PDA

View Full Version : P51 Facts for fixing problems



RamsteinUSA
07-24-2007, 08:08 PM
P51 Facts for fixing problems: (these and/or similar facts have been posted many times in these forums, but it appears people want the same facts again, again, again...)

Center fuel tank instability:
Source:



http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html

First flown on November 30, 1942, the XP-51B's performance exceeded the engineers' expectations. At 29,800 feet, it made 440 MPH in level flight, 100 MPH better than the Allison models.
The USAAF, desperately needing a long-range bomber escort, contracted for 2200 P-51B's. North American geared up for Mustang production, moving the B-25 program to Kansas City, dedicating the Inglewood plant to the Mustang, and expanding the Dallas plant for the Mustang (Dallas-built versions of the -B model were designated P-51C). P-51B's began rolling out of Inglewood in May, 1943; eventually 1,990 of the -B models would be made. The first of 1,750 P-51C's produced at Dallas flew in August.

After production of the B/C model began, three more changes appeared:

an up-rated Packard Merlin engine, the 1650-7 replacing the 1650-3, for a small increase in HP
an 85 gallon fuel tank installed behind the pilot, giving critically longer reach, but moving the center of gravity aft, thus reducing directional stability until most of the fuel was consumed
the bulbous Malcolm hood, giving much better all-around visibility (a field modification), as shown below.


The Fix: have the Center fuselage drain first as it was in REAL LIFE.

RamsteinUSA
07-24-2007, 08:08 PM
P51 Facts for fixing problems: (these and/or similar facts have been posted many times in these forums, but it appears people want the same facts again, again, again...)

Center fuel tank instability:
Source:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html

First flown on November 30, 1942, the XP-51B's performance exceeded the engineers' expectations. At 29,800 feet, it made 440 MPH in level flight, 100 MPH better than the Allison models.
The USAAF, desperately needing a long-range bomber escort, contracted for 2200 P-51B's. North American geared up for Mustang production, moving the B-25 program to Kansas City, dedicating the Inglewood plant to the Mustang, and expanding the Dallas plant for the Mustang (Dallas-built versions of the -B model were designated P-51C). P-51B's began rolling out of Inglewood in May, 1943; eventually 1,990 of the -B models would be made. The first of 1,750 P-51C's produced at Dallas flew in August.

After production of the B/C model began, three more changes appeared:

an up-rated Packard Merlin engine, the 1650-7 replacing the 1650-3, for a small increase in HP
an 85 gallon fuel tank installed behind the pilot, giving critically longer reach, but moving the center of gravity aft, thus reducing directional stability until most of the fuel was consumed
the bulbous Malcolm hood, giving much better all-around visibility (a field modification), as shown below.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fix: have the Center fuselage drain first as it was in REAL LIFE.

Waldo.Pepper
07-24-2007, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fix: have the Center fuselage drain first as it was in REAL LIFE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but this 'FACT' is very nearly a myth.

At the least it is a simplistic overstatement.

The truth of the matter is that pilots were ordered to select that tank and immediately run it until it is HALF empty first.

Not all Commanders ordered this, and it was not done in all theatres of the war.

Read this thread to learn something.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6191007745/p/1

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/keep%20clean/49665419_o.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
07-24-2007, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
P51 Facts for fixing problems: (these and/or similar facts have been posted many times in these forums, but it appears people want the same facts again, again, again...)

Center fuel tank instability:
Source:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html

First flown on November 30, 1942, the XP-51B's performance exceeded the engineers' expectations. At 29,800 feet, it made 440 MPH in level flight, 100 MPH better than the Allison models.
The USAAF, desperately needing a long-range bomber escort, contracted for 2200 P-51B's. North American geared up for Mustang production, moving the B-25 program to Kansas City, dedicating the Inglewood plant to the Mustang, and expanding the Dallas plant for the Mustang (Dallas-built versions of the -B model were designated P-51C). P-51B's began rolling out of Inglewood in May, 1943; eventually 1,990 of the -B models would be made. The first of 1,750 P-51C's produced at Dallas flew in August.

After production of the B/C model began, three more changes appeared:

an up-rated Packard Merlin engine, the 1650-7 replacing the 1650-3, for a small increase in HP
an 85 gallon fuel tank installed behind the pilot, giving critically longer reach, but moving the center of gravity aft, thus reducing directional stability until most of the fuel was consumed
the bulbous Malcolm hood, giving much better all-around visibility (a field modification), as shown below.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fix: have the Center fuselage drain first as it was in REAL LIFE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Poor Nancy

joeap
07-25-2007, 05:51 AM
Read what Waldo wrote, and I still think you owe the community an apology.

Your post is an improvement however.

RamsteinUSA
07-25-2007, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Oleg Maddox: We do not artificially balance anything. We recreate planes as exactly as possible, and whether their relative performance benefits one side or the other, we do not care.
Even if we had the desire to balance something, that'd be quite an impossible task, since we're covering such a huge variety of aircraft across such diverse theaters and across such a wide time period. There's so many potential match-ups that balancing anything is plainly impossible. How do you balance P-51 vs Spitfire vs Bf-109 vs FW-190 vs La-7 vs Yak-3 vs J2M vs N1K vs Ki-84 vs F4U, where any combination of the above is possible? And we have 300 planes.
So the only question we ask ourselves is, what's the most reliable data we can find on the performance of each given plane, and then we make our plane behave as close to the data we have as possible. How that plane compares to others doesn't even enter our minds.
With the incredible scrutiny all our work is subjected to by the community, there's no room for bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why isn't the P51 upheld to the same standard as was in developing the other planes?

Fix the problems!

This has been begged for for several years now! I have not brought up a new valid, thruth-full fact-full argument. You guy are mkaing me bring up the same facts that have been put forht for several years. It is you guys who refuse to see these facts. You guys and the developers want to bury the facts. Most of the people here are arguing I am wrong, a liar, and that there is nothing wrong with the plane. I find it astounding and rotten that anyone would argue the plane has been modelled correctly.

The only basis I see for anyone trying to block and argue against the P51 being fixed is because they hate the people who fly it. Why the hell else would you be trying so hard as to trip, stop, and block the fixing of the P51?

Again, look at the quote by Oleg. Look at the standards they put on planes. Why is it the P51 is held back?

And further the mods let you slam me, and call me names. If I say up yours back, I am the villian. This community can be very disgusting when there are wrongs that need righted.

Look through the threads over the years that state the facts over the modeling problems with the center tank. We are into year 3 of begging fo the fix before the last patch has been applied.

I do not personally have the data for the wing problems, but I find them I will post them.

Note: We have a Ex-Hellcat pilot (Navy Veteran) in our squadron the has provided some data for some aircraft in the past. Along with that data we had other pilots send Oleg official documents to get things done. Some problems were fixed, some other problems were not. The P51 just happens to have easily fixable more agresis problems, which is a horrible wrong that stands above problems with a few aircraft.

Go back to Oleg's Quote. Apply that to the P51. Fix It! Please!

mynameisroland
07-25-2007, 05:52 PM
Do you really think any level of 'fixing' will make you any better in the P51 ?

Why not just learn how to fly it and stop bloody whining. P51 is a great plane in IL2. If you cant do well in it spend less time posting here and more time practicing this game.

VW-IceFire
07-25-2007, 06:43 PM
Remember that the fuel tank gauges only work visually. There are no fuel tanks...the plane is made of polygons and years ago we asked about this for the Mustang and other planes and we were told by Oleg that the engine does not model COG changes based on individual fuel tanks being empty or full.

So I think we're barking up the wrong tree just like we were years ago. The point is to find out if the COG is modeled with the tank empty, the tank full, or somewhere in between.

What if its in the right place already? ...they did make some changes after 4.05 with the instability of the aircraft during higher AoA moves and rapid aileron use.

I do applaud the new approach taken. A much more civilized manner and more conducive to getting down to business on the Mustang in a more serious way.

Daiichidoku
07-25-2007, 06:50 PM
from:

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html


"But the thing that really set the Mustang apart from any other fighter, friend or foe, was its range"


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

Waldo.Pepper
07-25-2007, 06:56 PM
Here is hoping you wish to enter in to a dialogue with someone who should've been aborted.

I will do my best to remain civil and keep my words on topic (AS LONG AS YOU DO THE SAME!)

With that said lets begin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif At the beginning. From the ground floor.

1. You find the plane badly in need of revision.
Why?

Please provide persuasive evidence (to support your case) rather than opinion.

2. What (as exactly/completely as you can) do you want fixed?

3. You find the 'FACT' that the plane has not been corrected evidence of bias.
Why?

Please provide evidence rather than opinion.

4. You claim that the 'FACT' that the issue has been gone over and over again as evidence that there is bias. Why?

I think that the FACT that is has been gone over and over again as EVIDENCE of a thorough discussion that has taken place already.

I think that the fact that the discussion has taken place as evidence that the plane is fine. Rather than evidence of some sort of conspiracy.

5. Why do you see it the other way, as evidence of a conspiracy?

I am looking forward to this.

Buzzsaw-
07-26-2007, 12:21 AM
Salute

While I think Ramstein's behaviour has not done much to improve the image of those who argue the P-51's modelling is flawed, he is correct that there are issues.

Those issues are as follows:

#1 P-51D's operated at boost levels higher than the D-5 and D-20 aircraft modelled in the game. 75 inches MAP for USAAF aircraft, and 80 inches MAP/+25 boost for RAF Mustangs were normal when 150 octane fuel was used. The fact is, there should be late model Mustangs modelled with a high boost.

The facts and documents to prove this point are well known, and can be seen at Mike William's aircraft performance site, in particular the following page, which is linked to a large number of original documents which prove the point:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html


#2 The behaviour of the virtual aircraft under heavy G load or in dives seems to take into account the special characteristic a full fuselage tank had on the Mustang's center of gravity, BUT unfortunately does not seem to model the effect of a properly balanced aircraft, ie. one which has its fuselage tank empty.

This may be a code issue, it is not clear, but it seems all tanks empty at the same rate, thus the virtual Mustang pilot is unable to do what the real-life pilot was able, and was in fact directed to do, ie. to empty the fuselage tank first before the wing tanks, or empty at least 1/2 of the fuselage tank even before drop tanks.

This direction is noted in all the Mustang manuals I have seen. You can find manuals here on Tailwheel's aircraft page, with the relevant paragraphs within:

http://www.tailwheel.nl/nz/index.html

At this stage in the development of the IL-2 series, it is unfortunately unlikely that these issues are going to be addressed. That does not mean that people who raise these points are incorrect, but it does mean that they should relax a bit, and lower their expectations of a change happening.

We should have had a Mustang which was properly modelled, as we should have had a properly modelled +11 boost Tempest, we don't, and there's not much at this stage to do about it.

tomtheyak
07-26-2007, 06:44 AM
crissakes...!

HOW MANY TIMES??????

MUSTANG FUEL TANK WEIGHT AS WITH EVERY OTHER BLOODY A/C IN THIS GAME STAY OVER THE CoG!!!

THERE IS NO 'REAR FUSELAGE TANK'. THERE IS NO WING TANKS OR FOWARD TANKS. ALL FUEL WEIGHT IS OVERCoG ON ALL AIRCRAFT.

BEEN SAID HUNDRED TIMES BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T HEAR, HENCE THE SHOUTING.

To all of those with perfectly good hearing, apologies for rupturing any eardrums.

Buzzsaw-
07-26-2007, 04:02 PM
Salute TomtheYak

In that case Tom, the CoG on the Mustang is modelled incorrectely.

Because wing loss due to maneuver is excessive. Losses can occur when the tanks are 1/2 full, at speeds under the rated advisory.

When the fuselage tank was empty, a Mustang in normal configuration had no problem with wing loss.

There were three instances where wing loss was a problem within the rated speeds for the aircraft.

A) When the fuselage tank was more than 1/2 full. There were advisories to drain the fuselage tank, put out re. this issue, which as mentioned above, you can read in the manuals.

B) When the aircraft was carrying bombs on the wings, and attempted pullouts during divebombing at speeds over 400 mph. This remained an issue throughout the war, and Mustang pilots simply had to be careful not to pull high g's when carrying bombs on the wings. This is also noted in advisories in the manuals.

C) When the locking mechanism on the landing gear failed during dives, and the wheels deployed. This was an issue very briefly, then the fix was put into place by North American and no more problems were encountered. The 109 had the same problem, also noted by its manufacturer and fixed.

Players in the game have to contend with a P-51 which is more fragile than it should be.

Not to mention the fact that the late model Mustang is not operating at the boost levels which it should be. (something which Tom in his zeal to shout as loudly as possible, neglected to acknowledge)

Those who prefer shouting to listening perhaps should learn to open their ears and eyes and do some reading.

Waldo.Pepper
07-26-2007, 05:29 PM
Sakute! (right back at ya)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that case Tom, the CoG on the Mustang is modelled incorrectly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please explain why (what factor that you observe) you say/belief/think this?

I know you wrote wing loss is the consequence. What makes you think that wing loss it due to incorrect COG modelling?

(I think this maybe we are getting to the essence of the issue.)

I am taking pains to ask only single questions per post to avoid bogging this down in miles of confusing text.

Buzzsaw-
07-26-2007, 10:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:What makes you think that wing loss it due to incorrect COG modelling? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not the developer or designer of the game. I do not have access to the code, or the decisions taken re. modelling.

All I can do is observe how the objects in the game behave.

So whether or not the problem of the P-51 shedding its wings is a function of incorrectly modelled CoG or another issue is one which I can only speculate about.

However:

I did quite a number of tests of the dive speeds of the various aircraft in the game, with the speed noted at which wings were lost, during both vertical dives without pullout, and dives with pullout.

The virtual P-51 is a candidate for the most likely aircraft to lose its wings in pullouts, even at speeds which are less than the dive speed advisory for the aircraft.

Wing loss can occur even when less than full elevator is applied.

This does not fit with the real life behaviour of the aircraft, which was structurally sound, unless as mentioned earlier, it was a) loaded with more than 50% fuel in the fuselage tank, b) loaded with bombs on the wings, c) equipped with defective landing gear locks.

In the case of the fuselage tank being overloaded with fuel, the result was a shift in the CoG for the aircraft, and a tendency for stick force reversal. To quote one of the manuals:

"With fuel in the fuselage tank, the centre of gravity of the aircraft is moved so far aft that flying characteristics become unsatisfactory. Stick forces tend to reverse when the aircraft enters a tight turn or pullout, making it nessesary for the pilot to exert considerable forward pressure on the stick to prevent further tightening of the turn or pullout. In order to reduce this tendency, a bobweight has been added to the elevator system to increase the normal stick forces under acccelerated flight conditions."

There are no advisories against performing any type of maneuvers when the fuselage tank is empty.

To quote:

"Except when carrying full fuselage tank, the aircraft is stable longitudinally, laterally, and directionally."

The only advisories noted are regarding exceeding max. speed advisories, to quote:

(i) Maximum speeds in mph I.A.S.

a) Diving - Without bombs or drop tanks 505
With 500 lb bombs or tanks 450
With 1000 lb bombs 400
With ferrying tanks 210

b) Flaps down 10 degrees (Combat) 400
Flaps down 20 degrees (takeoff) 275
Flaps fully down (landing) 165

c) Undercarriage down 170


With these historical facts in mind, as well as observations in game, one has to cast about for a likely reason for these wing loss occurences. Again, I can only speculate.

We've all heard that wingloss occurs at 15G for all aircraft. Whether this statement is true, I don't know, I am not the designer of the game.

But as mentioned, within the posted structural limit advisories of the aircraft, wingloss should not occur in maneuver within the posted speed limits.

I have read many accounts by P-51 pilots, as well as talked to present day pilots, and they had no concerns about wingloss due to maneuver within the speeds posted for the aircraft. They could pull the stick as hard as they wanted.

TomtheYak insists that in IL-2 all fuel weight is modelled directly over the CoG.

If that was the case with the Mustang, then we should not see wingloss within the normal range of speed. On the other hand, if CoG is modelled incorrectly for the Mustang, or the CoG is modelled based on the fuselage tank being full, then wing loss would be a normal event.

