really shallow maneuvers is way too big.FW190A/D,P47,P38 and P51 are the planes that are hurt by that flaw.A quite big flaw if I do say so myself.

About the speed it is irrelevant until the speed advantage reaches ~300km/h.When riding a Me262 you do not need to check your six even because it is FAR faster than any La7/Yak3 joke.In a P51 that has to fight Dora/109G10,the difference is smaller than 200km/h.You make an attack and the difference disappears.This is about P51vs109 and FW190v****G/Yak/La5.

FW190A aswell as the P51 D can outturn their enemies above 400km/h but if you overdo it JUST a bit,you end up overshot with a similar energy state as the turner.

The fact that T&B planes are far too good with keeping energy is very nicely presented by the 109 that is a good turning plane and gives the P51D(an energy plane) NO chance in horizontal.

*I have not much information about whether P51D often challenged 109/190 at altitudes of 1000m-4000m ,but online you have sorties that often feature P51D to escort P38@3000m altitude.P51D has little chance of succeeding,since it cannot let Luftwaffles shoot the P38s and has to maneuver to obtain advantage of a position quickly behind the 109/190 to take them off the P38.Result is 90% times the same.All P51D are T&Bing with 109@1780m,maybe one goes home,all P38s are down.

In a B17 escorting sortie it is a whole different picture.The 109/190 do not have any chance against P51D above 6500m,even in horizontal,since the P51D feels up there entirely like an La5 at 2000m.
I think people just never fly such coops.The USAAF ownz LW above 6500m COMPLETELY,just like the VVS beats LW under 4500m.

The * paragraph you can change P51D into FW190A5,P38 into Ju87 and it is the same against I16,Yaks,LaGGs you name it.
Change B17 into He111 in the 2nd coop above and result is the same.


All in all,it is the type of coops people play.They force them to fly their planes in an unfriendly conditions,circumstances.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And then there was Dora, that was able to match P-51s or do more in some areas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I experience since 2.04,the FW190D9 is just that.

Kurfurst__
08-10-2006, 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 crazyivan1970:
@Kurfurst__ Personally, I dislike reference such as Yank boys, i would strongly suggest to change it to something else. I remember you being offended when someone called you a nazi. It`s no different to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the hypocrite boys my description was fitting started to complain for the blasphemy, eh? The same ones who's usual arguement in the 2nd reply are accusations and personal attacks.

Oh well, why not, still you have a point, let's not offend those Americans for who do not deserve the title, I'll edit it for you guys. After, acute whining is not fixed to nationality, it exists everywhere, though the pony lobby seems to be the loudest and most baseless. At least the p47 guys had a point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Don't forget that the P-51 not only had the ability to reach those high speeds, but, also the ability to maneuver very effectively at those speeds. A Bf109K could go pretty fast too, but, it couldn't maneuver with a P-51 over 350 mph. The Fw190s could maneuver with the P-51 at high speed, but, didn't have the power to stay with the Mustang over 20,000 feet. So, it wasn't just fast. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an in-game advantage, rooting in the fact that we have one-handed Bf 109 pilots modelled (ie. one hand stickforce being the max instead of two), who, unlike their RL counterparts, won't use their 2nd hand ever even when needed. IOW the game simulates half the elevator effect on the 109 at high speed that was possible in real life.

Hopefully BOB introduces able-bodied pilots with TWO hands. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 01:54 PM
StellarRat,

I'm pretty sure that most could, too. But not enough to give the 109 any dramatic turn advantage- especially when the Mustang dumps flaps.

Also, I think that fights below 20,000 feet were at least as common, if not more so, than fights above 20k. Of the fights that did begin above 20k many, many ended well below that.

Again I'm not advocating a 'best at everything' P-51, just one that is competitive in *most* areas.

LRRP

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 01:58 PM
4-5 thousand feet? I suggest you do your sums again.

dP=0.5*roh*(v^2)*(1+0.25*(V/C)^2)

roh = local air density
v = velocity
c = local speed of sound
dP = change in air pressure

Now, at 10,000 feet, 300 mph gives 2"Hg pressure rise. 400 mph gives about 3.5"Hg pressure rise.

******, S., Reed, H., Yarker, A. (1941) THE PERFORMANCE OF A SUPERCHARGED AERO ENGINE Derby: Rolls-Royce

Sea level pressure is 29.92"Hg. At 10,000 feet the pressure is about 20" Hg.

1.5" Hg is worth about 1000 feet at 10,000 feet (slightly over, but never mind).

And that 1000 feet assumes that the Mustang was 100 mph faster than the Spitfire, which it of course was not. In reality the speed difference was worth more like 500 feet.

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

That's an in-game advantage, rooting in the fact that we have one-handed Bf 109 pilots modelled (ie. one hand stickforce being the max instead of two), who, unlike their RL counterparts, won't use their 2nd hand ever even when needed. IOW the game simulates half the elevator effect on the 109 at high speed that was possible in real life.

Hopefully BOB introduces able-bodied pilots with TWO hands. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the Mustang had no high speed handling advantage over the 109? I see you're back to the old chestnut again.

LRRP

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
4-5 thousand feet? I suggest you do your sums again.

dP=0.5*roh*(v^2)*(1+0.25*(V/C)^2)

roh = local air density
v = velocity
c = local speed of sound
dP = change in air pressure

Now, at 10,000 feet, 300 mph gives 2"Hg pressure rise. 400 mph gives about 3.5"Hg pressure rise.