All of this is speculation, except for one fact: The virtual Mustang loses its wings very readily, at speeds which were not considered dangerous for the historical aircraft.

As I said before, I doubt that the Mustang's problems will be addressed, it is too late in the design life of the game.

By the way Waldo, in your zeal to nail me down on this 'ONE POINT', you haven't acknowledged the fact that the boost levels of the game's late war Mustang D are undermodelled.

GH_Klingstroem
07-27-2007, 12:52 AM
Im with Ramstein and Buzzaw on this one!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Waldo.Pepper
07-27-2007, 01:56 AM
OK so I think we maybe making more progress. I hope so anyway.

I agree (completely) with you when you say the following.

"..whether or not the problem of the P-51 shedding its wings is a function of incorrectly modelled CoG or another issue is one which I can only speculate about."

I think so too. All of our words are mere speculation. We cannot prove anything.

But here is what I think.

I think it is because the community *****ed too much to Oleg - and his response was to increase the authority of the elevator TOO much. And this is the cause of the wing shedding "problem" (Note the quotes as I do not think it much of a problem as it can EASILY be compensated for. More on that later.)


But I am getting ahead of myself.

You again...

"The virtual P-51 is a candidate for the most likely aircraft to lose its wings in pullouts, even at speeds which are less than the dive speed advisory for the aircraft."

I do not think any testing I have done could compare even to a set of modest tests - but still I agree with this.

But in my opinion this supports my belief that it is an over effective elevator rather than anything to do with any tank issue. Especially when you mention that you think that it is occurring during pullouts. (Pullouts which are intimately associated with the action of the elevator.)

You again...

"Wing loss can occur even when less than full elevator is applied."

BINGO! I think so too! But I also think that this supports the too effective elevator. again. - especially if the virtual pilot is a little ham fisted. (and even more especially if it is at incredibly high speed! Which the 51 achieves easily.)

You again...

"There are no advisories against performing any type of maneuvers when the fuselage tank is empty."

Sorry I disagree here. ALL planes have limits that you should not exceed, especially at high speed regardless of the fuel state/ordinance state etc. etc. And in my view the over authoritative elevator is to blame here again. Here is the entire page 71 of the manual.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/51%20manual%20page/Pagesfromp-51d-k-pilot-manual.jpg

"Above this speed, the wings and other structural members / cannot safely carry the extreme airloads that develop."

That is the relevant passage that I think people are not giving enough appreciation to. This is with a clean aircraft – and no mention of the fuselage tank you favour to explain the ˜problem.'

To be clear ... I think we all know that the elevator is over authoritative. Even the most rabid fan of the 51, I think should be sensible enough to admit this.

This is the far more obvious culprit. Not some speculation about the fuselage tank, which Saint Oleg has done everything a busy man can do to refute.

Why do you favour the speculation of a tank, rather than the most obvious elevator explanation? (This is curious to me.)

Another question if you do not mind. It is a little involved so bear with me.

In the game we have a B model of the Mustang. Do you think that the B model of the plane suffers from the same problems as the D models? (and a natural follow up - have you tested this to prove - to your own satisfaction as completely as you can - that it has?)

Because if you say yes - then I think that this refutes your contention that it is the COG problem derived from a fuselage tank (and also lends credence to my contention/belief that is it the over sensitive elevator.)

Unless of course we have a B model that has the fuselage tank fitted (a possibility too BTW,as there was a field kit to retro fit one.)

I hope I made myself excruciatingly clear.

To recap

I think it more reasonable that it is the over sensitive elevator.
I think that the 'fact' that the B and D models are both 'twitchy' and tend to shed their wings lends credence to the over sensitive elevator. (Rather than COG problems arising from any fuel issue. As I think it unlikely that there is a fuselage tank in the B model.)

A final question – in an earlier post in this thread you mentioned that you see an abnormal behavior when diving that you attribute to the tank issue. What abnormal behavior?


Sharing some of my own opinion may be welcome I suppose.

1.) Do I think the game is perfect.?

No far from it. There are things in it that are maddening in fact. Nav light, AI etc etc.

2.) Do I think ANY plane in the game is perfect?

Again No of course not.

The Spitfire is too good (the flaps should be two position up down for one!) I would love to have the Mustangs elevator authority on the 109. That bar in the 190... etc etc.

3.) Do I think that the P-51 is perfect?

No. Of course not. I think the elevator is too effective. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

4.) Should the P-51 be a hard plane to handle?
5.) Should it be more of a chore/more twitchy than the P-40?
6.) Should it require great skill to be good effective/with?

Yes to all! And guess what it is!
For a prop plane she is unbelievably fast! This evening I was easily catching enemy planes. Routinely going over 800kmph, and pulling out safely.

7.) Do I think that the issues (whatever they are) with the P-51 are crippling, or at the least in dire need of fixing?

No. Whatever they are they are easily compensated for with some subtle changes to the conf.ini file.

I urge everyone to try the following settings once again. I predict some of you will be amazed what you can accomplish with this and a well trimmed plane.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/joystick/joystick.jpg



As a late addition to this response I see I need to address the boost issue.

Originally you said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
The fact is, there should be late model Mustangs modeled with a high boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Originally I took this to mean that you think that there should be another edition of the plane that we could choose from the drop down list. (like a 25lb Mustang.)

If that was your meaning of the phrase "there should be late model Mustangs modeled with a high boost"

My answer was going to be

Why should there be one modeled in game? Because it is "missing"?
There are lots of planes missing that I would like to see.
The fact is they should be modeled too! But this is not germain to the issue at hand, which is the supposed inadequacy of the model(s) we do have.

But in case that is not what you meant – and what you really were getting at is that the model we do have has an inadequate level of boost (an alternate reading of you r words)
Then I would have said the following.

1.) How do you know the current boost of the plane you have got? (If this is by the instruments (is there another way? Cause I don't know it) Then I hope we can all agree that they are not accurate.)

or

2.) I suppose that we all know that planes in wartime do not always meet their perfect designed specification, and that I would suggest that this is the case here too. (and then I suppose that you may reply with the belief that Oleg supposedly models the planes in the game to design specifications. And if you do I would reply with the assertion that the 11lb boost fans of the Tempest, and the 109K fans would tend to cast doubt on this supposed fact of Oleg's modeling. I tend to favor this answer, as I would like to see variation in individual planes even within the same type! (fault modeling if you will.)

or


3.) I might say that whatever boost is missing I think may fall within the (other supposed goal) of Oleg's to be as accurate as possible (I think I hear the 5% assertion often enough that I may repeat it here.) If it is outside of 5% then I reckon he thinks it is close enough. (Remember to make a competitive product/game he (Oleg) only has to better than MS CFS series – not achieve perfection (despite our fondest wishes.)
or

4.) I may agree with you. You may be right – I think we will never know. I do not think it my task to ˜nail' anyone.

I hope you remember I invited dialogue in my post to the mysteriously silent Ramstein.

Salute.

shahram177
07-27-2007, 01:39 PM
Guys I'm newish to IL2 and well i have to say there is seriously something wrong with the P-51
in that under high speed turns i've been able to get the darn thing to flat spin like a pancake. And that's just not kosher. If your going well over 300mph in a slight dive and you pull a little harder than you should, you should black out not go into a flat spin. The same thing for running fast and pulling up a little too hard, she goes to flat spin well before giving you any warning. Which honestly as an engineer is something you would not due.
But that's just my two cents. Other than that she's great!

JG52Karaya-X
07-27-2007, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shahram177:
Guys I'm newish to IL2 and well i have to say there is seriously something wrong with the P-51
in that under high speed turns i've been able to get the darn thing to flat spin like a pancake. And that's just not kosher. If your going well over 300mph in a slight dive and you pull a little harder than you should, you should black out not go into a flat spin. The same thing for running fast and pulling up a little too hard, she goes to flat spin well before giving you any warning. Which honestly as an engineer is something you would not due. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whats wrong with it!? If you exceed your maximum allowed angle of attack at a certain speed the airflow over the wings will dramatically decrease or even stop. If this happens assymetrically (one wing creates lift, the other doesnt) you will enter a spin. Now the P51 (as well as the Tempest) has laminar flow wings meaning that the point of maximum thickness lies at 50% or farther down the width of the wing - laminar flow wings create a much less turbulent airflow over their surface (=less drag) but at the same time are much more prone to loose the airflow as a whole in violent high AoA maneuvers. The P51 Mustang was known for its pronounced tendency to enter snap stalls even in the clean combat load - couple this with its overly much too sensitive and effective elevator in IL2 and you get what you see...

Kongo Otto
07-27-2007, 04:40 PM
http://mahopa.de/bilder/lustige-forenbilder/make-it-stop.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
07-27-2007, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
The P51 Mustang was known for its pronounced tendency to enter snap stalls even in the clean combat load - couple this with its overly much too sensitive and effective elevator in IL2 and you get what you see... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO! (Again)

Well put as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shahram177:
Other than that she's great! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Shahram Do please at least try - my conf.ini settings to reduce the sensitivity of the elevator.

In my experience it really does make all the difference.

I do not for the life of me understand why people are so resistant to trying this. If it fixes/or merely ONLY alleviates perceived deficiencies. I would think those having trouble would be all over it.

Horse to water kind of thing I suppose.

Lurch1962
07-27-2007, 05:24 PM
I'm in Waldo's camp on this issue. It seems to me that for all planes, internal fuel is modeled as though over the CoG. At least, I don't notice handling *quirks* over a wide range of fuel loads.

Moreover, unless EVERY joystick manufactured was of the FFB type, it's impractical to introduce the stick reversal forces encountered in RL P-51's when fuselage fuel qty is &gt;50%. Nope, it's more likely that an overly-responsive elevator is the root of the trouble. And it's the simplest explanation given the FM's history.

Lastly, Waldo's recommended elevator profile is very much like mine! (I use the CH Fighterstick, as well as CH Throttle and home-made pedals.) When getting into FB about three years ago, the single biggest hurdle to good flight control was the elevator response. Initially, using the default profile I was porpoising up and down like a roller coaster, and just couldn't maintain a tracking shot to save my life (or, more correctly, to end the other guy's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)! But all's well now....

--Lurch--

joeap
07-27-2007, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lurch1962:
I'm in Waldo's camp on this issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too, he wins the thread. No kidding, very well researched and presented. Interesting to see any response.

We won't hear from the OP, nor get an apology. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

horseback
07-29-2007, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4.) Should the P-51 be a hard plane to handle?
5.) Should it be more of a chore/more twitchy than the P-40?
6.) Should it require great skill to be good effective/with?

Yes to all! And guess what it is!
For a prop plane she is unbelievably fast! This evening I was easily catching enemy planes. Routinely going over 800kmph, and pulling out safely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to strongly disagree with you here. Talking to pilots at airshows who ahve flown both types over the years, including Bob Hoover (who just went on and on about the Spitfire when I asked about Mustangs), I got one overwhelming impression: The Mustang was much less twitchy and demanding to fly than the P-40 (and most other USAAF fighters of the time) in all their respective forms.

I know that the elitist in all of us wants to believe that the higher the performance, the greater the skill demanded, but the real-life logic is that the P-38, P-40 and P-39 were much earlier technology than the Mustang, and the concept of adjustable trim was less effectively executed in these aircraft. It's like comparing the setup of your first generation DVD player to the one you got last month-better performance AND <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ease of use.</span>

The Mustang was conceived and built as a vastly improved fighter vehicle for the Allison V-1710 engine, and it was. Replacing it with the Merlin 60 series made it a bit less refined, but it was still far less twitchy and demanding of pilot input than any P-47, much less a P-40.

According to all sources, the Mustang was similar to the Spitfire, Hellcat and FW 190 in that it was much easier for a pilot new to the type to learn and fly effectively in combat than it's contemporaries. That is not merely a function of cockpit layout; there has to be a certain aerodynamic rightness and balance inherent in the design, and these aircraft all had it in spades.

According to America's Hundred-Thousand, page 340 (as you might guess, I have it bookmarked), under "P-51 Handling Qualities And Characteristics" and "Trimming", it says:

ALLISON powered Mustangs were particularly notable for <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">lack of required trim changes.</span> Power or flap setting changes gave only small trim variations, and the same was true of gear retraction. The changes in tab settings for climbing and diving were negligible. Tab controls were sensitive and had to be used carefully.

Trimmability was also quite good in the MERLIN Mustangs, and tabs were sensitive. In those versions directional trim changed more with speed and power changes. When the rudder trim system was changed and rigged as an anti-balance tab to give opposite boost, a resulting disadvantage was more tab was required to trim the aircraft from a climb into a dive.

Along with trimming the plane for longer term steady flight conditions, some pilots trimmed their aircraft almost continuously to wash out any high stick or pedal force during maneuvering in combat.

Now let us drop back to page 248, for the section on the P-40's handling characteristics and specifically, trimming:

A major aspect of flying the P-40 series airplanes was handling trim changes from power and speed changes. A veteran AAF pilot stated "The trim changes with speed were more than in other contemporary fighters." Typical of many single engine propellor fighters, the vertical tail was slightly offset to counter propellor slipstream effect at cruising speed. IN a dive, as speed increased, more and more left rudder had to be added; slowing down in a climb some right rudder was needed.One pilot said "--a drawback was having to virtually stand on the left rudder to keep the ball centered--it could be a real handful in a loop" (where trim reversed from dive to climb and then back again). Although directional trim tab power was available to zero out pedal force, left rudder trim could not be rolled in fast enough with high dive accelleration. No matter what P-40 version was involved, it was the same: "In the air, the Tomahawk tended to yaw considerably with speed changes", needing directional trim, and for the P-40E/H87A:

"Every power and speed change brings an immediate trim change which the pilot must counteract or trim out." The H87 was, if anything, worse than the H81 Tomahawk.

On the P-40E lowering the landing gear made the aircraft slightly nose heavy; there was no appreciable trim change with flap positioning. Dropping a belly tank resulted in minor tail heaviness. The elevator trim system could take care of these effects as well as longitudinal variations due to speed and power changes.

A lot of the Mustang's current reputation for twitchiness is due to the number of flyable Mustangs still around; modern pilots will compare it to the Beech Barons or whatever modern general aviation or military aircraft they have flown, not its contemporaries. Compared to more sophisticated later generation airframes, of course the Mustang is more raw and demanding of the pilot. The later designs are the beneficiaries of the Mustang's heritage.

Jeffrey Ethell did a number of articles (in Flight Journal I think) about flying preserved warbirds, including the various P-40s, and especially the three flavors of Mustang. As I recall, he references the P-40 repeatedly in the account of his P-51A flights, as well as to the P-51B and D models he had flown, and he makes it quite clear that the P-40s were far more work and far more treacherous to fly and taxi than the late model Mustangs, which were a bit more work in the air than the Allison Mustang.

The fact is, I could go on and on (and have a published authoritive citation for every occasion), but it very much appears to me that Oleg has the trim portions of the Mustang and the P-40 reversed: in game, the P-40 is vastly more docile and trimmable than the Mustang and that's just <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">wrong.</span>

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
07-29-2007, 10:16 PM
I shall tackle the main point first.

1. Contention of Horseback

"The Mustang was much less twitchy and demanding to fly than the P-40 (and most other USAAF fighters of the time) in all their respective forms."

This is amazing to me to read. Please consider the following quotes from WW2 pilots.
(See if you can guess what book they are from.)

A P-51 was a different matter from a P-40. With its sensitivity and wing design, an insensitive pilot could have spin trouble.

and

The P-51 was different from a P-40 because Mustang pilot laxity could more easily cause a spin.

On the spin characteristic of the Mustang.

For the MERLIN powered P-51D spins were not to be performed intentionally. In a power on spin the nose remained 10 to 20 degrees above the horizon, and recovery control had no effect on the aircraft unless the throttle was completely ******ed.

Power on spins were considered extremely dangerous in the P-51D. The recovery procedure was to close the throttle and apply flight controls as in a power off spin recovery. Power off spins in a P-51D were uncomfortable because of heavy oscillations which usually would not dampen out. When a spin was started the aircraft snapped a half turn in the spin direction with the nose dropping to near vertical. At the end of one turn to or above the horizon the spin slowed down, occasionally coming to a complete stop. The aircraft then snapped a half turn with the nose dropping to 50 to 60 degrees below the horizon and continued as during the first turn. Some rudder buffet was noticeable. When controls were applied for recovery the nose dropped to near vertical position and the spin speeded up, and then stopped in one to one and a quarter turns. About one thousand feet of altitude was lost for every spin turn. Recovery took as many as five or six turns after the rudder was applied, and 9000 to 10000 feet of total altitude could be lost.

2. Contention of Horseback

"According to all sources, the Mustang was similar to the Spitfire, Hellcat and FW 190 in that it was much easier for a pilot new to the type to learn and fly effectively in combat than it's contemporaries."

Please define 'comtemporaries' and then the sources that claim this.
After you make this statement precise enough to consider I may have a comment. As it is written it is too vague to be of any value. Nevertheless, this supposed fact is not relevant to the topic ('twitchy" in combat at combat speeds).

Even if I agree that this is a fact. This fact maybe accounted for by pointing out that visibility form the cockpit may completely explain this supposed fact.

Comments of Horseback

"A lot of the Mustang's current reputation for twitchiness is due to the number of flyable Mustangs still around; modern pilots will compare it to the Beech Barons or whatever modern general aviation or military aircraft they have flown, not its contemporaries. Compared to more sophisticated later generation airframes, of course the Mustang is more raw and demanding of the pilot. The later designs are the beneficiaries of the Mustang's heritage."

I completely agree.

It is for this reason that have assiduously avoided doing any such thing in my assessment. So if I am guilty of anything it is not that. So I don't think I need to comment further on that aspect of whatever controversy there may be.

Contention of Horseback

"to the P-51B and D models he (Ethell) had flown, and he makes it quite clear that the P-40s were far more work and far more treacherous to fly and taxi than the late model Mustangs, which were a bit more work in the air than the Allison Mustang.

First off I find it strange that you criticize the opinion of modern pilot in one paragraph. And in a subsequent paragraph rely on the opinion of one. As well as in your initial paragraph where you assert the opinion of contemporary airshow pilots.

If I must comment on the Ethell opinion I will agree. COMPLETELY with it. I think he is correct!

What his testimony DOES NOT address is why he thinks that.

Sadly for your viewpoint his statement is not at all persuasive. Again because he is not clear in his meaning. The fact that he does not say WHY is all I need to point out, in order to remove his opinion from the debate.

The missing "why" could be as simple as poor visibility in the P-40. HE DOES NOT SAY! This poorer visibility is more than enough flaw in the P-40 to account for his statement;

"P-40s were far more work and far more treacherous to fly and taxi than the late model Mustangs, which were a bit more work in the air than the Allison Mustang."

The P-40 is more treacherous because you can't see out of the thing as well as a P-51!

But personally I think his comments rest, are more directed toward/or, the workload of the P-40, in normal flying. There would be more workload in the P-40, and therefore

"P-40s were far more work and far more treacherous to fly and taxi than the late model Mustangs, which were a bit more work in the air than the Allison Mustang."

Now to put it all together...

If normal workload were what we were talking about his comment would be more valuable and on topic. But unfortunately we are not merely talking about normal flying, as Ethell and you seem to be focusing on..

No one who plays this game complains that they cannot fly the P-51 straight and level. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (Well few people anyway.)

People complain that the plane stall wickedly, and that the wings fall off, at high/combat speeds. "When I didn't do anything wrong!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

The P-51 I think we will all agree is in a different performance category, a different league if you will, that the P-40. As such it is inherently more dangerous. If this were the only reason it would be enough. It is faster and gives you less time to get out of trouble. And it makes it far quicker to get into trouble. (To say nothing of the added airframe strain.)

To use a contemporary auto analogy, perhaps something we all are a little more familiar with. The P-51 is the Dodge Viper, to the Chevy Camaro. You can get killed in both. But you can get killed faster/easier/quicker in a Viper. If you happen to be a driver whose skills are not top notch, or you are prone to carelessness. (Or to recap the phrase I keep on about - if the pilot is a little Ham fisted). The Viper is going to be the one you get killed in.

Contention of Horseback

"Oleg has the trim portions of the Mustang and the P-40 reversed: in game, the P-40 is vastly more docile and trimmable than the Mustang and that's just wrong."

That maybe in fact true. And if this debate were about trimming then maybe these points, and all of your extensive points about trimming would be more relevant. I understand the pains you took to include all the points about trimming. Thinking I was referring to normal as opposed to high speed combat flying). I figured you would have understood that this is what the community is speaking about. If I played a part in this confusion. Mea culpa.

When I said that the P-51 was more twitchy than the P-40 I though my meaning was clear. Obviously when you are putting around at cruise speed the P-51 is more "trimmable" and a nicer ride than the P-40. I think this point is indisputable.

But this is not what players are complaining about, or what we are talking about, or what I was addressing in my comments.

The P-51 will be better in combat than the P-40 for a whole host of reasons.

1. Visibility. 2. Cockpit layout. 3. Speed!

But IN COMBAT, at the upper end of the performance envelope the P-51 will also be more 'twitchy' even with the superior cockpit layout. Huge torque forces, and far greater stresses on the airframe are alone enough to make this so. The performance envelope is that much larger with the P-51.

Pilots will use this larger envelope. And this larger envelope will be a greater danger to them, than in a plane of lesser performance, namely the P-40. And they will get into trouble because of it.

But this larger performance envelope will conversely be VERY WELCOME. As ironically it will REDUCE the danger from the enemy, that they are put in.

The danger that P-51 pilot will be in will rest more in their own hands. And the pilots will be able to manage it. Using the speed advantage then can engage or not at their discretion.

Now, see these comments on various models/iterations of the Mustang. See if you can guess what book they are from!) Italics mine.

The P-51B and P-51C airplanes with MERLIN engines were considerably heavier, and used a propeller with four wide chord blades to efficiently utilize the increased engine power, particularly for high altitude flight. The new propeller caused a marked decrease in directional stability which became serious at high speeds such that in dives rudder pedal forces tended to decrease, rather than increase as is normal, at yaw angles greater than ten degrees. If the pilot did not apply sufficient opposite rudder the airplane tended to increase the slip or skid by itself, and eventually got into a nasty snap roll or a spin entry. Horizontal tail failures were occurring as a result until the forward spar of the stabilizer was strengthened.

Early "D" model without fillet.

Early P-51D aircraft were still directionally unstable ; as one pilot said "Directional stability is bad as speed increases in a dive."

"D" model with fillet.

"Stick forces on the old original ALLISON P-51 were about as nice as anybody ever had". It is true that these light control forces indirectly caused the loss of a few airplanes.

Low elevator forces were encountered in dive recovery, and elevator tab use was not required. These light control forces caused the structural failure of a few airplanes where pilots failed to realize the easy attainability of very high load factors.

(PILOTS FAILED TO REALIZE is EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN GAME) imho.

D model on landing ... "If you opened the throttle too fast it would roll to the left, and you could lose it."

Earlier in the thread the following quote was obtained from another website.

"But the thing that really set the Mustang apart from any other fighter, friend or foe, was its range"

I have been thinking about this.

The importance of range in the success of the P-51.

Being able to fly extremely long distances imparted a few other less appreciated benefits that are often overlooked when the P-51 is assessed.

The attribute of extreme range was the decisive factor in the P-51 success. Why was this so?

"The incorporation of long range into the P-51 gave U.S. forces a fighter escort without peer. It could transport offensive forces so far, that most of the enemy defensive units with their limited range could not join the fight. The long legs of U.S. bombers and fighters had brought the fight to a place of their choice. This example of concentration at maximum range to attack enemy units piecemeal has the ring of classic military history studies."

The above paragraph are the words of Charles M Mcorkle. One of the few pilots who flew both Spitfires and Mustangs. In fact he became an ace in both.

At the outset of the war fighters that excelled at manoeuvrability rather than pure speed received an undue amount of praise. Which factor was preeminent, manoeuvre or speed? Opinions varied but they were just that, opinions. And were ultimately unimportant. The cruel judge of combat settled the issue. By the end of the war an aircrafts speed was all but universally recognized as the more desirable attribute.

The outranging of the Mustang is a corollary to the speed story that I have just touched on. Just as having superior speed could determine WHETHER combat would be allowed. Exceptional range allowed great discretion in WHERE that combat would occur. This where factor, was vital in massing fighters where they were needed, and could be used to create decisive localized superiority.

Others planes had great speed. But the P-51 was unique in having BOTH great speed and great range.

When on the offensive, airplanes with short legs, were limited in their patrol endurance. For example on a patrol at the distance of a few hundred miles Spitfires in the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations (MTO) were limited to only a few minutes of patrol time, loiter time in contemporary parlance. With the use of very large drop tanks this loiter time could be extended to slightly longer than half an hour. As a partial counter to this, Spitfire squadron were commonly stationed alarmingly close to the forward edge of battle. This close proximity endangered the planes and the ground crews. Clearly an undesirable condition.

Additionally if you wished to establish a combat air patrol, over a particular spot of geography. This lack of endurance necessitated the use of multiple squadrons in order to maintain that CAP for any length of time.

In such a situation, having a plane with great range, the P-51, in this case acted as an incredible force multiplier. In the CAP example a single squadron of 12 planes could do the work of perhaps 5 squadrons of Spitfires. Given the longer range, the bases from which they would operate could also be far more safely located further behind the front lines as well.

These two attributes of the quality of extreme range both operated as a force multiplier to help make a mass produced plane all the more common and omnipresent. To the Luftwaffe they became literally everywhere.

And that more than anything else is why the Mustang was the preferred mount during the war.

All WW2 pilot comments, with the exception of Charles M Mcorkle, in this posting of mine were taken from America Hundred Thousand.

Yes Horseback, I too think it is a great book. I think of it like the Bible of American wartime fighters. In fact like the Bible it is so dense and chocked with information that is is very easy to miss the most pertinent and relevant passages when comparing the P-40 to the P-51.

Which to repeat are...

A P-51 was a different matter from a P-40. With its sensitivity and wing design, an insensitive pilot could have spin trouble.

and

The P-51 was different from a P-40 because Mustang pilot laxity could more easily cause a spin.

Good thing I read it as much as yourself or those passages might have been overlooked.

Cheers to you as well.

horseback
07-30-2007, 10:06 PM
Wow. That was six and a half pages in twelve point font, Waldo. Out of a sense of mercy for other readers, I'll just quote the first few lines of your passage, and then respond:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1. Contention of Horseback

"The Mustang was much less twitchy and demanding to fly than the P-40 (and most other USAAF fighters of the time) in all their respective forms."

This is amazing to me to read. Please consider the following quotes from WW2 pilots.
(See if you can guess what book they are from.)

A P-51 was a different matter from a P-40. With its sensitivity and wing design, an insensitive pilot could have spin trouble.

and

The P-51 was different from a P-40 because Mustang pilot laxity could more easily cause a spin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First, let's point out that some of the comments in the ˜Comments' section of America's Hundred Thousand were made at the Joint Fighter Conference, wherein pilots serving in various commands and services were invited to appraise each frontline fighter in a number of areas. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if a long-time P-40 driver at the conference made his first acquaintance with the Mustang and wasn't too thrilled by his first flight. Similar poor initial impressions are recorded for the 190D-9, and the 14th Air Force's introduction of the P-51A/B didn't go down well at first, either.

A ˜different matter' is not the same thing as ˜worse'. Every high performance machine has its own unique way to bite the unwary. I have read a Soviet pilot's account which has been posted on these forums at least three or four times over the last five years of what the pilots in his service referred to as "the abracadabra", the summersault through the air that an unwary P-40 pilot could induce. The key word is ˜unwary.' A hamhanded pilot might more easily survive his first (and unwarned) flight in a P-40 than in a Mustang, but there was plenty of material written and ˜dope' from experienced Mustang drivers to forewarn the Mustang n00b to take his time learning his aircraft's limits.

From the same source, I repeat the key passage in the P-40 vs P51 debate:

A major aspect of flying the P-40 series airplanes was handling trim changes from power and speed changes. A veteran AAF pilot stated "The trim changes with speed were more than in other contemporary fighters." Typical of many single engine propellor fighters, the vertical tail was slightly offset to counter propellor slipstream effect at cruising speed. IN a dive, as speed increased, more and more left rudder had to be added; slowing down in a climb some right rudder was needed.One pilot said "--a drawback was having to virtually stand on the left rudder to keep the ball centered--it could be a real handful in a loop" (where trim reversed from dive to climb and then back again). Although directional trim tab power was available to zero out pedal force, left rudder trim could not be rolled in fast enough with high dive accelleration. No matter what P-40 version was involved, it was the same: "In the air, the Tomahawk tended to yaw considerably with speed changes", needing directional trim, and for the P-40E/H87A:

"Every power and speed change brings an immediate trim change which the pilot must counteract or trim out." The H87 was, if anything, worse than the H81 Tomahawk.

From my reading of the passage, and from almost every first hand combat memoir of P-40 drivers from Col. Robert Scott to Don Lopez, the issue of having to apply trim or heavy rudder inputs while in combat flying the Warhawk is mentioned. It was an unavoidable problem that forced the pilot to develop the muscular left leg and very fine judgment of how hard he could push his mount.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the spin characteristic of the Mustang.

For the MERLIN powered P-51D spins were not to be performed intentionally. In a power on spin the nose remained 10 to 20 degrees above the horizon, and recovery control had no effect on the aircraft unless the throttle was completely ******ed.

Power on spins were considered extremely dangerous in the P-51D... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, spins were most often induced through ignorance or forgetting that you hadn't sufficiently drained the fuselage tank. All that was well known and documented, and it did not, apparently, lead to hundreds of Mustangs spinning out over Central Europe as the 8th Fighter Command realized that it could quickly convert experienced P-47 and P-38 groups to the type faster and with greater effect on the air war than it could by replacing them with new groups trained up in the Mustang in the States. The whole spin issue is bogus in my opinion.

LtCol Richard E Turner, wrote a flying evaluation of the P-51B and D for the Appendix of William Hess' Fighting Mustang: Chronicle of the P-51. Turner was an original member of the Pioneer Mustang 354th FG, and an 11 victory ace. A few key statements:

I quote a phrase often used by pilots of the Mustang as the most apt comment I know of which demonstrates the true feeling of practically every pilot who had the good fortune to gain proficiency in flying the P-51. This phrase was, "She's as honest as the day is long and she hasn't a mean bone in her beautiful body!"

Obviously, the good colonel was not a gifted writer, but the meaning of the expression for those not familiar with the metaphor is that the aircraft did what you expected it to do when you moved the stick and rudder (properly). Turner went from the P-39 Airacobra to the Mustang, and he knew what it meant to get into a vicious spin. Compared to the ˜Cobra, the B/D Mustangs were pussycats in terms of handling, and the ˜Cobra was generally thought nicer than the P-40 by the majority of pilots with meaningful stick time in both.

Turner writes a little further on that "I felt that the P-51 made most pilots look much better than their level of skill should allow them to appear. It took a heavy-handed man with a proclivity toward mental lapse in order to actually look bad as a pilot in a Mustang, for the sleek little fighter had a most forgiving nature." Where's the part about that terrifying tendency to spin lurking around every corner? I posted the whole of the evaluation on these boards at least twice, and Kahuna posts quotes from it occasionally. Look it up. No mention of a spin problem.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. Contention of Horseback

"According to all sources, the Mustang was similar to the Spitfire, Hellcat and FW 190 in that it was much easier for a pilot new to the type to learn and fly effectively in combat than it's contemporaries."

Please define 'comtemporaries' and then the sources that claim this.
After you make this statement precise enough to consider I may have a comment. As it is written it is too vague to be of any value. Nevertheless, this supposed fact is not relevant to the topic ('twitchy" in combat at combat speeds).