******, S., Reed, H., Yarker, A. (1941) THE PERFORMANCE OF A SUPERCHARGED AERO ENGINE Derby: Rolls-Royce

Sea level pressure is 29.92"Hg. At 10,000 feet the pressure is about 20" Hg.

1.5" Hg is worth about 1000 feet at 10,000 feet (slightly over, but never mind).

And that 1000 feet assumes that the Mustang was 100 mph faster than the Spitfire, which it of course was not. In reality the speed difference was worth more like 500 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That may well be, but the proof is in the pudding. The V-1650-7 in the P-51B/D gave an F.S. gear full throttle height of 24-26,000 ft vs. the Spit LF IX's 20-22,000 ft FTH at maximum level speeds.

Some of this is probably due to slight differences in the supercharger diameters, but much of it appears to be related higher RAM efficiency.

LRRP

StellarRat
08-10-2006, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
StellarRat,

I'm pretty sure that most could, too. But not enough to give the 109 any dramatic turn advantage- especially when the Mustang dumps flaps.

Also, I think that fights below 20,000 feet were at least as common, if not more so, than fights above 20k. Of the fights that did begin above 20k many, many ended well below that.

Again I'm not advocating a 'best at everything' P-51, just one that is competitive in *most* areas.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know about dumping flaps. If it gets to that point IN THE GAME you are in serious trouble vs. a 109. My feeling is that the 109 could out turn fight a 51 pretty handily at low speeds and altitudes. But in real life no one wanted to engage in such foolish activity (unlike our online brethen) they wanted to survive. Too much can go wrong under such circumstances for any pilot. Hitting the ground becomes a distinct possibility then it doesn't make any difference how good your plane is! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The bounce is the "real" tactic and the 51 is superior for this.

Yes, the fights did usually end lower, but that was the pilots diving to maintain speed where again the 51 would hold it's advantage in high speed manuevering. Most of the accounts involved only one or two turns then a break-off by one of the pilots (split-s or whatever.)

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
I don't know about dumping flaps. If it gets to that point IN THE GAME you are in serious trouble vs. a 109. My feeling is that the 109 could out turn fight a 51 pretty handily at low speeds and altitudes. But in real life no one wanted to engage in such foolish activity (unlike our online brethen) they wanted to survive. Too much can go wrong under such circumstances for any pilot. Hitting the ground becomes a distinct possibility then it doesn't make any difference how good your plane is! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The bounce is the "real" tactic and the 51 is superior for this.

Yes, the fights did usually end lower, but that was the pilots diving to maintain speed where again the 51 would hold it's advantage in high speed manuevering. Most of the accounts involved only one or two turns then a break-off by one of the pilots (split-s or whatever.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. It does appear that most pilots were quite reticent to engage in prolonged turn fights on the deck. Really no room for error there. And frankly, if it did come to that regularly the P-51 would not be my ride of choice.

LRRP

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 02:20 PM
The V-1650-7 has gear ratios of 5.80 and 7.35
The Merlin 66 has gear ratios of 5.79 and 7.06

As a result, the 66 is rated at 5750 feet in MS gear, and 16000 feet in FS gear, whilst the -7 is rated at 6200 feet in MS and 19300 in FS.

They're similar engines, but they're not the same (they've also got different accesories, different prop reduction gear ratios - 0.477 for the 66, 0.479 for the -7).

Anyway, that's the source of the difference to which you refer, not ram effect.

See Harvey-Bailey, A. (1995)THE MERLIN IN PERSPECTIVE - the combat years 4th Edition. Derby: Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust.

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 02:33 PM
That's it then. I knew there was a difference, but I didn't realize the M66/-7 F.S. gear variation was as pronounced as that.

LRRP

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 02:39 PM
Neither did I until I looked it up. There is a tendency to just swallow the old line "V-1650-7 = Merlin 66", but of course if you think about it, if that were really the case there would have been no need for the Merlin 266.

Polyperhon
08-10-2006, 03:19 PM
To Kocur


First of all, I wonder what's your problem with "popular" books.I used a reference that anyone can just pick up and read easily.But have you read different data in more "serious" publications?
Instead I question your own sources, because -again- I cannot understand how is possible a t/o weight of 9205 ibs to be 3.980 kg!(9205=4170).This is for P-51B and is still a LOT.Mike Spick's data is for P-51D and gives actually as NORMAL t/o weight 10.100 Ibs, that is 4.581 kg, which means 4.6 and NOT 4.5 tons.The wing loading is again given for a normal t/o weight(clean configuration).NOT ferry weight!So many times that P-51s went on combat with 2 external fuel tanks, if you know...therefore, it was even heavier.
Empty weight was 3.5 tons, more in many cases than normal t/o weight of other fighters.How come it was not a lot? Certainly it was.Instead of whinning, shouldn't you admire a bit a design that you could fly against much lighter opponents?
At the end, I cannot follow your thoughts about combat and overall behaviour of the plane.I wonder if you really use IL-2 at all.The things you say they never applied in real battle, if you wanted to chase the enemy.They are other people here that they are telling you a reality that you simply refuse to accept.How then it was possible for Erich Hartmann to shoot down 7 P-51s in a single mission with a Bf-109G-14?

To HayateAce

I am not TurdFurst or whoever else.I am an 31-year old engineer that I hate reading posts in football-like fan mentality.I just mentioned some simple data facts!I don't dislike the P-51.Actually my post had a touch of admiration for an overweight design that could do so well in combat.