Even if I agree that this is a fact. This fact maybe accounted for by pointing out that visibility form the cockpit may completely explain this supposed fact... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Contemporaries of the Mustang include the Bf 109G and K models, generally thought of as aircraft for an ˜experte' to tame, but a dangerous mount for the tyro. The Luftwaffe seemed to agree, since their fighter force was heavily biased to FW 190s which were much easier to master in the opinion of such luminaries as Adolph Galland (The First and the Last, among other references). We can also throw in the P-38 and P-47. Most of the material I have seen indicates that unless the unit converting to P-38s was composed of combat veterans in less capable types like the P-39 or P-40, it took that unit twice as long to become as effective in combat as their Mustang equipped counterparts. Only the units with prewar P-38 experience (and heavy nursemaiding from Lockheed and the USAAF) excelled or were effective in combat from day one, unlike the units flying the Mustang into combat for the first time. The P-47, with its turbosupercharger, was also more work for a pilot new to it, and took longer to master than the Mustang, and even then, it was at best the Mustang's air combat equal at most combat altitudes (my source here is Roger Freeman's Thunderbolt, in the section of pilot appraisals. Two of the pilots make mention of how complicated the Jug was to fly).

How about the Corsair? A very good fighter plane, but again, notably unforgiving. It came by the ˜Ensign Eliminator' nickname quite honestly, and was kept from carrier use until all its bugs were worked out, and even then, the easier to master Hellcat was still a far better plane for carrier operations until the Corsair's speed (and the fact that the Marines had an excess of trained pilots and planes available at the point at which the Navy's carrier expansion outran its' manpower) made it a better choice for defending against waves of kamikazes. Primary source here is Barrett Tillman's Corsair: the F4U in WWII and Korea, with a bit of flavoring from his equally authoritive book on the Hellcat.

As for Spitfires, we've all heard three or four versions of the "any idiot can fly a Spitfire" story. Pull any book about the RAF in WWII off the shelf and find something that disagrees substantively with my point.

View from the cockpit? Completely disagree. Compared to the P-40 (and especially the contemporary of the Merlin Mustang, the P-40N), the cockpit visibility of the P-51A/B/C was an absolute nightmare. Even the blown Malcolm hood and the teardrop canopy of the D model did next to nothing for the pilot's view forward. The P-40 was better in this respect. And yet, the Mustang in its Allison version, was considered the likely replacement for most P-40s in the combat zone until some genius slapped a Merlin into it, and North American's whole capacity was committed to the new long range wonderfighter.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Contention of Horseback

"to the P-51B and D models he (Ethell) had flown, and he makes it quite clear that the P-40s were far more work and far more treacherous to fly and taxi than the late model Mustangs, which were a bit more work in the air than the Allison Mustang.

First off I find it strange that you criticize the opinion of modern pilot in one paragraph. And in a subsequent paragraph rely on the opinion of one. As well as in your initial paragraph where you assert the opinion of contemporary airshow pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A complete non sequitor; Ethell was comparing warbirds to warbirds, not Beechcrafts to Mustangs. He (and I) made it clear that the issue was pilot workload, not field of view (see above for clarification). Pilot workload is not just a matter of cruising to and from the combat arena, it is a matter of the work you have to physically do to pull the maximum out of your aircraft when you're trying to kill or be killed. Pilot accounts are full of references to opponents' foot apparently slipping off the rudder pedals, or his maneuvers getting sloppier as he physically wore out from pushing and pulling on the stick and rudder pedals. Flying the P-40 is a lot of hard physical work, and flying the Mustang was considerably less so, even if you subtract the constant need for compensation for yaw in the P-40.

It is no accident that many of the great aces were exceptional athletes in their high school or college years. It was a major factor in their ability to survive and excel in another very physical contest. The light stick and rudder forces of the Merlin Mustang gave its pilot a much lighter workload even in combat, and it was often decisive: how else can you explain its pilots' success in its first four months of combat, when they were pretty much alone over Germany with the Luftwaffe, after over 90 minutes' unpressurized high altitude flight on oxygen, facing opponents who had been on the ground twenty minutes before, rested and alert?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No one who plays this game complains that they cannot fly the P-51 straight and level. (Well few people anyway.)

People complain that the plane stall wickedly, and that the wings fall off, at high/combat speeds. "When I didn't do anything wrong!"... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Most of this is what is commonly referred to as ˜filibustering'. Lots of repetition with the purpose of obscuring a lack of solid argument.

1. The Mustang was a notably forgiving and honest fighter, with admittedly light stick forces. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of young American, British, South African and Australian fighter pilots flew it into harm's way and not only survived, but swore that it was as much their mount as their own skills and training that brought them through it. We can safely say that their numbers far exceed those hamfisted sorts with a proclivity towards mental lapse who ended up drilling holes in the countryside due to the dreaded spin tendency.

2. The Mustang was a more sophisticated and therefore more user friendly design than the P-40 specifically, but also pretty much most if not all, the other main fighters fielded by the USAAF in WWII. It was so with the introduction of the P-51B, with its hideous pilot field of view, and only became more so with the introduction of the teardrop, or bubble canopy, which did little to improve forward view.

3. The Mustang was not a knife fighter like the Spitfire or Bf 109, but it didn't need to be. Properly flown, it would master either in all but a very small fraction of its combats. Victories are most often won by making fewer mistakes than the other guy rather than by making virtuoso moves. Brilliance is rarer than consistency, and no one was ever consistently brilliant. Holding on to your altitude, staying fast and knowing when to disengage cover a multitude of sins in air combat.

4. McCorkle's testimony is quite valid, but you also have to recognize the basic assumption he makes, which is that it was overall at least as good a fighter as those it faced in most categories in the arena that it operated (higher alts, empty or near empty fuselage tank, and high speeds). The Zero had great range, but once the Navy and Marines figured out its weaknesses, they scored heavily against it, even in the supposedly overmatched F4F Wildcat (almost 1.5 to 1, after the overclaiming is whittled down. The Japanese generally [even in the early preMidway period] claimed to have faced and shot down, seven times as many Wildcats as were there). P-40 fliers had similar success afterthe intial setbacks, but they enjoyed a few more performance advantages than the Wildcat drivers. Great range by itself is not enough. You still have to be able to put rounds into the target.

5. The overwhelming majority of criticisms directed at the Mustang seem to me to be nitpicking; like the pilot(s) in your examples, I suspect an agenda rather than a reasoned concern. You seem to have latched onto the scary spinout comments with the fervor of a drowning man grabbing a life preserver, ignoring the overwhelming majority of comments that praise it, and mention how well it turned, climbed (yes, climbed!- only the P-38 could beat a Mustang without a full fuselage tank to twenty thousand feet) and generally handled. You ignore the early versions' poor pilot fov, and pretend that only its speed, range and marvelous view through the bubbletop made it a viable combat fighter, in spite of that spin lurking over every pilot's shoulder like Death Incarnate.

Gimme a break, stick to the points I actually made and don't be so patronizing. The in game Mustang is not as comparable to the real thing in relation to its contemporaries as you think. Oleg appears to have indulged in a bit of the old "see what you made me do?" game after all the complaints and bickering on these forums and has overdone a number of the fixes to American fighters, the most obvious being the Mustang's overeffective elevator and the excessive need for trim.

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
07-31-2007, 02:07 AM
How ever did this topic result in yet another marathon session. I am mystified. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well I certainly don't want to be accused of being unmerciful. Or being the victim of a mercy gap myself. So I shall reserve the same right for myself, that you took for yourself, without compunction. And selectively, decide what
I want to comment upon.

Topic A.

This passage from AHT is the MOST direct comment on the P-40/P-51 comment of mine that you took the greatest exception to.

"A P-51 was a different matter from a P-40. With its sensitivity and wing design, an insensitive pilot could have spin trouble."

The most salient point about the P-40/P-51 comparison made in the book you selected as THE authoritative source. And yet you omitted comment on it your initial post.
Yet it is you who say about me...

"I suspect an agenda rather than a reasoned concern."

Then you attempt to dismiss and wish the passage away with the following assumptive comment.

"It wouldn't surprise me a bit if a long-time P-40 driver at the conference made his first acquaintance with the Mustang and wasn't too thrilled by his first flight."

Do you have evidence to support this latest unsupported contention?

or

Does this now mean that AHT is now no longer the be all and end all of books on US fighters like you earlier took great pains to assert?

=====

Pardon the interruption here. But I think I need to talk briefly on the topic of an agenda here.

I am not in the camp of the unreasonable fanboy. (if such a camp even exists. I am skeptical on the existence of such a breed.)

I stepped into the debate ...(for the first time I might ad!) Not to be an obstacle to getting the damn thing 'fixed' (whatever that means). But rather to assert two salient facts.

1. No fixing will be done by Oleg no matter how much anyone pleads or grovels or whatever. (as it is too late in the game)

&

2. You can minimize whatever flaws there are in the p-51 with a little Richarding around with the conf.ini file (and thereby transform what is perhaps a mediocre performing plane in to a killer.)

My agenda is to help those players who are lovin' a flawed beauty.

That is my agenda! (Thank you very much!)


=====


Topic B.

Comment of Horseback.

"The whole spin issue is bogus in my opinion."

Another quote from a WW2 pilot?


Topic C.

The pilots who complain about the Mustang in game ARE those "insensitive pilots" that the comment refers to. (Made MUCH MUCH worse by the over sensitive elevator of Oleg's Mustang.) Rather than the 1000 hour P-40 jockeys who could in reality have handled anything well.

This point is so obvious to myself it staggers me that anyone, let alone little old me, needs to make it.

Comment of Horseback.

"...it did not, apparently, lead to hundreds of Mustangs spinning out over Central Europe"

Yup! Bingo again. Only the "insensitive virtual pilots" who cannot fly the Oleg P-51 do this! Guess the real pilots were better, or flying the real thing had more feedback.
What a surprise.


Topic D.

Comment of Horseback.

"A ˜different matter' is not the same thing as ˜worse'."

Correct. I take it merely to mean "of greater potential harm." Something "that merits very close watching." I.E. don't let it kill you, cause it can easily. Or perhaps "watch yourself boy. Your in a different league now." But I must stop cause I am drifting into more unsupported
contention territory now.

Comment of Horseback.

"A hamhanded pilot might more easily survive his first (and unwarned) flight in a P-40 than in a Mustang." Exactly! You make my point for me. Thank you.

I think that no amount of available written material that may/may not have been available would have countered this. You clearly do. On this point (as well an many others I suppose) we will be disagreeing. I can live with disagreement. It makes the world richer.


Topic E.

P-40 trimming!

You are entirely correct. More work load at cruising speeds. You got it. I have agreed from the start. (Have you not noticed?) Yet you still persist. What more do I have to say?

Is this an example of ˜filibustering' on your part? "Lots of repetition with the purpose of obscuring a lack of solid argument." Or was your mentioning a debating technique originally a cynical ploy to discredit a differing opinion?

I am so sorry that so far you do not see that the trimming workload (at cruising speed) is irrelevant to the topic. Yet another point that we will no doubt disagree on.

I am, and have been talking about twitchy (dangerousness - for lack of a better word) at combat speeds. (nothing to do with trimming.)

Do you not agree that (overall) the Mustang would be the more dangerous plane than the P-40? Think about how much faster the Mustang is than the P-40 - how much less time the pilot has to do the right thing. How much the pressure of the moment would impact on the pilot. How much more
stress that this speed imparts on the airframe. That has been, and remains my point, since the beginning. Not work load at cruising speed.

On second thought never mind don't answer that. As our opinion is not worthy of consideration as we are not authoritative. (I really think this. I am not being sarcastic mate. Our, yours and mine opinions are very nearly worthless.)


Topic F.

Comment of Horseback.

"McCorkle's testimony is quite valid, but you also have to recognize the basic assumption he makes, which is that it was overall at least as good a fighter as those it faced in most categories in the arena that it operated (higher alts, empty or near empty fuselage tank, and high speeds)."

Completely agree. Where did I disagree or negate that statement?

The point that is perhaps not being fully appreciated still is that the range of the Mustang made the plane the MOST attractive option for a Squadron commander/Theater Commander/Procurer/"Higher ups" (as opposed to the actual pilot of the plane) as it was unique. (A force multiplier).

Even if the plane was a complete dog in the air (which it was not) and more vulnerable to enemy planes. It still would have been the preferred choice, because you can mass it deep inside enemy territory.

Because of its endurance you, in effect, get more of them! (Than the Spitfire in McCorkle's extensive experience.) And having more of them would have made up for lack of performance. (Hypothetically or course.)

Fortunately it was not a dog. And because of it "effective parity of performance with its opposition", the tactical numerical advantage (made possible by the extreme range/endurance) that was achieved made all the difference.

Was I not clear enough in why I included that passage? To recap - I included that passage in part to explain why the plane is so favoured.

Because you can use those attributes to outnumber the enemy. And in so doing negate any performance advantages that any enemy plane MAY (or may not) have. (Think Me-262
here!)

Being able to outnumber the enemy makes the P-51 legendary. And this attribute of being able to outnumber the enemy is ALWAYS the decisive factor in combat. (Think Russians here. Or Shermans vs. Tigers.)

Topic G (I think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

"You seem to have latched onto the scary spinout comments..etc etc."

I "latched on" because it is one of the major complaints of the Oleg Mustang. And for no other reason.

Re Spins

They could happen in reality.
They did not happen in reality as often as they do in game.
This is because of two game factors.
Poor pilot technique and over effective elevator.


Topic H.

Comment of Horseback.

"Gimme a break, stick to the points I actually made and don't be so patronizing. "

Please pardon me. But would it be fair for me to say this back to you - when you started your post with the following passage.

"Out of a sense of mercy for other readers, I'll just quote the first few lines of your passage, and then respond:"

Was this you ignoring points I made? Or am I making yet another debating mistake?


Topic I.

Comment of Horseback.

"The in game Mustang is not as comparable to the real thing in relation to its contemporaries as you think."

Please do not try and put words in my mouth. (As you attempted to do, repeatedly.)

To be crystal clear. I am in no way saying this. Il-2 is a game - not a simulation, in my opinion.

The spin "problem" and the wing shedding "problem" in game are a problem. But a problem very nearly in name only. And can easily be accounted for. I have been saying this all along.

Comment of Horseback.

"Oleg appears to have indulged in a bit of the old "see what you made me do?"

Yup. I think so too!
He is the football referee who made a bad call early in the game. And has now performed a "make good" in the second half. But just like a make good in the football analogy. It has made the situation worse not better.

I believe I made this point some posts back when I mentioned that Oleg seems to have made the elevator too effective due to the *****ing of the community. (You phrased it better I think when you used the "see what you made me do comment" of yours). Cookie for you.

We agree at last! (phew!) Opps. Except that I do not see an excessive need for trim in the Oleg Mustang. I find it quite stable.


=====


Now in an attempt to get this back on topic.

Namely the game version of the Mustang. And what can be done about it.

I (or more precisely my alter-alter ego, Oberst Valdo Pfeffer, conducted a little experiment this evening to test three factors of the Oleg Mustang that are (often) said to be critical errors that are in dire need of a good fixin'.

Remember these are the contentions of those persons who think that something needs fixing by the developer.


1. The wings fall off. (and there is nothing that can be done about it.) [Insert supposedly funny wambulance image here.]

2. It is lousy at low altitudes. (Imprecise - my bad sorry.) It under performs (critically) at low altitudes.

3. The 50's are weak.


Take it away Valdo.


(Apologies to all my German friends.)

My Dear Heinz

Ya ya I will talk about how much I love your delicious
tomoto confection zum udder time I tink. But let me tell
you about a wonderful eksperience da other day.

Here at Rechlin we recently aquired a perfect example of ze
P-51 "Mustang" I beleaf it was built in Dallas. You know
ver da Cowboys lif? Ya ya zere! I vil lif derr after ze var
I tink.

Anyvey, we keep hearing zees rumors about how krappy that
plane is. About how it falls apart in the air. About how
terrible ze guns are. About how lousy it is down low in da
veeds. You hear these rumors too I sink. Dey are all over
da place.

So ze other day Herr *****, ya ya him "Meyer" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif instructed
me to go up and see if I cannot use this plane to pick off
some stragling B-17's! You see the plane still was in
Amercanish markings.