To Irrp22

For instance, if you are going to use a wingloading comparison, even the heaviest P-51D at a full 269 gallons/1018 liters of internal fuel (not a combat weight) has a wingloading of between 42.1 and 43.0 lbs/sq ft. At standard fighter weight it is between 40.0 and 40.6 lbs /sq ft. The P-51B's wingloading ranges anywhere from 36.5 for short range fighter to 42 lbs/sq ft for full internal fuel. Those numbers are equal to or better than any Bf 109's from G-1 (39.43) to K-4 (42.9), and somewhat better than any 190's- Anton or Dora.

I don't disagree with this.The 43 Ibs/sq ft is 212kg/m2.40 Ibs/sq ft is 196 Kg/m2.Still is a lot in both cases...However I think that is more appropiate to use take-off weight with full internal fuel.What is the point of having an internal fuel tank if you don't use it?

crazyivan1970
08-10-2006, 03:45 PM
Kocur, even that we dont really like each other MUCH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif....heeh, but i have to give you props for your post. Excellent points, right on!

Now, back to hating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
08-10-2006, 03:53 PM
why dont u like kocur? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

i know u could pop combat flaps at highspeed on p51. ground attack pilots would do that, as it gives a nose down attitude, so u can see more of the ground. works ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

they would cruise at 300mph with flaps down

Treetop64
08-10-2006, 03:54 PM
I second that sentiment, Ivan. The Mustang was all about speed, speed, and more speed. It did everthing fast. To be any good in the Mustang you have to know how to keep up the speed.

The faster machine will always dictate the terms of the fight, and no other propeller driven craft was more adept at this than the P-51. However, once you got slow, you're screwed. The key to success in the P-51 is to maintain the speed. Keep her moving fast, no matter what you're doing. Period.

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:

To Irrp22

I don't disagree with this.The 43 Ibs/sq ft is 212kg/m2.40 Ibs/sq ft is 196 Kg/m2.Still is a lot in both cases...However I think that is more appropiate to use take-off weight with full internal fuel.What is the point of having an internal fuel tank if you don't use it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Polyperhon,

40+ lbs/sq ft is right in line with all the late-war Western fighters bar the Spitfire. You can choose to make your comparison at full take-off weight, but in the case of the Mustang that gives a distorted view of relative combat performance.

If Bf 109's regularly engaged in combat 400+ miles from their take-off point, then any comparison of likely combat performance would have to take that into acount. They didn't, the Mustang did. The fact is that it was highly likely that a 109 would enter combat with nearly full internal while it was rare (though not unheard of) for the Mustang to do the same. Remember, the Mustang didn't *need* all that fuel to conduct a basic fighter mission. It could carry the same internal load as a Spitfire and still have slightly more range.

LRRP

BTW, Hartmann never shot down 7 Mustangs in a single mission- nor in total. In fact, it looks like *he* was shot down by Bob Goebel of the 31st FG in July of 1944. The latest issue of 'Flight Journal' magazine gives the details.


.

crazyivan1970
08-10-2006, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
why dont u like kocur? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, i like everybody p1ngu, even you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif hehe....

It just Kocur has low tolerance for Oleg`s fanboys like myself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Blutarski2004
08-10-2006, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Reading some of you guys make me think you are still before having a thorough reading of Mustang section of Spitfireperformance, i.e. what I did and which brought me to following revelations:

Vast majority of Mustangs, i.e. those powered by V-1650-7 were not high alt fighters, they were LOW to MID alts fighters, for -7 was nothing more but US Merlin 66's analogue.

Mustangs were not particularly heavy planes - what makes them look like that in popular books is HUGE internal fuel capacity. Therefore you can put in thrash all the climb performance data or ideas on acceleration in combat that you got from those popular books, which gave you idea what was P-51s performance at weight of ferry condition! With normal combat load Mustang was to say the least a decent sustained climber. And more importantly high top speed made them able to leave almost any opponent in dust in high speed, shallow climb! I can only see Tempest being able to do the same with LW at low and mid alts.

Mustangs were FAST, very fast, no other Allied plane was so universally fast! With any engine they were fast up there, for even with -7 low drag made them make lots of speed from limited power. But the most important thing we should learn is that Mustangs, especially with -7 were VERY FAST LOW ALT FIGHTERS! There was no other Allied fighter to be able to do a crucial thing in defeating LW in spring of 1944, that is to catch Bf-109s and especially Fw-190As at mid and low alts! Before Mustangs if only LW pilots were able do reach low alt in dive after split-S, they were, in general, safe, as Spifires, P-47s and P-38 were slower than them there! Spring 1944 top LW performers: Bf-109G-14 making 560kmh at SL, and Fw-190A7/8 at 1,65ata making 566kmh there, could leave in the dust any allied fighter, trying to catch them! Any but Mustang, for P-51B/Cs at 67''Hg even with wingracks were developing 585kmh at SL! And judging that dont forget about great dive acceleration and high Vne. Now being able to reach deep into enemy territory, which many allied fighters were able to do, and unlike other Allied fighters still being able to pursuit and catch enemy fighters at mid alts and low, was crucial in combating LW! So range was really helpful, but great P-51's dive, speed and high speed climb performance was what made them effective fighters, not "just range" added to "medicore performance".

P-51s did not do well in low speed turning - true! But who needs low speed turning, if he is faster than opponents? And if necessity appeared Mustang pilot could drop combat flaps (or more) and usually be able to out-angle opponent enough to damage him, without need to do many full circles in which Im sure Mustang would inevitably lose against Bf-109.

Low drag meant that even at rather economic power setting Mustangs were able to cruise very fast - the faster you cruise, the more difficult you are to be bounced and the more time you have to react. Nice powerloading at combat weight plus very low drag made Mustangs unmatched among allied fighters in high speed acceleration, say... from high cruise to top speed, level or in dive! Any problems behind as you were flying at high cruise? Just push the throttle and maybe lover your nose to gain separation and just leave or zoom climb (again: low drag!) afterwards or stay at high speed, shallow climb.

And then there was Dora, that was able to match P-51s or do more in some areas.

AmI making things up? Read those combat reports: how many fights above say 7km and how many from there to the deck? In how many P-51 failed to catch running opponents?



Back to the game: set Mustangs in proper historic conditions and using them to their strenghts, i.e. flying fast, horizontally or in shallow climb can guarantee you not only relative safety but also good chances of defeating anything. That is not to say, that there are no problems with their FM, some universal, i.e. unfavourble modelling of E loss in manouvers for all high loading fighters, some specific mostly having source in modelling P-51 according to what they behave like with fuel in rear tank plus certain undermodelling related to drag of bombracks. Universal E-loss problem of high wingloaded planes is even more unfair in case of Mustangs for at combat weight their wingloading wasnt so high really! That lowish wingloading means in my undertanding that as long as they stayed fast, Mustangs were above AoA levels, at which laminar wing would show its ugly face, i.e. higher drag to produce the same lift.

Very specific Mustang problem in the game is incomplete set of versions. Both P-51Ds that we have are both in performance and historic background behind Fw-190D9 or La-7 or Spitfire Mk.IX at 25lbs, as they are just fine only until summer 1944 in case of 8AF. "Mustang Mk.III" is definately not representative for US operated Mustangs after summer of 1944 both by having too good performance and by historical numerical superiority of Ds over B/Cs in later 1944 and 1945. The game really needs P-51D-20 at 75''Hg boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Kokur,

Thank you for a well reasoned presentation. I cannot understand how it escapes many people that there are different types of turn performance: minimum radius turn; maximum rate turn; insantaneous turn; sustained turn.

The turning advantage of the Mustang series was in sustained turn performance. At whatever altitude the Mustang had a speed advantage over its opponent, it also held a sustained turn advantage. The degree of advantage varies with the degree of speed (read energy) superiority.

The reality is certainly somewhat more complicated, but the principle remains perfectly sound.

Treetop64
08-10-2006, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
LRRP

BTW, Hartmann never shot down 7 Mustangs in a single mission- nor in total. In fact, it looks like *he* was shot down by Bob Goebel of the 31st FG in July of 1944. The latest issue of 'Flight Journal' magazine gives the details.


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF I understand correctly, all of Hartmann's kills were on the eastern front anyway, so unless the Russians got a scret deal on Lend-Lease, I don't think he ever had an engagement with P-51s (or A-36s), and thus would have never shot one down, let alone seven on a single sortie.

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 04:13 PM
Treetop,

Hartmann did score against the 15th AAF over Hungary.

LRRP

Kurfurst__
08-10-2006, 04:14 PM
As a matter of interest, Soviets measured 23 secs turn time for the Allison Mustang at 1000m altitude - that's hardly remarkable.

I wonder what the Merlin Mustangs could do. They seem to be in the same class as FW 190As, which were measured at 22-23 secs by the Soviets.

luftluuver
08-10-2006, 04:18 PM
At what speed and radius Kurfurst?

Kurfurst__
08-10-2006, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

That's an in-game advantage, rooting in the fact that we have one-handed Bf 109 pilots modelled (ie. one hand stickforce being the max instead of two), who, unlike their RL counterparts, won't use their 2nd hand ever even when needed. IOW the game simulates half the elevator effect on the 109 at high speed that was possible in real life.

Hopefully BOB introduces able-bodied pilots with TWO hands. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the Mustang had no high speed handling advantage over the 109? I see you're back to the old chestnut again.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's cute to hear from someone who was just saying in his previous post "Again I'm not advocating a 'best at everything' P-51".

The only one who has jumped on his bandwagon long time ago and could not get off from it is you; you are always arguing that the even the sillyest little detail was in the Mustang's favour, and tick yourself off when people disagree.

As for the 'high speed advantage' of the Mustang let me quote you from a report I am sure you're familiar with - it's on the 109G :

"Some force is needed on the stick at high speeds, but accelerations as great as the pilot can stand can be put up."

Now you tell me what advantage is in there in being able to pull more Gs than the pilot can stand. Real pilots could use two hands on the stick lrrp2, believe or not.

faustnik
08-10-2006, 04:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
At what speed and radius Kurfurst? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The altitude listed is 1000m.

P-51A - 3880kg, turn time 23sec
Fw190A8 - 3986kg, turn time 21-22sec
Fw190D9 - 4197kg, turn time 22-23sec

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 04:28 PM
So I'll take that as a yes then, huh Isegrim?

Like I said, I make no claim that the Mustang was 'best at everything'. But one profound advantage it *did* have over the Bf 109 was high-speed handling.

LRRP

Xiolablu3
08-10-2006, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
StellarRat,

I'm pretty sure that most could, too. But not enough to give the 109 any dramatic turn advantage- especially when the Mustang dumps flaps.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dropping flaps makes little or no difference to turning circle in the Mustang III.


From RAF test of Mustang III versus Spitfire IX.

Turning Circle :
20. The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle. There is adequate warning of the high-speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting.

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


Do you not read reports on this plane at all?

Dropping flaps makes little or no difference to turning circle in the Mustang III.


From RAF test of Mustang II versus Spitfire IX.

Turning Circle :
20. The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle. There is adequate warning of the high-speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously Mustang pilots disagreed.