Vell let me tell you dat all dees rumours are vicious lies
I tell you. Ze plane is wunderbar! Ven I vus flying dat
plane I though that my scwatzenshtupper was like a
telephone pole! But please don't tell anyone. If ze allies
start having confidence in ziz plane. Ve are done for and I
vil never get to lif in Dallas.

Warmest regards.

Valdo Pfeffer

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/valdo%20pfeffer/weak50s.jpg

Weak 50's in action. (perhaps this could be the next Squadron Signal publication.)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/valdo%20pfeffer/tinfoilwings.jpg

Tinfoil wings TEARING OFF! @ 820KMPH! Oh my god!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/valdo%20pfeffer/moneyshot.jpg

How ever did I survive!


To view Valdos track alessoninpatience.trk

Click on ze linky.

http://www.zshare.net/download/2917434493444f/


Now at the risk of being accused of mere debating tactics or gamesmanship I shall finish by quoting the persons whose words I value most. Mine.

"Do I think that the issues (whatever they are) with the P-51 are crippling, or at the least in dire need of fixing?

No. Whatever they are they are easily compensated for with some subtle changes to the conf.ini file. As hopefully you may have just seen.

If you want to keep going I'll make the time. But I hope that Oberst Valdo has finally been clearer than I have been and helped me achieve my agenda...

"to help those players who are lovin' a flawed beauty."

Sincere Cheers!

msalama
07-31-2007, 02:54 AM
http://koti.welho.com/msalama/S1.bmp herr Valdo Pfeffer. Classic stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M_Gunz
07-31-2007, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
I think that the FACT that is has been gone over and over again as EVIDENCE of a thorough discussion that has taken place already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only too true!

And the FACT that again and again that ::the FACT that it has been posted that the modeling does
not include fuel tank selection nor fuel details that would allow CoG changes to be shoehorned
in:: gets COMPLETELY IGNORED only points out the ignorance level of so many P-51 Mommy-I-Wants.

M_Gunz
07-31-2007, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
"With fuel in the fuselage tank, the centre of gravity of the aircraft is moved so far aft that flying characteristics become unsatisfactory. Stick forces tend to reverse when the aircraft enters a tight turn or pullout, making it nessesary for the pilot to exert considerable forward pressure on the stick to prevent further tightening of the turn or pullout. In order to reduce this tendency, a bobweight has been added to the elevator system to increase the normal stick forces under acccelerated flight conditions."

There are no advisories against performing any type of maneuvers when the fuselage tank is empty.

To quote:

"Except when carrying full fuselage tank, the aircraft is stable longitudinally, laterally, and directionally." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your own two quotes do not agree. Second one says except with full fuselage tank and first
says with fuel in the fuselage tank. Fuel in the tank is any then or is it full? NEITHER
says HALF. The second quote makes a lie of the first or vice-versa.

Good reading there champ. Next time you pick out quotes, leave the contradictory ones out.

Xiolablu3
07-31-2007, 12:16 PM
Guys, a lot of the P51 complaint come from flying late 1944 planesets which include the Dora.

The fact is that the Dora is simply a bit better combat plane with heavier guns, better roll etc.

The P51 we have in mid 1944 is a great plane when put up against Fw190A's and Me109G14. Its never going to turn very well or have docile handling, its meant to be fast and long ranged over everything else. Laminar flow wings dont make for a good turner.

Try flying some planesets other than 1944, the P51 is cool and one of the fastest up high in mid 1944.

shahram177
07-31-2007, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
The P51 Mustang was known for its pronounced tendency to enter snap stalls even in the clean combat load - couple this with its overly much too sensitive and effective elevator in IL2 and you get what you see... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BINGO! (Again)

Well put as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shahram177:
Other than that she's great! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Shahram Do please at least try - my conf.ini settings to reduce the sensitivity of the elevator.

In my experience it really does make all the difference.

I do not for the life of me understand why people are so resistant to trying this. If it fixes/or merely ONLY alleviates perceived deficiencies. I would think those having trouble would be all over it.

Horse to water kind of thing I suppose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok mate just shoot me a PM and pleas let's make it a sticky on the main page so noobies know what they are getting into when they decide to fly the P-51.
Also....you know a few "how to missions" wouldn't really hurt now would they?

Waldo.Pepper
07-31-2007, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also....you know a few "how to missions" wouldn't really hurt now would they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hallelujah! Thank you for being open minded. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Specifically for the P-51 I cannot think of any training mission.

I however, think that the best training is interminable stick time. I once said ... "the price of uberness is eternal practice."

I bet before the day is done that someone will come along and tell you of a good training series for the P-51!

Good luck with the Mustang. Once it clicks for you she is a pretty sweet ride. Just do everything you can to stay fast a remain patient. I think that's my best advice.

Also because someone asked me in an email about the track I posted here are some more details.

-----

Oberst Valdo, shot down two B-17's with ammo to spare. Pressed the triggers 12 times. Got hits on 10 of the 12 trigger presses (verified via arcade mode - I have no idea what my hit % was - but if it was lousy that would not surprise me to much!)

Valdo got hit by a single bullet fired by the B-17's [so much for sniper gunners!] This was also verified by arcade mode.

The B-17's were skill level ace, with 50% fuel and a bomb load of 8 1000 pounders.

Valdo's P-51 had 25% fuel - full ammo converged at 300m

Difficulty settings were icons on and speedbar. Cockpit I could get out of (for the money shot at the end) but other than that I did not. Other than that it was full switch.

I selected these circumstances because it would be low altitude - starting at 1000m. And because the B-17 is supposedly a tough nut to crack. These two factors would test some supposed weakness' of the P-51.

Made in the QMB, Smolensk map, at high noon.
because I am too lazy to make a real mission.

FoolTrottel
07-31-2007, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I bet before the day is done that someone will come along and tell you of a good training series for the P-51! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Waldo's correct, again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Or maybe not, the day might already be done where you are... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif)

Training 'On the job' that is.
Legend of Y-29 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=1643)
"P-51 campaign by 1.JaVA_Sjonnie
The Blue- nosed b@st@rds from Bodney over Belgium

32 missions- 48 skins

This campaign puts you in the shoes of a 487 squadron, 352 FG pilot in the battle of the Bulge, during the 1944- 1945 winter in Europe, flying the P-51.

You will fly all kinds of missions, from patrol and escort to V1- chasing, scrambles, ground attack and interception of German jets- you won't get bored!"

Now I'm not a fighterjock, (I'm a groundpounder) and never (hardly ever?) use the P51 in dogfight servers... but this campaign (I beta-tested it) learned me how to handle the P51, and I can now be succesfull in it in Coops (returning home being an important goal of mine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif) and have had some comments on me pilotin' it, via the chat bar.
Once by a 190-pilot who couldn't catch me: 'finally here's one that knows how to pilot a P51' and one from a spectator: 'What's your gun convergence?' after I had been shooting at and had been scaring off some 109's from our base. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

How to handle it? Keep it fast. Dive and climb. Turn gently. Keep it fast.
(Don't horse around with the Pony!)

Have Fun!

M_Gunz
07-31-2007, 09:05 PM
FT? OT but I read your sig line about a fool can always....

There's a comedian named Lewis Black who says his health club is The International House of
Pancakes because no matter how out of shape you are, there's going to be someone there that
makes you look good.

horseback
07-31-2007, 09:57 PM
Waldo I think we are talking past each other.

I remind you that my original disagreement was with your contention that the Mustang was 'twitchier' than the P-40. I believe, and continue to contend that the Mustang was much less of a handful for its pilots in almost ALL conditions of flight. At the extreme edges of its envelope, they were dealing with speeds that the designers had only theory to cope with, but <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">almost every aircraft of that generation created problems for their pilots at those speeds. </span>

I mean for Pete's sake, the P-38 could (theoretically at least)get into compression effects in level flight at around 30,000ft altitudes!

I believe that the passages you quoted are "one-offs", that is, one or two guys who didn't like the exceptionally light stick forces of the Mustang and would prefer all the extra wrestling around with something like the P-40. It seems possible to me that the author simply added these for the usual 'balance' or 'fairness' reasons, because the rest of the comments sound like the sort of things that are said about the recently deceased to his widow and children.

That you latch onto these two out of almost two dozen statements makes me wonder how you treat the Scriptures after you compared America's Hundred Thousand to the Bible. I certainly hope that you don't just pick out two verses you like out of every chapter and discard the rest!

The only real vice I'm aware of that every pilot's description refers to was what happened if you were too quick with the throttle at lower speeds: the torque would flip you over in a hurry, and it could take as much as 5,000 ft (1600m) to recover. After being warned, many young pilots took it up to 15,000 ft or so and tried it out for themselves. It's considered to have been very educational...and led to most units flying it into combat zones at higher cruise speeds to limit the likelihood of it happening in combat.

The P-40 had trim, or rather, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">severe control forces issues at ALL speeds and attitudes, and these could be calamatous in combat</span>. It had a vicious and sneaky stall at some speeds and angles of attack, which probably led to the 'abracadabra' the Soviets were so wary of (from my reading of the pilots' accounts, it may have been their unfamiliarity with adding trim that caused their problems - once under stress,they would revert to their no-trim habits, and be unable to generate the stick or rudder control forces they needed). If you took it to the far edges of its envelope, it would often kill you in a totally unexpected way.

In many ways, it was like the American version of the Me 109 when it came to takeoffs, landing and taxiing. If everything wasn't exactly right (including the wind) it could jump up and bite even a well prepared pilot before he could react. Ethell's article spoke of feeling like he had wrestled and dragged the thing around through the sky, and being physically worn out after an hour's flight. Airshow pilots I've talked to describe a similar feeling, although they did get 'sort of' used to it after a few flights.

The Mustang with a light fuselage tank was considered to be much more consistant in it's control forces, and had, according to most sources, a dependable stall warning. The majority of the text in the book (and every other book covering the subject) says very complimentary things about its handling, even at the edges of its envelope.

As for the pilot's manuals, we need to remember that they were written to teach the pilots what to avoid even more than what they could do. Naturally, they made certain flying choices seem less attractive in much the same way that they portrayed the dangers of VD in training films and pamphlets--yet I'll bet most of them went on to procreate at least as enthusiastically as they flew their Mustangs.

But in both cases, I figure they probably used some form of 'protection.'

Obviously, it is very difficult to 'translate' these light force requirements into Oleg's controller system, and it requires a 'special' setting for pitch at the very least, while every other aircraft in the sim can easily get by with the basic settings.

I can deal with all that. I simply object to the idea that with every 6-10 mph variation in speed, the in-game Mustang needs a click or two of nose up or down trim and a click of left or right rudder trim to keep the ball centered. All that trimming becomes even more critical in combat maneuvering, and it is ahistorical.

It does, in fact, belong on the P-40, which has been long known to have that characteristic, and in game, does not. I find this odd in light of the fact that the Soviets received hundreds of P-40s via Lend Lease, and TsAGI would have a very complete picture in the original Russian for Oleg's team to work from.

That's all I'm saying.

To use a car analogy, the Mustang was a lot more like the 1970 BMW 2002 (wouldn't be caught dead in a Dodge, even a Viper) I drove for eight years compared to the 1985 Ford Ranger pickup I replaced it with (the cost of replacement parts was killing me), which compares quite aptly with the P-40.

The BMW was a very 'honest' car, turning, accellerating, and stopping quite predictably at all but the highest (close to felony fast) speeds. I almost always felt that I had it well under control, and when I took it to the edge, it would give me fair warning that things were starting to change.

The pickup truck was heavier, poorly balanced in comparison, a lot trickier to drive, and had an alarming tendency to swing hard to the right if you had to hit the brakes at speeds over 40mph. In fact, it could be full of surprises at bad times if you weren't paying it your full attention.

On the other hand, I could afford the maintenance and it didn't break down on me wwhen I needed it. I just had to know its limits. If it were OD instead of black, I might've painted shark's teeth on the front fenders, if only to remind myself that it could bite.

So, to recap, Mustang honest, reliable, predictable in flight with low control forces at all speeds (if a little torque-y at low speeds), Warhawk very demanding and varying widely in control forces as speed and angle of attack varied, also very torque-y -- plus a cast iron b*tch to takeoff and land.

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
07-31-2007, 11:15 PM
"I think we are talking past each other."

Gee HB whatever gave you that idea? Isn't this always the way it is in these types of discussions?

"I remind you that my original disagreement was with your contention that the Mustang was 'twitchier'

Thank you for the reminder, but I do not need it. I more than get it! I now remind you that I think the crux of our difference is in the understanding of twitchier/twitchy.

(For the record I have made the points in the following paragraph before in this thread. And if we were not talking past each other I would not need to do this.)

It seems that you think of twitchy, in what I will characterize as the 'classical' sense.
Whereas in am using to describe what I think AHT was describing in the two points that make a direct comparison between the P-40 and P-51. I think the gist of what they are getting at is - "Of greater potential danger." Easier to get into trouble - quicker. Despite the undeniable fact that overall the P-51 is a far nicer plane to fly. I think this is now the third time that I have agreed with your statements on the overall superior handing characteristics of the P-51 vs. the P-40, and tried to explain what AHT is getting at.

All this confusion over a single word. It is ludicrous. If in my original comment I had used a different word/phrase, would you have been mollified? Do you remember me saying this as well earlier. Search for mea culpa, in my post and you shall find it. How about had I said "potentially dangerous" Because (I think that this is the third time I have mentioned this now.) that was what I, and AHT are getting at. Of greater potential danger, because of greater torque/speed/aerodynamic forces. Do you remember me saying all this before?

Re trimming the Oleg P-51.

"I simply object ... the in-game Mustang needs a click or two of nose up or down trim and a click of left or right rudder trim to keep the ball centered."

I don't experience that at all! I wonder why you do? What are your control devices? How have you assigned elevator trim/rudder trim. Don't take this the wrong way. I only offer because I don't experience this - but perhaps I can help. My first so called tip would be to put the trim on rotaries. Which if I read between the lines, your words seem to suggest that you have not done, when you still refer to 'clicks' I find that rotaries make all the difference. If for no other reason than as a rotary increments smaller than 'clicks' are entered. Half clicks, quarter clicks in effect. Far superior, far greater precision.

Whenever I am using someone else's computer/hardware to play Il-2 I am worse than useless. I think that all ˜sim' games are quite sensitive to hardware issues. Perhaps this explains your (and others) differing experience with this and other issues. I mean I can imagine other players do maybe experience wing shedding to a far greater extent than others do when they are using a joystick that has dodgy pots in it. If this is the case it would not surprise me at all! Perhaps something like this is causing your trimming woes as well.


Car analogy - Mustang as BMW.

When I first used a car analogy in an earlier post in this thread, I wanted to say that the Mustang was akin to a Porsche. But I settled on a Viper as I was hugely motivated to NOT select a German ride to compare the US icon too. Thinking it would be seen as heresy.

(I kept it under x number of pages! I deserve a cookie I think!)

Skoshi Tiger
07-31-2007, 11:54 PM
In Defence of the P-40.

The P-40 series of aircaft was flown extensively by RAAF. In all its marks it was the nost numerous aircraft to be flown by the RAAF during WWII. Australian pilots also flew the planes in RAF colour on numerous battle fronts.

From the pilots reports I've read, mostly from some of our best aces, report that the P-40 was a very honnest handling aircraft with only a few vices. (At least two of the pilots had be transfered from spitfire squadrons to fight in Africa so they could compare the P-40 with a 'modern aircraft' for want of better words.)

Slow rate of climb, limited performance at altitude and When you released the canopy you had to keep your head down because the trailing edge of the canopy dipped down into the cockpit and could clip the back of your head!
(Not the sort of thing you need in an emergency!!!!) But no where did anyone mention that it was a hard aircraft to fly or needed an out of the ordinary amount of trimming.

The main criticisms where that it was over engineered and over equiped as a fighter aircraft (eg pilot relief tube!).

All aircraft need trimmed it doen't matter what type. The Pipers and Cessnas I flew when I was going for my private pilots licence needed trimming every time you change your power or attitude. Its a fact of life! If you don't your increasing your workload as a pilot. Even a moderate change becomes fatiging after a short period of time without it.