It's funny you'd ask that as it appears that you have glossed over virtually everything else in that report. Did you catch the turn comparison to the G-2 portion? Doing a bit of cherry picking are we?

LRRP

MrMojok
08-10-2006, 04:34 PM
About the Hartmann thing, it was during shuttle missions.

There was one particular dogfight I have been reading up on, and in fact I intended to start a thread about it on these very boards.

Shuttle mission where P51s escorted B17s from England to Russia for refuelling, then on to Italy. During one of these, July 2, 1944, there was an enormous dogfight where several famous pilots from the 4th FG encountered some of the highest-scoring aces in history... Luftwaffe Experten from the eastern front. Hartmann was there. I believe he said in his memoirs that he was shot down during this dogfight. It is believed that prior to this he shot down and killed Ralph "Kidd" Hofer.

I will have to look when I get home for the names of all the aces involved in this fight; it was quite unbelievable.

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
About the Hartmann thing, it was during shuttle missions.

There was one particular dogfight I have been readin up on, and in fact I intended to start a thread about it on these very boards.

Shuttle mission where P51s escorted B17s from England to Russia for refuelling, then on to Italy. During one of these, July 2, 1944, there was an enormous dogfight where several famous pilots from the 4th FG encountered some of the highest-scoring aces in history... Luftwaffe Experten from the eastern front. Hartmann was there. I believe he said in his memoirs that he was shot down during this dogfight. It is believed that before that he shot down and killed Ralph "Kidd" Hofer.

I will have to look when I get home for the names of all the aces involved in this fight; it was quite unbelievable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hartmann fought against the Italy-based Mustangs several times. The 4th Fighter Group mission you describe was flown with the 325th FG from the its base in Italy where the 4th had stopped over on the return leg from their Frantic shuttle mission. IIRC, I don't believe that Hartmann was involved in this particular fight.

Ralph Hofer was killed while strafing an airfield in Yugoslovia a couple of hundred miles from the dogfight.

LRRP

Xiolablu3
08-10-2006, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


Do you not read reports on this plane at all?

Dropping flaps makes little or no difference to turning circle in the Mustang III.


From RAF test of Mustang II versus Spitfire IX.

Turning Circle :
20. The Mustang is always out-turned by the Spitfire IX. Use of flaps on the Mustang does not appear to improve the turning circle. There is adequate warning of the high-speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously Mustang pilots disagreed.

It's funny you'd ask that as it appears that you have glossed over virtually everything else in that report. Did you catch the turn comparison to the G-2 portion? Doing a bit of cherry picking are we?

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are trying to make me out to be a Luftwaffe fan when I am nothing of the sort, I am just pointing out obvious realities which you seem to totally disregard.

There is obviously a flaw in that part of the report as it says that the Mustang III has trouble versus a FW190 and can outturn a 109.

Now since ANYONE knows that the FW190 was outurned by the 109, you have to realise that this is probably a gunpod 109, or something is wrong with it. Its just common sense.

I love flying the Mustang in IL2 and I think its modelled well, it could be better, but I get annoyed with people thinking it should do things that it shouldnt.

It was a great plane which excelled at high speed but it COULDNT compete with the 109 at low speed dogfighting, to believe otherwise you are just deluding yourself.

Take off your rose tinted spectacles and use some common sense.

MrMojok
08-10-2006, 04:43 PM
Ah, I got it all completely wrong then!

Kocur_
08-10-2006, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:

First of all, I wonder what's your problem with "popular" books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That they arent detailed enough and at least part of their authors are historians, who have too little interest in technical issues for my taste.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:

Instead I question your own sources, because -again- I cannot understand how is possible a t/o weight of 9205 ibs to be 3.980 kg!(9205=4170). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not possible indeed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I put that link there to provide reference to my little calculation starting point. Please re-read that post: the calculation was about weight of Mustang tanked with 400l of fuel (680 - 400 = 281, 281 x 0,7 = 196kg, 9200lbs x 0,454 = 4176kg, 4176 - 196 = 3.980kg)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
This is for P-51B and is still a LOT.Mike Spick's data is for P-51D and gives actually as NORMAL t/o weight 10.100 Ibs, that is 4.581 kg, which means 4.6 and NOT 4.5 tons.The wing loading is again given for a normal t/o weight(clean configuration).NOT ferry weight!So many times that P-51s went on combat with 2 external fuel tanks, if you know...therefore, it was even heavier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NORMAL t/o weight is that figure indeed but that includes 1.000l of fuel and makes a condition in which no P-51 ever fought. I called it "ferry" not only as it was for a very long flight, in which fight was to happen after burning a lot of that fuel but also by analogy to Spitfire rear fuselage tank.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
Empty weight was 3.5 tons, more in many cases than normal t/o weight of other fighters.How come it was not a lot? Certainly it was.Instead of whinning, shouldn't you admire a bit a design that you could fly against much lighter opponents? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed it was a lot, and it was in result of NACA norms of minimum durability, some of which were exaggerated (say engine bed ability to take 2g iirc crosswise stress). Omitting those and building new Mustangs according to British, less strict norms resulted in light Mustangs series.
I dont see how you managed to notice whining in what I wrote, but not notice what I feel about that design.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Polyperhon:
At the end, I cannot follow your thoughts about combat and overall behaviour of the plane.I wonder if you really use IL-2 at all.The things you say they never applied in real battle, if you wanted to chase the enemy.They are other people here that they are telling you a reality that you simply refuse to accept.How then it was possible for Erich Hartmann to shoot down 7 P-51s in a single mission with a Bf-109G-14? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont get most of that part, but: yes I play the game and try do what is how I belive P-51 was used - my noobishness prevents me from doing any better than this but Im still learning.
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1779/334thstatsmn2.th.png (http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=334thstatsmn2.png)


Btw: let me recommend lecture of some combat reports by P-51 pilots http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports.html

Kocur_
08-10-2006, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Kocur, even that we dont really like each other MUCH
(...)
Now, back to hating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Tak tochno! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
It just Kocur has low tolerance for Oleg`s fanboys like myself </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me just quote a well known and commonly liked moderator: "I have to give you props for your post. Excellent point, right on!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

You are trying to make me out to be a Luftwaffe fan when I am nothing of the sort, I am just pointing out obvious realities which you seem to totally disregard.

There is obviously a flaw in that part of the report as it says that the Mustang III has trouble versus a FW190 and can outturn a 109.

Now since ANYONE knows that the FW190 was outurned by the 109, you have to realise that this is probably a gunpod 109, or something is wrong with it. Its just common sense.

I love flying the Mustang in IL2 and I think its modelled well, it could be better, but I get annoyed with people thinking it should do things that it shouldnt.

It was a great plane which excelled at high speed but it COULDNT compete with the 109 at low speed dogfighting, to believe otherwise you are just deluding yourself.

Take off your rose tinted spectacles and use some common sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xioablu,

You are all over the place on this. You're shucking and jiving and cherry picking like crazy.

Where does it say the Mustang III had a problem with the Fw 190's turn? I'm not saying the G-2 finding is absolutely correct, but the wide-spread use of flaps by Mustang combat pilots tends to indicate that the 'no improvement' claim may not be entirely correct either. Then again, there is no technical reason that a Mustang III 'COULDNT compete' with a Bf 109G in the turn, especially at middle and higher speeds. Many, many Mustang combat pilots must have been deluded about their ability to turn with 109s.

Don't accuse me of wearing Rose-tinted glasses when you are so cavalierly selecting only bits and pieces of data that support your opinion.

LRRP

P.S.- I do not believe you're a Luft-whiner, or any other kind of whiner for that matter. In fact I don't like the '-whiner' label at all. I do think you've made up your mind about Mustang turn performance without weighing the majority of the technical and operational evidence.

I'll say it again: I do believe that the Bf 109 did have an advantage over the Mustang in low- speed turning, but that's a long ways from saying that the Mustang was out-classed by any 109G in any turn fight consisting of more than one half turn at speed.

.

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2006, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Pipper,

Back up your talk, post test (or don't even bother, just send it to 1C) in the sim with correct historical data to compare it to. You obviously have enough time, you have plenty to post here. Or are you just blowing wind???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just do a little honest research on the P-51 and you'll quickly conclude that the game aircraft (as currently modeled) and the real life aircraft aren't remotely congruent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Calling Oleg a liar because he doesn't see things your way is arrogant and childish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, I did not call Maddox a liar but I certainly DO question his modeling of the P-51 (and other mid/late war U.S. fighter aircraft). You need to throttle back a little and really read what's being said rather than indulging in knee-jerk replies to your imagined remarks of others that have never been made.

GR142-Pipper

lrrp22
08-10-2006, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrMojok:
Ah, I got it all completely wrong then! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not hard to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif There is a lot of conflicting information out there, much of which doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. Hell, I firmly planted my foot in my mouth regarding the Spit LF IX just a few posts back.


LRRP

MrMojok
08-10-2006, 05:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My intent with starting the other thread was to pick everyone's minds for info about this. I think I will start it tonight.. please come have a look LRRP.

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Just do a little honest research on the P-51 and you'll quickly conclude that the game aircraft (as currently modeled) and the real life aircraft aren't remotely congruent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's a pretty big statement. Perhaps you might back it up with data?

HellToupee
08-10-2006, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
I dont get most of that part, but: yes I play the game and try do what is how I belive P-51 was used - my noobishness prevents me from doing any better than this but Im still learning.
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1779/334thstatsmn2.th.png (http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=334thstatsmn2.png)


Btw: let me recommend lecture of some combat reports by P-51 pilots http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

looking at the gunnery stats u have an average of 51 hits per kill, thats the reason i dislike the plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
08-10-2006, 07:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Just do a little honest research on the P-51 and you'll quickly conclude that the game aircraft (as currently modeled) and the real life aircraft aren't remotely congruent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More wind blowing. If you have an issue with the modeling, do something about it, other than complain.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">, I did not call Maddox a liar
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You called him "technically dishonest", what did you mean by that?

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2006, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Just do a little honest research on the P-51 and you'll quickly conclude that the game aircraft (as currently modeled) and the real life aircraft aren't remotely congruent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's a pretty big statement. Perhaps you might back it up with data? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, it's not difficult at all as the available P-51 information is plentiful. Look for real WWII pilot accounts of how their engagements went and contrast these with the way the currently modeled P-51 behaves. My post assumes that those doing the research actually DO have the necessary in-game experience with the 51 to make a reasoned assessment.

....and no, I'm not doing anyone's homework for them, particularly when the required effort is so modest.

GR142-Pipper

luftluuver
08-10-2006, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
At what speed and radius Kurfurst? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The altitude listed is 1000m.

P-51A - 3880kg, turn time 23sec
Fw190A8 - 3986kg, turn time 21-22sec
Fw190D9 - 4197kg, turn time 22-23sec </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">SPEED</span> is ???

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">RADIUS</span> is ???