But just like changing gears in your car it becomes second nature and after a while you don't even think about it. This is one place that computer sims differ from real life.

In a real aircraft you have feed back via the pressure your applying to your control column. You set your power, hold the required attitude and trim until the pressure on the column is releaved.

In the flight sim, without that feed back you need to look for visual clues. You set your power, hold the attitude, trim, relieve the pressure on your joystick and see if the nose of the plane goes up or down, hold the attitude again, re-trim then check again. This goes on until you get the plane into trim.

Now I fly the P-40E alot in IL2. I'm constantly trimming my aircraft to get it to fly in the correct attitude. It's normal and to the best of my knowledge right. Try doing some missions with the 500lb or 1000lb bombs and then tell me you don't need to trim the P-40 in the game!

Also the method of trimming the plane in real life using the tim wheel is more intuituve than using key combinations. That adds to our sim pilot workload.

Whether or not it's more accurately modeled than the P-51 could only be answered by someone who flown both the real aircaft and the ones in the game.

In summing up the P-40 was a stable gun platform, could mix it with it's contempories at low level, could take a lot of damage and still get it's pilot home. It was a pilots aircaft.

What was the quote about the P-40 "Dammed by words but flown to Glory!"

lowfighter
08-01-2007, 12:42 AM
I experience the same as horseback regarding the trimwork on the P51. But it might be what Waldo said, the lack of precission with the "click" method (I don't have rotaries unfortunately). However the "click" method works quite well and doesn't require that much attention on all other airplanes I've flown in the game. There's in my head a pretty big gap between the trimwork on the P51 and even the closest "trim-intensive" planes (again in my head) the P47 and F4U.

HayateAce
08-01-2007, 12:02 PM
Wildo, you can spew forth acres of text if you want, but I think I will go with veterans and vintage war-bird pilots opinions over a 40lb overweight, pasty-white gamer like yourself....if that's quite alright with you.

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

Waldo.Pepper
08-01-2007, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Wildo, you can spew forth acres of text if you want, but I think I will go with veterans and vintage war-bird pilots opinions over a 40lb overweight, pasty-white gamer like yourself....if that's quite alright with you.

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

A really good Idea there HayateAce.

But unfortunately for you I beat you to this point as well when I said this about my own points and those of others ...

"Our, yours and mine opinions are very nearly worthless."

So you go do whatever you want with my best wishes. Knowing in your heart that I already had the insight to realize this and took the time to make the point in your absence.

Stuntie
08-01-2007, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I bet before the day is done that someone will come along and tell you of a good training series for the P-51! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Waldo's correct, again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Or maybe not, the day might already be done where you are... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif)

Training 'On the job' that is.
Legend of Y-29 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=1643)
[i]"P-51 campaign by 1.JaVA_Sjonnie
The Blue- nosed b@st@rds from Bodney over Belgium

32 missions- 48 skins

This campaign puts you in the shoes of a 487 squadron, 352 FG pilot in the battle of the Bulge, during the 1944- 1945 winter in Europe, flying the P-51.
...
Have Fun! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooo cheers!
Downloading that now.
Just got a rather nice 1/32nd scale blue nose Mustang kit (Petie 2nd) last weekend as well.

horseback
08-01-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Wildo, you can spew forth acres of text if you want, but I think I will go with veterans and vintage war-bird pilots opinions over a 40lb overweight, pasty-white gamer like yourself....if that's quite alright with you.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Jeez, man, I'm a pasty-white male who's 60 lbs overweight...

cheers

horseback

horseback
08-01-2007, 03:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
"I think we are talking past each other."

Gee HB whatever gave you that idea? Isn't this always the way it is in these types of discussions?

"I remind you that my original disagreement was with your contention that the Mustang was 'twitchier'

Thank you for the reminder, but I do not need it. I more than get it! I now remind you that I think the crux of our difference is in the understanding of twitchier/twitchy.

(For the record I have made the points in the following paragraph before in this thread. And if we were not talking past each other I would not need to do this.)

It seems that you think of twitchy, in what I will characterize as the 'classical' sense.
Whereas in am using to describe what I think AHT was describing in the two points that make a direct comparison between the P-40 and P-51. I think the gist of what they are getting at is - "Of greater potential danger." Easier to get into trouble - quicker. Despite the undeniable fact that overall the P-51 is a far nicer plane to fly. I think this is now the third time that I have agreed with your statements on the overall superior handing characteristics of the P-51 vs. the P-40, and tried to explain what AHT is getting at.

All this confusion over a single word. It is ludicrous. If in my original comment I had used a different word/phrase, would you have been mollified? Do you remember me saying this as well earlier. Search for mea culpa, in my post and you shall find it. How about had I said "potentially dangerous" Because (I think that this is the third time I have mentioned this now.) that was what I, and AHT are getting at. Of greater potential danger, because of greater torque/speed/aerodynamic forces. Do you remember me saying all this before? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I might point out that you kept insisting that the problem I was referring to was trim "at cruise speeds". The issue for me is trim at all speeds. When a pilot gets 'behind the curve' as the aircraft's demand for trim varies with speed, it is far easier to loose control of his aircraft when he reaches the point at which he's trimmed too far in the wrong direction, and he simply isn't physically strong enough (or his stick or rudder doesn't have the necessary 'throw') to counteract the trim in the opposite direction.

As for how you translate the thrust of the discussion of flying characteristics of the Mustang in America's Hundred Thousand, I guess we'll just call that a matter of conscience, and leave it at that. I have a more traditional interpretation of the Mustang's qualities as an American Air Force 'brat' raised with the sons and daughters of a number of the average pilots who fought in WWII.

I suppose that makes me a Catholic to your-what?-Assembly of God?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Re trimming the Oleg P-51.

"I simply object ... the in-game Mustang needs a click or two of nose up or down trim and a click of left or right rudder trim to keep the ball centered."

I don't experience that at all! I wonder why you do? What are your control devices? How have you assigned elevator trim/rudder trim. Don't take this the wrong way. I only offer because I don't experience this - but perhaps I can help. My first so called tip would be to put the trim on rotaries. Which if I read between the lines, your words seem to suggest that you have not done, when you still refer to 'clicks' I find that rotaries make all the difference. If for no other reason than as a rotary increments smaller than 'clicks' are entered. Half clicks, quarter clicks in effect. Far superior, far greater precision.

Whenever I am using someone else's computer/hardware to play Il-2 I am worse than useless. I think that all ˜sim' games are quite sensitive to hardware issues. Perhaps this explains your (and others) differing experience with this and other issues. I mean I can imagine other players do maybe experience wing shedding to a far greater extent than others do when they are using a joystick that has dodgy pots in it. If this is the case it would not surprise me at all! Perhaps something like this is causing your trimming woes as well.

(I kept it under x number of pages! I deserve a cookie I think!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I use a CH HOTAS (Combat Stick, Pro Throttle & Pro pedals) setup with a Throttle Quadrant on the side. I tried using the Quadrant axes for my trims, but the results were execrable, at best. Either the Quadrant's pots aren't very linear, or the default sensitivity for the the elevator & rudder trim axes was throwing me off.

Unlike the Pro Throttle or Combatstick's axes, CH's Management software does't allow you to set curves for the six Quadrant axes in your profile (IMO, probably the greatest disappointment in my experiences with their otherwise excellant products).

I felt I was getting far too great a response for a tiny input, so I went back to 'button' trim, which doesn't exactly rock my world (at least when flying the Mustang) either.

I would happily accept any valid tips (haven't had much chance to fly since Sunday night, so I haven't tried your suggested pitch settings yet).

cheers

horseback

PS - your constant requests for approval in the form of cookies has apparently set off the diet-Nazi in Hayate Ace...but if your settings are any help at all, I'll PM you my award-winning oatmeal almond recipe.

FoolTrottel
08-01-2007, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unlike the Pro Throttle or Combatstick's axes, CH's Management software does't allow you to set curves for the six Quadrant axes in your profile </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
After assigning the controls to the trim axis', you could use either IL2-Sticks or IL2-JoyControl (see my sig) to alter sensitivities for them axis'...

Can't tell you how to set them values for trim... (I do have 'm on a slider, but use a homebuilt control box...)

Good Luck!

Waldo.Pepper
08-01-2007, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Jeez, man, I'm a pasty-white male who's 60 lbs overweight...
horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I am rather well tanned these days and weight EXACTLY (I mean to the pound) what my Doctor tells me I should weight. I was going to let it go! (But thanks for the moral support there HB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I think Fooltrottel is on the right track with his awesome/great/fabulous/utility. (Cheques in the mail FT!)

You really should be able to absolutely minutely adjust the curves that the CH software not allowing you to do. I think it really is the way to go. At least give it a serious Rogering around.

lowfighter
08-01-2007, 10:31 PM
Hotas or no Hotas I would still like to hear a reason for what horseback pointed out.
Here's a little test. Take a P51 and reach 400 Km/h, trim the plane there, elevator and rudder. Now push a bit the throtle and reach 500 Km/h. Trim the elevator ONLY. After elevator is trimmed notice the ball deviation. Take another plane say a P47 and do the same. Compare the ball deviations for the two planes. Is there a reason for the fact that the P47 ball is only slightly off while the P51 ball is almost all the way off?
In the P51 the trim is going too quickly off when your speed is changing, in comparison with other planes. Now I haven't properly looked at all planes or even the planes I fly frequently,
maybe there's one which beats the P51?

MrMojok
08-02-2007, 12:08 AM
The rotaries work great for trimming if you tone down the range, otherwise you will indeed have too great a response for tiny input on the dials.

My input range for my elevator trim rotary starts somewhere around 25 and ends at about 60 I think. This is more than enough range for any flight situation I've encountered. I couldn't go back to click-trimming again.

lowfighter
08-03-2007, 03:01 AM
Waldo had the kindness to do the test I sugested above and he PMed me his result.
Again trim the plane at 400 Km/h both elevator and rudder, then push the throttle and trim the elevator only, notice the ball deviation at 500 Km/h. He obtains that the ball stays centered at 500 KM/h contrary to my results. So I did the test, once again myself and tried to trim as well as possible. I got now the same result, the ball stays centered.
So that means that in my previous trials I didn't trim well enough in initial state (400 Km/h). I don't have rotaries and on the p51 it takes me quite a lot to trim (but say 10 times less on other aircraft, difference which I can't account for).
Therefore I apologise for the nonsense. But glad that Waldo did the test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
08-03-2007, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Hotas or no Hotas I would still like to hear a reason for what horseback pointed out.
Here's a little test. Take a P51 and reach 400 Km/h, trim the plane there, elevator and rudder. Now push a bit the throtle and reach 500 Km/h. Trim the elevator ONLY. After elevator is trimmed notice the ball deviation. Take another plane say a P47 and do the same. Compare the ball deviations for the two planes. Is there a reason for the fact that the P47 ball is only slightly off while the P51 ball is almost all the way off?
In the P51 the trim is going too quickly off when your speed is changing, in comparison with other planes. Now I haven't properly looked at all planes or even the planes I fly frequently,
maybe there's one which beats the P51? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, let's have the planes work by arcade type standards.
All planes will then be one standard model then each has it's own special differences to compare.

lowfighter
08-03-2007, 08:21 AM
Very happy someone finally understood my revolutionary idea! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Eh, forget about my previous post, it doesn't fit into the new fun mood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Hotas or no Hotas I would still like to hear a reason for what horseback pointed out.
Here's a little test. Take a P51 and reach 400 Km/h, trim the plane there, elevator and rudder. Now push a bit the throtle and reach 500 Km/h. Trim the elevator ONLY. After elevator is trimmed notice the ball deviation. Take another plane say a P47 and do the same. Compare the ball deviations for the two planes. Is there a reason for the fact that the P47 ball is only slightly off while the P51 ball is almost all the way off?
In the P51 the trim is going too quickly off when your speed is changing, in comparison with other planes. Now I haven't properly looked at all planes or even the planes I fly frequently,
maybe there's one which beats the P51? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, let's have the planes work by arcade type standards.
All planes will then be one standard model then each has it's own special differences to compare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Waldo.Pepper
08-03-2007, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Waldo had the kindness </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Them's fightin' words! Grrr. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lowfighter
08-04-2007, 01:50 AM
English language http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Waldo had the kindness </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Them's fightin' words! Grrr. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wildnoob
08-15-2007, 04:51 PM
the P-51 was a great plane for me, but there's something I really don't like him, it's the internal central fuel tank.

when I fly it with 25 % fuel it's a awesome plane, can make a real "pilot's figth" against every German or Japanese plane.

but when 100 % it's almost suicide try get in a mock dogfigth with a BF-109 for example.

I know this plane was more suitable for Z&B tatics, but of course he could dogfigth with enemy planes with no problem.

the major problem is just with the central tank I think.

VW-IceFire
08-15-2007, 09:30 PM
There is no center tank...

luftluuver
08-15-2007, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
There is no center tank... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No 85gal fuselage tank, only the wing tanks???

Waldo.Pepper
08-15-2007, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
There is no center tank... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct of course but I fear you are ...

http://www.popsike.com/pix/20040609/4017958687.jpg

Capt.LoneRanger
08-16-2007, 01:33 AM
IMHO as so often the truth lies somewhere in between.

I think the P51 is a great a/c in game, but it really needs a lot of skill to fly to it's max.
Reasons are different: lack of input-feedback, lacks in the high-altitude flight-model, damage model, etc.

On the other hand, most pilot reports are not really helpfull. Any pilot will promote his own favorite a/c and flying with 40 Ponys fom 30,000ft against a hand full of untrained pilots scrambling is not really a basis for judging aircraft performances against each other.

super71957
08-16-2007, 09:11 AM
I'll never worry about meeting a FW 190 in a 51 since I was able to outturn, outdive and generally out-maneuver him at all altitudes, from 23,000 feet to the deck; I could follow him in anything and do a lot more besides."

Lt.Richard D. Bishop
Encounter Report
Sept.11 1944

carguy_
08-16-2007, 10:25 AM
Well shiver me timbers!!It`s exactly like that in the game! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

VW-IceFire
08-16-2007, 04:14 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 VW-IceFire:
There is no center tank... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No 85gal fuselage tank, only the wing tanks??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I keep saying it but not too many are listening. There is no rear tank, no wing tanks, no tanks at all. Its a bunch of 1s and 0s. The game engine doesn't care about tanks...it does calculate the overall weight of full fuel or empty fuel but not based on individual fuel tanks. This was a question asked and answered many years ago.

So there are two possible scenarios that I see:

1) The center of gravity has artificially been moved forward to account for this problem so that the plane is too stable at 100%.

2) The center of gravity has been left where its "supposed" to be at 100% and thus its properly unstable at 100% but too unstable at 25%.

Now Oleg or someone else from that team can come along and tell me "you is wrong" and explain it better than that...but...way back when...probably on Netwings Development forums this question was asked and answered. I'm reasonably certain.

Nobody cares but personally I think everyone is making a far bigger deal about the Mustang than need be. Every other week its always complaints about the same three or four aircraft and its always the same. No matter how much something is changed the arguments and accusations will always exist.

luftluuver
08-16-2007, 06:43 PM
Before my time then.

So if there is one 'huge' tank modeled as 1s and 0s then the digital 'fuel tank' is the centre tank.

pt 2 does not make sense.

btw, I have no complaints about the P-51.

VW-IceFire
08-16-2007, 09:50 PM
Part 2 still makes sense...infact it potentially makes more sense. There are no fuel tanks...just two mathematical values (probably more but to simplify here):

1) Weight of the aircraft including weight of the fuel

2) Center of gravity of given aircraft

As we've been told that fuel tanks aren't measured in terms of each individual tank being full or not full or having any sort of weight effect we can then assume that only the weight of the aircraft is changing based on fuel state.

See?