The altitude was aready given.

faustnik
08-10-2006, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
At what speed and radius Kurfurst? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The altitude listed is 1000m.

P-51A - 3880kg, turn time 23sec
Fw190A8 - 3986kg, turn time 21-22sec
Fw190D9 - 4197kg, turn time 22-23sec </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">SPEED</span> is ???

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">RADIUS</span> is ???

The altitude was aready given. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No clue? Just telling you what it says.

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2006, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Just do a little honest research on the P-51 and you'll quickly conclude that the game aircraft (as currently modeled) and the real life aircraft aren't remotely congruent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">More wind blowing. If you have an issue with the modeling, do something about it, other than complain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You don't seem to understand the difference between pointing out incongruities with complaints. Hardly a wonder since you're so willing to accuse people saying things that were never said. Oh well, your problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">, I did not call Maddox a liar
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You called him "technically dishonest", what did you mean by that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Jesus H. Christ Faustnik, you just can never get it right. Will you please READ THE FREAKIN' POSTS. I SPECIFICALLY said "After all this time there is little wonder why sometimes the technical honesty of the developer gets called into question". The operative words are "SOMETIMES the technical honesty of the developer GETS CALLED INTO QUESTION". From this you then jump to the false conclusion that I have called Maddox a "liar". Just as you falsely accused me of saying that "I'm above it all." yet can't back that up with a single link supporting your goofy baloney.

So let me explain (just for you). My statement was that it gives one pause that technical dishonesty is a POSSIBILITY. That's a FAR different proposition than saying that it is a CERTAINTY. If this is the best you can do, perhaps there's a remedial reading and comprehension forum you can join. You need it.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
08-10-2006, 08:06 PM
"My baloney", that's funny. It's your garbage that's getting tiring. Nice attempt at a backtrack.

Here is some of your garbage from this thread:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"The same can be said regarding the modeling of the P-47 and P-38. So if you have trouble choking down "technically dishonest" perhaps we can find another candy-coated politically correct word that says the same thing."</span>

Viper2005_
08-10-2006, 08:25 PM
Where is the R/L data? Where are the write-ups of tests performed within the sim against said data? Where are the tracks demonstrating the deviations from said R/L performance data under controlled conditions?

Without all that good stuff, this is liable to turn into a slanging match. In fact, I'll save time and do it for you:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<span class="ev_code_red">My plane was better than yours, but in the sim it's broken! Referee! It's broken I tell you!</span>

<span class="ev_code_blue">He's lying Ref! The fact is that it's actually far too good. He just can't handle the performance!</span>

<span class="ev_code_red">That's rot! It's broken and you're the liar!</span>

<span class="ev_code_blue">Why you little!</span> [headbutts rival, mods step in]
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>(colours for illustrative purposes only)

[Monty Python allusion]<span class="ev_code_yellow">And now for something Completely Objective:</span>[/Monty Python allusion]

GR142-Pipper, you have the floor...

brimigus
08-10-2006, 08:31 PM
Hum that€s a good question? I€ve found if you can keep the ball centered and the plane trimmed out it will go real nice and fast. You can€t really throw it around like a 109 that€s for sure, and forget about trying to out dive and pull any hard turns that will just break the wing right off. I can fly it decent; I just suck with the 50 cals so bad I rarely make it my mount of choice when playing online. I kill way more planes with a FW .Now if it had four 20 mill wing cannons it might be another story.

faustnik
08-10-2006, 08:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
this is liable to turn into a slanging match. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes sorry for the slanging. I give Pipper and myself three rolleyes.

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

ouch...

Slickun
08-10-2006, 08:41 PM
At high speeds the turning performance is determined by how many G's the plane and pilot can take. The P-51 could pull 8 G's down to about 240 mph IAS. That is its corner speed, the speed that you can still pull max g's.

The P-51 could take a lot of g's, and the pilot, sitting with a g-suit on, could roughly pull 1/2 more than an opponent without one.

Throw in the stellar roll rate at high speeds, the superb zoom climb available, and the ability to delve into high machs and stay controllable, well. All those were more important than low speed turning by 1944.

p1ngu666
08-10-2006, 10:00 PM
high speed purposing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and btw, 51 hits per kill, thats 51/4 = 12.75, or a 1 second burst if all rounds hit, which they wont most likely (no slight on kocur http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, just law of averages)

HellToupee
08-10-2006, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
high speed purposing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and btw, 51 hits per kill, thats 51/4 = 12.75, or a 1 second burst if all rounds hit, which they wont most likely (no slight on kocur http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, just law of averages) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

assuming 100% hit rate, just take the 5.9% stat(which imo is very good for the .50s) of his air gunnery and then calculate average shooting time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2006, 10:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
"My baloney", that's funny. It's your garbage that's getting tiring. Nice attempt at a backtrack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So it's now my fault that you can neither read the posts nor back up what you assert. Hilarious. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is some of your garbage from this thread:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"The same can be said regarding the modeling of the P-47 and P-38. So if you have trouble choking down "technically dishonest" perhaps we can find another candy-coated politically correct word that says the same thing."</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet again, you just can't seem to get passed the difference between entertaining a possibility and establishing a certainty. Oh well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2006, 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 Viper2005_:
Where is the R/L data? Where are the write-ups of tests performed within the sim against said data? Where are the tracks demonstrating the deviations from said R/L performance data under controlled conditions?

Without all that good stuff, this is liable to turn into a slanging match. In fact, I'll save time and do it for you:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<span class="ev_code_red">My plane was better than yours, but in the sim it's broken! Referee! It's broken I tell you!</span>

<span class="ev_code_blue">He's lying Ref! The fact is that it's actually far too good. He just can't handle the performance!</span>

<span class="ev_code_red">That's rot! It's broken and you're the liar!</span>

<span class="ev_code_blue">Why you little!</span> [headbutts rival, mods step in]
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>(colours for illustrative purposes only)

[Monty Python allusion]<span class="ev_code_yellow">And now for something Completely Objective:</span>[/Monty Python allusion]

GR142-Pipper, you have the floor... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Why thank you (takes mic in hand). Allow me to put forth some good places to start Faustnik's education on the P-51:

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/79.htm
http://www.warbirdsoverlongisland.com/mustang.htm
Here's an excerpt from the above link: "The Mustang truly was a remarkable aircraft. Its superiority came from the revolutionary laminar flow airfoil, a drag-reducing radiator cooling system, lots of fuel and a marvelous blend of airframe and powerful engine. It had excellent performance at both high and low altitudes and enough fuel to fly anywhere the bombers were sent in Europe. Anderson's average combat mission was about 4 and a half hours in duration; the longest mission was flown on D-Day when he logged 6 hours and 55 minutes. Anderson still had enough fuel in reserve for about another hour. As far as maneuverability, Anderson always felt that he could handle any type of German fighter anywhere he found them."

"The P-51Mustang was a truly significant aircraft, probably the best all around fighter developed during World War II. It had a major impact in the European air war by helping to clear the skies of the Luftwaffe, permitting the invasion of the mainland and the defeat of Germany."

The list goes on and on and on with pilot after pilot after pilot saying basically the very same things. Interestingly, NONE of these sources (not just these few but any other that I could find...anywhere) ever cited the P-51's combat experiences as being hampered with: wings that fly off, being an unstable gunnery platform, having 50's that weren't effective or having poor energy characteristics. To the contrary, ALL cite these very same issues as being the very traits that made the P-51 the great fighter that it was...high and low.

Anyway, it took a whole 5 mins. to find these cites. If one spent even 30 minutes looking at REAL P-51 combat accounts and gun camera footage, it's pretty clear that these REAL accounts just doesn't jive with the P-51 as currently modeled in this game. That's the basic contradiction that seems beyond Faustnik's ability to grasp and Maddox's willingness (for reasons unknown) to accurately code.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
08-10-2006, 11:46 PM
Don't worry Pipper, I have no doubts about the P-51! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Your judgement the other hand...

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

GR142-Pipper
08-11-2006, 12:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Don't worry Pipper, I have no doubts about the P-51! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Your judgement the other hand...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, we're not talking about the REAL P-51, Faustnik. We're talking about how the GAME P-51 and the REAL P-51 have little in common. It's clear you have no idea what we're even discussing. Given this, it's quite moot so let's leave it at that.

GR142-Pipper

Ratsack
08-11-2006, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
At what speed and radius Kurfurst? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The altitude listed is 1000m.

P-51A - 3880kg, turn time 23sec
Fw190A8 - 3986kg, turn time 21-22sec
Fw190D9 - 4197kg, turn time 22-23sec </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder about those Soviet tests. Like all the tests of captured equipment, I wonder what the condition of the plane was like. I'm thinking here of the condition of the FW 190A-4 in that Soviet video that was posted a little while ago. She looks a little the worse for wear.

This is not an exclusively Soviet problem, either. It's just a problem you will have when testing a type for which you've got no spares, no pilot's notes, no service manual, no experienced staff, incorrect lubricants, incorrect fuel, etc, etc, etc.

Even so, the 21-22 seconds for the FW 190A-8 isn't bad. I'm surprised the Dora is worse, though.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
08-11-2006, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
So I'll take that as a yes then, huh Isegrim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You often take people's post in a different meaning that was written there. I asked you a question - you did not answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Like I said, I make no claim that the Mustang was 'best at everything'. But one profound advantage it *did* have over the Bf 109 was high-speed handling.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on how you define profound and high-speed handling. If you define it strictly as roll rate - sure.
Certainly it does in the game where you are forced to fly the 109 with one hand behind your back, literally.

As far as those flap goes, I am sure you are aware that combat flaps were present on quite a few fighters apart from the Mustang. Besides, flaps are of limited use in turning combat, they can be used for momentary increase of inst. turn rate, but using them in longer sustained turns is more of a hinderence then help because of the increased drag.

Foxl
08-11-2006, 03:50 AM
hoopie

HellToupee
08-11-2006, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
At what speed and radius Kurfurst? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The altitude listed is 1000m.

P-51A - 3880kg, turn time 23sec
Fw190A8 - 3986kg, turn time 21-22sec
Fw190D9 - 4197kg, turn time 22-23sec </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder about those Soviet tests. Like all the tests of captured equipment, I wonder what the condition of the plane was like. I'm thinking here of the condition of the FW 190A-4 in that Soviet video that was posted a little while ago. She looks a little the worse for wear.

This is not an exclusively Soviet problem, either. It's just a problem you will have when testing a type for which you've got no spares, no pilot's notes, no service manual, no experienced staff, incorrect lubricants, incorrect fuel, etc, etc, etc.

Even so, the 21-22 seconds for the FW 190A-8 isn't bad. I'm surprised the Dora is worse, though.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well unlike in game the dora was a worse turner than the antons.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

US report on the d9 states:

"The FW-190-D-9, although well armoured and equiped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling stand-point than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW fouteen cylinder radial engine.

Any advantage that this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics"

even the ingame object viewer states for d9 poor manoverabilty.