Wildnoob
08-17-2007, 06:54 PM
aircraft guide says :

"The P-51 should not be used as a turn-and- burn figther. the key to victory is having advantage in both airspeed and altititude"

that's wat I can't understand...

the Mustang was a very agile figther, in a documentary I see this aircraft be claimed as "comparable in maneuverability to the Spitfire MK I"

witch is totally aceptable by reasons I don't even need to say.

the fact is "Oleg was the first"

I mean in the case of "tell the truth" the P-51 was not so agile as most of the people's (incluin veteran pilots)maybe think. = =P

the Mustang was very suitable for Z&B tactics, but for dogfigths too, like the YAK-9 for example.

in other simulators (I DON'T WANT TO SAY NOTHING BAD ABOUT IL2) I've used the Mustang and don't have any of those problems.

my english is not very good, please, if you see some erros in my post don't care about then.

VW-IceFire
08-17-2007, 11:19 PM
1) Don't believe TV documentaries. They get very little right.

2) No idea how the Mustang can possibly be a great dogfighter like a Spitfire. Its not lightweight, it doesn't have big higher lift wings, and its stall characteristics are more pronounced.

The problem is separating the plane from legend. Not so easy.

Nevermind IL-2 or any of that.

ImpStarDuece
08-18-2007, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
aircraft guide says :

"The P-51 should not be used as a turn-and- burn figther. the key to victory is having advantage in both airspeed and altititude"

that's wat I can't understand...

the Mustang was a very agile figther, in a documentary I see this aircraft be claimed as "comparable in maneuverability to the Spitfire MK I"

witch is totally aceptable by reasons I don't even need to say.

the fact is "Oleg was the first"

I mean in the case of "tell the truth" the P-51 was not so agile as most of the people's (incluin veteran pilots)maybe think. = =P

the Mustang was very suitable for Z&B tactics, but for dogfigths too, like the YAK-9 for example.

in other simulators (I DON'T WANT TO SAY NOTHING BAD ABOUT IL2) I've used the Mustang and don't have any of those problems.

my english is not very good, please, if you see some erros in my post don't care about then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on how you define manouverability. The AirQuake style turning contents with conga lines of fighters doing donuts that you see online weren't that common in real life.

Its not just who can turn the tightest for the longest, you know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Spitfire Mk I has a better power to weight ratio and lower wing loading, meaning it can sustain a turn tighter.

However, the P-51 is almost 100 mph faster at most altiudes, has a faster sustained rate of climb, a higher dive limit and much better handling above 300 mph, including better rate of roll and overall alieron authority. It also has better range, better armament, better pilot visibility, better armour protection, better radios, ect ect.

In a late war situation, most other fighters are going to have a better power to weight ratio, lower wing loading and superior armament to the P-51. The Mustang's major advantage was in its very good aerodynamics and its excellent overall handling. British reports have high praise for the Mustangs handling, particularly is sensitivity to control movements above 400 mph.

Wildnoob
08-18-2007, 07:32 PM
really depends.

anyway, I gonna trainning and try explore the plane advantagens rather than stay here talking about things I really don't know.

Tempestmaniac, I agreed. in this same documentary they sayd the IJAF have all it's designs outdate (I don't know where the KI-84 enters).

Skoshi Tiger
08-18-2007, 09:37 PM
I think that some people are forgetting that when a pilot says an aircraft is "very manuverable", you need to put it into context.

The Mustang was very manuverable when compared to it's contempories. The mustang excelled in its role as a long distance escort fighter. What other arcraft could perform that role? Maybe a P-38 or a P-47 on the US side of things? Mosquito on the British side? All the other british designs had had too short a range. Compared to these other options available for the role the P51 was very manuverable.

Another example of this would be the Spitfire. In the European theater it was one of the most manuverable turn and burn fighters. When they were exported to the Pacific they had to adopt Boom and Zoom tactics because they just couldn't compete with the Zero's

If your quoting one of the Aces when they're describing their aircraft you need to put it into context otherwise the statements are meaningless, the statementsare too subjective.

super71957
08-20-2007, 08:26 AM
I fully agree Skoshi.I guess my point is,in real life,the p-51 could win a turn fight at times.The way some guys view the -51 is that it could not turn fight at all.
That is just not the case!
There are just to many reports of it doing just that and winning.
Yes I know it"s wing loading and power loading features say it is not the greatest turn fighter but somewhere between it what is on paper and what flew the Mustang could really do it all.Do understand,I am not saying for instance a P-51 can out turn a Zero.
I do understand that if I were to read FW 190 & ME 109 ENCOUNTERS that I would very likely see a similar reports by more than a few of there pilots.
I chose that report because it is apparent that this pilot had a real fear of his opponents,after a dogfight with his most feared opponent he came out with total confidence in the P-51 capabilities and learned just how great a fighter it really is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

VFA-195 Snacky
08-20-2007, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
P51 Facts for fixing problems: (these and/or similar facts have been posted many times in these forums, but it appears people want the same facts again, again, again...)

Center fuel tank instability:
Source:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p51_mustang.html

First flown on November 30, 1942, the XP-51B's performance exceeded the engineers' expectations. At 29,800 feet, it made 440 MPH in level flight, 100 MPH better than the Allison models.
The USAAF, desperately needing a long-range bomber escort, contracted for 2200 P-51B's. North American geared up for Mustang production, moving the B-25 program to Kansas City, dedicating the Inglewood plant to the Mustang, and expanding the Dallas plant for the Mustang (Dallas-built versions of the -B model were designated P-51C). P-51B's began rolling out of Inglewood in May, 1943; eventually 1,990 of the -B models would be made. The first of 1,750 P-51C's produced at Dallas flew in August.

After production of the B/C model began, three more changes appeared:

an up-rated Packard Merlin engine, the 1650-7 replacing the 1650-3, for a small increase in HP
an 85 gallon fuel tank installed behind the pilot, giving critically longer reach, but moving the center of gravity aft, thus reducing directional stability until most of the fuel was consumed
the bulbous Malcolm hood, giving much better all-around visibility (a field modification), as shown below.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fix: have the Center fuselage drain first as it was in REAL LIFE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ask =353=Monroe his opinion of the P51D flight model in this game. You will be surprised what you hear and the Oleg fanboys wouldn't like it either.

There is bias in this game and always will be.

btw- Wings don't just rip off of Mustangs and Jugs don't take a 30 cal round to the motor and just freeze up. The P38 was a very fast aircraft, 50 cals ripped apart planes, and the P39/63 was barely good enough to be a trainer.

hi_stik
08-20-2007, 09:37 AM
I don't believe anyone here is going to receive satisfaction. I suggest abandoning this game, and taking up Donkey Kong. Or maybe Double Dragon, for people who don't like the AI.

joeap
08-20-2007, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:

Ask =353=Monroe his opinion of the P51D flight model in this game. You will be surprised what you hear and the Oleg fanboys wouldn't like it either.

There is bias in this game and always will be.

btw- Wings don't just rip off of Mustangs and Jugs don't take a 30 cal round to the motor and just freeze up. The P38 was a very fast aircraft, 50 cals ripped apart planes, and the P39/63 was barely good enough to be a trainer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't read any of the other posts in this thread did you?

Enough of Red and Blue whiners coming in and mucking up threads.
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/7021/3585ml1.jpg

Too bad whiners get hurt by facts:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4379/funnymyspaceyq8.gif

So the solution?
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/857/8031gc3.gif

VW-IceFire
08-20-2007, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by super71957:
I fully agree Skoshi.I guess my point is,in real life,the p-51 could win a turn fight at times.The way some guys view the -51 is that it could not turn fight at all.
That is just not the case!
There are just to many reports of it doing just that and winning.
Yes I know it"s wing loading and power loading features say it is not the greatest turn fighter but somewhere between it what is on paper and what flew the Mustang could really do it all.Do understand,I am not saying for instance a P-51 can out turn a Zero.
I do understand that if I were to read FW 190 & ME 109 ENCOUNTERS that I would very likely see a similar reports by more than a few of there pilots.
I chose that report because it is apparent that this pilot had a real fear of his opponents,after a dogfight with his most feared opponent he came out with total confidence in the P-51 capabilities and learned just how great a fighter it really is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then the question becomes...what sort of turn fight? Because there is more than just one way to initiate and sustain a turn fight. You can do the high speed turn fight in a Mustang with total confidence and more importantly win. The 109s and 190s are the best target for this sort of thing. Speed is still key to achieve the best sustained turn with a Mustang...I don't see it having a problem with the turn. Its better than the IL2 Compare charts say it is. I can vouch for that.

I'm not sure quite where all of the comments come from but lots of complaints about the Mustang definitely come from the dogfight quake war styled dogfight servers where at 500 meters and flying at 250kph IAS the Mustang simply won't compete and doesn't have any room to work with. Expand that to 3000 meters and 350kph IAS and the situation is different.

Waldo.Pepper
08-20-2007, 04:23 PM
I see the fun is still continuing.

=====

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by super71957:
The way some guys view the -51 is that it could not turn fight at all. That is just not the case! There are just to many reports of it doing just that and winning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And those reports are entirely correct and accurate and important to recognize and support.

But what I would suggest is that those who quote them are neglecting the even more important qualities of the two pilots involved in the fight. The pilot of the Mustang and the German pilot.

=====

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
btw- Wings don't just rip off of Mustangs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really I just can't resist this.

Actually they DO pop off (just like that) on occasion!

Watch this please, and then I would like to hear your comments please.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6482196760319906605

I expect you may say that this is because they were carrying bombs, or that this was "pre modification" and that this modification "fixed all the problems" or some such stuff like that.

So in case that is what you were about to say please read the following five "quotes".

Lets play a game. Well call it "Are these quote real or bogus."

And tell me if

a) I made them up (Really I could have. I am a sneaky little so and so.)

or

b) They are the comments of an actual WW2 combat veteran/Mustang pilot.

NOTE: the ##### are my attempt to remove identifying details that could reveal the potential authenticity of the words.

(1) "But when the mission returned, there was no sign of ########. The word was that in an effort to catch up to his element leader in a dogfight with ME-109s, he got in a dive and passed the red line on his airspeed indicator. His right wing peeled off as he tried pulling out at eighteen thousand feet and down he went, unable to bail out in a plane that was out of control."

(2) "But what we lacked in excitement was more than made up when a pilot from the ### Squadron executing aerobatics over the field, apparently got in a dive, and like #########, passed the red line in seconds. Trying to pull out, he lost a wing, then the other, then the tail assembly. By the time he'd plowed into the ground less than a hundred yards from our runway, the wavering screech of a runaway engine was sending chills down my back and raising the hairs on my head."

(3) "In the last three days the ##nd had suffered the loss of two pilots and four planes, three of them in the ### Squadron. One pilot, a redheaded captain, passed the redline in a dive and, pulling out, lost his tail assembly and augured in."

(4) "For high above us was a Mustang disintegrating in midair. From its runaway engine issued a loud wail, rising and falling in volume and pitch as the fuselage plunged to earth with a dull thud, followed by wings fluttering down like falling leaves. Later we learned that the pilot, like #### ######### six months earlier, had passed the red line on his airspeed indicator and, in trying to pull out of a dive, put so much strain on the wings that they buckled and peeled off. Now he'd dug his own grave, twelve feet under, in a dismal coup de grace for a pilot whose luck had run out."

(5) "Another pilot, Maj. ####### ######, a replacement, was returning to land after some transition time, and made the mistake of embracing the "Purple Heart Pattern." This involved pulling up too sharply after buzzing the runway, stalling out and spinning in. He managed to straighten out the plane before it slammed into a field just north of the runway "” the very field I'd hit nine month earlier. In my case it had only buckled a wheel. But in ######## case he lost both wheels, part of his wings, his tail assembly, his prop, and part of his fuselage. He was lucky for the part of his fuselage that remained intact included the cockpit."


Now, are those genuine or did I make them up?



Now onto bias...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
There is bias in this game and always will be. Jugs don't take a 30 cal round to the motor and just freeze up. The P38 was a very fast aircraft, 50 cals ripped apart planes, and the P39/63 was barely good enough to be a trainer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And there is a bar problem in Fw-190, a single shot that can take out rudder/elevator/aeleron in the 190, and elevator of reduced efectiveness in 109's, and oil splashes on Hien's windscreens when there could not have been,

I think you are citing important evidence of flaws. Not bias.

The only bias I see is yours when you continually harp on how YOUR plane is porked. As if YOUR plane is UNIQUELY AFFECTED by problems. There are problems with virtually every plane in the game.

Skoshi Tiger
08-21-2007, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Really I just can't resist this.

Actually they DO pop off (just like that) on occasion!

Watch this please, and then I would like to hear your comments please.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6482196760319906605

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Pilot in that video looks very familiar. I wonder if he's the Ace they interviewed for the Janes WWII Fighters museum video? I'll have to re-install WWII Fighters and find out.

IFly_1968
08-22-2007, 03:25 PM
In all honesty, I find the main thing wrong with the 51 in game is the speed of the plane. Much to slow. If the plane was able to retain the speed as it should, this discussion would not even be taken place.

Widowmaker214
08-22-2007, 04:12 PM
I think a lot of the discontent with certain aircraft come from flying against similarly matched AI aircraft. (or trying to turn with it at 4,000 feet. That just isn't going to work either) And in any case like this, you are going to have a bit of trouble. The AI can fly faster, without overheat, and without blackout, and without certain restrictions on an aircraft (Watch a zero pull and turn with you in a 300 mph dive, then try doing it yourself. When you fly it, the control surfaces don't respond as well at that speed as they do with the AI pilot at the controls)

If you snap a wing of a P51, try not yanking on the stick. I fly it all the time and even at 500 mph I can move the thing and not take a wing off.

However, a buddy last night ripped a wing off his LA-7 out of a dive just pulling up a little bit. Yank to hard, induce to much stress.. say bye bye to part of your bird.

Elevator authority differs from one aircraft to another. Fly a Tempest and try to pull on it like you would another aircraft in a rocket attack, and you'll be upside down in the dirt quicker than you can say "oh #$#@"

One of the guys I fly with loves the Tempest. And it seemed to get a little more squirrelly after the last patch or two. And he cussed up a storm every time he spun it into the dirt. But he stuck with it, and learned to be more gentle with her in those situations. Took a lot of nights of cussing, but he got there.

I certainly hope that in the future, that the AI abilities get hampered like the rest of us. Because for those that fly mostly coop, its more than frustrating at times.
(Ive heard that AI wont be able to see through clouds in SoW, so YAY for that. Now I just hope they have to deal with overheat, G forces, and physics... oh yeah and no more Jedi Negative G manuvers)

It doesn't matter if you know what your aircrafts strengths are and how to use them, if the AI doesn't play by the same rules.
(I was laughing my *** off a few nights ago watching two AI wildcats climb 10,000 feet in about 4 seconds, hanging on the prop the whole time, and then go right into a turn fight with plenty of E. Was hilarious)

Now as for the P47... the razorbacks DO have a glass jaw, just like the P40s... That 2800 could take cylinders getting shot off and keep flying. And in the P47D and D27 models.. it IS tough!!! Love it! But the D-10 and D-20s are glsas jawed and one or two hits and the engine frezes just like int he P40. So... not much we can do about that.

Lywellyn
08-22-2007, 05:28 PM
Figured I'd put some information out there to think about in regards to the P-51.

First off, a pet peeve of mine. The 51 is labelled as having a weak motor that could be disabled by 1 shot, simply because it was a liquid cooled engine. Do I need to remind anyone, that the DB601 and DB605 engines were liquid cooled? Shouldn't the 109's have the same problem as well? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Moving on, someone mentioned directional stability and ease of going into spins. If you use the game as reference, notice the D models have a dorsal fin. That was to CORRECT that instability problem. The D-5 in the game is shown with a dorsal ahead of the vertical, although D-5's were no originally built with them, that being a field upgrade. The D-10 and newer were factory built with the dorsal.

Now, since I'm not a test pilot, I'll quote someone who is/was and I think has posted in here before. Capt Eric Brown. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

From his aviation article "Serial Killers" which appeard in Flight Journal's WWII Fighters special edition dated "Winter 2000"......

"Tactical trials of a 109G-6 with a Spitfire IX and a P-51C showed that the Spitfire had a slight speed advantage and superior climb but could be outdived by the G-6. The roll rate and turning cycle of the British fighter was very much superior at all speeds. The P-51C had a clear speed advantage at all altitudes, but rates of climb were virtually identical. The Mustang could steadily outdive the Gustav and had no difficulty in out-turning the German fighter."

(Pretty much exposes alot of MYTHS there, like the laminar flow wing making it a sorry climber, or unable to turn well.)

Later in the article, he talks about a Mustang III being put through diving trials to figure out what was causing loss of control when the planes would dive on enemy fighters from 30,000 feet. He talks about being able to achieve a mach 0.80 in a dive which required a two-handed pull force for recovery. Just so people know, mach 0.80 is 609mph at sea level, 588mph at 10,000 feet, 565mph at 20,000 feet and 543mph at 30,000 feet. He doesn't say at what altitude he was at when hitting mach 0.80, but I can imagine it was between 10k and 30k feet. Try that in the game. Overall he says, the tactical limit not to go past was 0.75 mach. Which is still very fast. Contrast for a moment, the record mach 0.91 of the Spitfire XI (Eleven, not in the game) which lost it's prop/gear reduction in the 11g pullout. Dunno where someone got it that all planes in the game were rated at 15g's or some such, before you start losing parts. Also, the Spits wings were slightly swept back with gaps between fuselage and leading edges. Also, that Mustang tactical mach limit, while paling to the Spits, it was still the 2nd best mach limit of any Allied fighter in WWII. Brown does say this was disappointing, as far as the 0.75 mach tactical limit, as they expected it to be higher from the laminar flow wing it had.

Interesting, is that Brown lists his 3 finest fighters of WWII as follows, taking into account alot of factors.... 1. Spit Mk XIV (14, not in game), 2. FW-190D-9, 3. Mustang Mk.IV/P-51D.

Also, some quotes from Grumman WWII test pilot Corky Meyer, from the same magazine and an article "1944 Fighter Conference". Here's his critical notes about the P-51D (a later, dorsal fine equipped model even) about testing it for possible carrier trials as the Navy was interested in it as a possible carrier fighter....

"My task was to check the stall characteristics to see whether they had been made acceptable for carrier requirements since the P-51A model; they hadn't. It still had severe wing dropping with little aileron control for recovery. What was worse was how easily it went into secondary accelerated stalls in the clean and landing configurations when one tried to recover from the initial stall. The North American engineers had rightly tailored the airplane's laminar-wing section for high speed with little thought for it's slow speed and high-altitude accelerated stalls. The P-51 would almost have to become a new airplane for carrier-compatiblity acceptance."

Someone earlier mentioned keeping the speed up and you'll be fine. That seems to be what Corky is saying too. That the stalls were a slow speed problem, which would be a BIG problem trying to make carrier landings. Obviously, it wasn't a problem on the longer runways of land bases. So keep in mind, it's only when you are going slow that it becomes a problem. Especially near landing speeds.

Anyways, some food for thought on a little praise and criticism. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Flame away.

Frequent_Flyer
08-22-2007, 08:16 PM
Lywellyn,Romania's top scoring ace Cantacuzino transported USAAF higest ranking airman in Romania, James Gunn III, to Foggia.He returned to Romania in a " war weary P-51B-15 43-24857 SWEET CLARA ". He claimed it out turned, out dove and was faster in level flight and much better handling at higher speeds than the Bf-109G-6's he flew for Romania. So you have Romania's top scoring ACE corroberate Brown's findings

HayateAce
08-22-2007, 09:29 PM
Just let the joeaps and the rest of the forum dweebs like him believe what they want. They simply will always be bitterly blinded by the truth.

The P51 rocked in BnZ and TnB and the historical war record of this TOP fighter can never be touched. Oleg will be dead and buried when new generations will be learning of the Mustang's war dominance.

Choke it down Sally boys.

http://www.ofmc.co.uk/images/P51_Mustang.jpg

Wildnoob
08-22-2007, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Just let the joeaps and the rest of the forum dweebs like him believe what they want. They simply will always be bitterly blinded by the truth.

The P51 rocked in BnZ and TnB and the historical war record of this TOP fighter can never be touched. Oleg will be dead and buried when new generations will be learning of the Mustang's war dominance.

Choke it down Sally boys.

http://www.ofmc.co.uk/images/P51_Mustang.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

DKoor
08-22-2007, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by super71957:
I fully agree Skoshi.I guess my point is,in real life,the p-51 could win a turn fight at times.The way some guys view the -51 is that it could not turn fight at all.
That is just not the case! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes....in fact it owns for instance FW-190A8 10/10 times in flat turn, and in overall maneuverability.

Wildnoob
08-22-2007, 10:23 PM
some things I learn about the Mustang in this game :

if you don't have a wingman : dead

if you don't get the bandit in the first turn with at least 400 km/ h : dead

I are talking about turning figth (nothing like tactics such as Thach Weave).

everybody knows things similar to this animation :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3DoLsYB52Q

in IL2 series with the Mustang will result only in P-51's destroyed.

this animation show's the true P-51, not because they shoot down the the KI-84's, but because they could compet with then (despite the fact this plane was superior in many aspects in determined areas)and with every encounter if the PILOT (now the pilot enters)could make the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBHEMlQrIJs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IL2 is my favorite game, but not to play with my favorite WWII figther.

lowfighter
08-22-2007, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
You can do the high speed turn fight in a Mustang with total confidence and more importantly win. The 109s and 190s are the best target for this sort of thing. Speed is still key to achieve the best sustained turn with a Mustang...I don't see it having a problem with the turn. Its better than the IL2 Compare charts say it is. I can vouch for that.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since many people are flying the P51 with 50% or less fuel, I'm wondering what are the characteristics which change. I assume il2 compare takes the full fuel load. Horisontal low speed acceleration is increasing with less fuel, of that I'm sure, easy to figure it out with Thrust-Drag=mass*acceleration. Equation or not the P51 50% fuel or less is accelerating very fast, either better or at least comparable with contemporary geramn fighters. Better that the antons and comparable with late Bf109.
Maximum speed should not depend on aircraft mass though.
How about sustained turn rate?

Skoshi Tiger
08-22-2007, 11:11 PM
&lt;QUOTE&gt;
Maximum speed should not depend on aircraft mass though.
[/QUOTE]
Not so.

If an aircraft is flying staight and level, The lift made by its wings is equal to the force of gravity.

If the mass of the aircraft increases then lift must increase to counter-act the increasing downward force produced by gravity (weight) otherwise the aircraft will descend.

To increase lift you must either increase the speed of the wing through the air (Not possible if you are going at maximum power) or increase the angle of attack of he wing.

If you increase the angle of attack then you increase drag and the aircraft slows down.

Therefore the more weight you are carrying in your aircraft the slower you can travel in staight and level flight.

As you loose weight, ( Burn off fuel, expend ammunition, use the pilot relief tube http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif sorry for bring it up!)you can slightly lower your angle of attack, and so your maximumn staight and level speed will be faster.

lowfighter
08-22-2007, 11:19 PM
You're right Tiger, I neglected that on the feeling it's not changing things too much. But I admit I have no idea in fact how big is the effect. Say going from 100% to 50% fuel, how much the max speed change? That's interesting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
&lt;QUOTE&gt;
Maximum speed should not depend on aircraft mass though.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not so.

If an aircraft is flying staight and level, The lift made by its wings is equal to the force of gravity.

If the mass of the aircraft increases then lift must increase to counter-act the increasing downward force produced by gravity (weight) otherwise the aircraft will descend.

To increase lift you must either increase the speed of the wing through the air (Not possible if you are going at maximum power) or increase the angle of attack of he wing.

If you increase the angle of attack then you increase drag and the aircraft slows down.

Therefore the more weight you are carrying in your aircraft the slower you can travel in staight and level flight.

As you loose weight, ( Burn off fuel, expend ammunition, use the pilot relief tube http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif sorry for bring it up!)you can slightly lower your angle of attack, and so your maximumn staight and level speed will be faster.[/QUOTE]

Skoshi Tiger
08-23-2007, 12:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:

But I admit I have no idea in fact how big is the effect. Say going from 100% to 50% fuel, how much the max speed change? That's interesting.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither do I! I guess it's one of those problems an engineer would be better off answering.

Fuel weight would be a couple of hundred kilograms internal.

When you start strapping a couple 1000lb bombs on the wing (with their drag as well) then it would be reasonalbly substantial drop in speed. But then again, your ground crew would give you hell for wearing out the engines on your planes racing around everywhere at full throttle with a fully loaded aircarft!

lowfighter
08-23-2007, 10:33 AM
I have been flying the D20 at 50m altitude on crimea map with fuel 100% and 20%, radiator closed. What I got was 580 Km/h IAS and 590 Km/h IAS (reading the speedbar). The TAS was 604 Km/h and 610 Km/h which is wrong but anyway it looks the difference is somewhere less than 10 Km/h.
But the main effect, the acceleration differece at low speeds, that you can feel nicely even without measuring. Do you know what's the fuel load for the D20?
I'm still curious about turn rate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Brain32
08-23-2007, 12:12 PM
P51 with lower fuel load(I nearly always use 50%) accelerates better, climbs better and you do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize it also turns better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IFly_1968
08-23-2007, 12:24 PM
Wow Brain no kidding. Way to add constructive material to this discussion.

lowfighter
08-23-2007, 12:30 PM
Well the question is: HOW MUCH better? That's why I was asking about the fuel weight (couldn't figure it from internet).

GH_Klingstroem
08-23-2007, 02:57 PM
Hm I rarerly go below 620-610km/h in the P51d20 on the deck when im running from a Dora or something... She can easely maintain 620 with rads closed and lower proppitch and full power.. And I am talking IAS now!

Skoshi Tiger
08-23-2007, 06:44 PM
Big OOOPS! Note to self - never rely on memory!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Well the question is: HOW MUCH better? That's why I was asking about the fuel weight (couldn't figure it from internet). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

original &gt;&gt;&gt;
I've got a book at home and from memory I think it was said about 105Gal (I'll the actual figure tonight). I know it was a P51D but I think it was for the D5-NT
&lt;&lt;&lt;

The actual internal fuel is 224 gals imp. (1018 Ltr) ( only off by about half! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif )

original &gt;&gt;&gt;
105US Gal= ~ 397Ltr (Avgas has a specific gravity of about .71) = ~280Kg
&lt;&lt;&lt;

1018Ltr @ .71 = ~ 723Kg


The difference between 50% and 100% would be about 361Kg.

To put it into perspective an 'average person' (for flight planning in Australia) is 75Kg.

So (in very general terms) think how orig&gt;&gt;&gt;two&lt;&lt; 3.8 average sized people sitting just behind the cockpit (90 gal tank)and one on your lap (the others) would effect the handling of the aircraft.

The problem fuel tank was about 90 gallons but they were only suposed to be filled up to about 60-something to avoid the handling problems.

I'm not sure the 224imp Gallons full load includes 90 gallons in the rear tank or the recomended 65 Gallons

VW-IceFire
08-23-2007, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
You can do the high speed turn fight in a Mustang with total confidence and more importantly win. The 109s and 190s are the best target for this sort of thing. Speed is still key to achieve the best sustained turn with a Mustang...I don't see it having a problem with the turn. Its better than the IL2 Compare charts say it is. I can vouch for that.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since many people are flying the P51 with 50% or less fuel, I'm wondering what are the characteristics which change. I assume il2 compare takes the full fuel load. Horisontal low speed acceleration is increasing with less fuel, of that I'm sure, easy to figure it out with Thrust-Drag=mass*acceleration. Equation or not the P51 50% fuel or less is accelerating very fast, either better or at least comparable with contemporary geramn fighters. Better that the antons and comparable with late Bf109.
Maximum speed should not depend on aircraft mass though.
How about sustained turn rate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I haven't tested the sustained turn rate but I'm going to say with some confidence that it will be better and its noticeable but by how much I'm not sure.

A 25% fuel P-51B can definitely hold both 109 and 190 in a turn and depending on all of the various factors that define a turn fight it can sometimes win or loose. I find the D is a bit trickier to hold but I expect that with the slight loss of stability with the cut down fuselage.

lowfighter
08-24-2007, 01:38 AM
Thanks Tiger!
Then with 280 Kg for 100% fuel, a rough estimate would be (a50-a100)/a100=0.04 (4%)
using a50/a100=m100/m50 where m50 total mass of the plane with 50%fuel etc. (I don't know the amonition mass to be added to the empty weight but I think it'll not make a difference with this rough (the roughest) model)


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Well the question is: HOW MUCH better? That's why I was asking about the fuel weight (couldn't figure it from internet). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I've got a book at home and from memory I think it was said about 105Gal (I'll the actual figure tonight). I know it was a P51D but I think it was for the D5-NT

105US Gal= ~ 397Ltr (Avgas has a specific gravity of about .71) = ~280Kg

The difference between 50% and 100% would be about 140Kg.

To put it into perspective an 'average person' (for flight planning in Australia) is 75Kg.

So (in very general terms) think how two average sized people sitting just behind the cockpit would effect the handling of the aircraft.

The problem fuel tank was about 90 gallons but they were only suposed to be filled up to about 60-something to avoid the handling problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lowfighter
08-24-2007, 01:47 AM
I didn't touch the prop pitch in the test. The il2 compare shows some 595 on the deck, but I have no idea how are the ai flying...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Hm I rarerly go below 620-610km/h in the P51d20 on the deck when im running from a Dora or something... She can easely maintain 620 with rads closed and lower proppitch and full power.. And I am talking IAS now! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aprince14
08-24-2007, 06:25 AM
~S~ All, Gents I find that some of your comments very funny. So let's clear the air. First: To you people (Waldo. Pepper) that answer these posts with the following. "Please provide proof of your claims" I ask who are you people? If the proof is provided how are you going to tell if it's valid or not? How many hours do you have in a P-51 or other WWII fighters? When you provide me with your degree in aeronautical engineering then I'll provide you with the proof you request. Most of the people reading and replying to these posts do it with such distain for others. Please stop. You are not rocket scientists. You are not above anybody else in this forum. The reality is there have been errors in the programming of the war sim. That cannot be denied, because if there wasn't, there would not have been patches put out to correct them. This argument regarding the P-51 is an old one. Proof is in its numbers. Which by the way are in the Archives and they cannot be denied. There is plenty of Gun camera footage out there also for everyone to see. We need to stop bashing people for their opinions, because when it comes down to it that's what they are.

Brain32
08-24-2007, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Proof is in its numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes it is, and one thing here, it is you who are putting yourself above all others on this forum, please stop. You know why? Because EVERYBODY here for almost 7 years, yes almost 7 years, for every claim of error in modelling supported a proof.
So what is wrong with P51D?
Level Speed? - TEST it and show us
Climb Rate? - TEST it and show us
Turn Rate? - TEST it and show us
Something else? - TEST/PROVE it and show us

This is how things worked here for almost 7 years, do the same or STFU! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
08-24-2007, 08:11 AM
APrince -- you might as well send your proof direct to the development team.
They have the ones with not only the degrees but the data and the tools and the game code.
Why should you bother with the forum you have decided everyone is the same level on?

M_Gunz
08-24-2007, 08:17 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lowfighter:
You're right Tiger, I neglected that on the feeling it's not changing things too much. But I admit I have no idea in fact how big is the effect. Say going from 100% to 50% fuel, how much the max speed change? That's interesting.

From Ugly Kid, Viper, Crumpp and others well educated in the subject -- at cruise speed on up
the percent of total going to induced drag is quite small. By full speed, perhaps less than
1% in cases.

Where the extra weight matters is acceleration including turns, climb and dive.

Look at the heavy planes with not so great climb but mongo-high top speeds.

IFly_1968
08-24-2007, 08:37 AM
Plain and simple the easy way to solve the issues is to fix the speed retension modeling. This will help all the heavy birds. Simple physics. Launch a wiffle ball out of a throwing machine and see how far it goes. Now put a baseball in it and see how far it goes. The more mass, the more retension of energy. Now we can go into all the factors of induced drag from wing loading and such but if the AOA is correct, this would play a minor factor and not factor to much into it. This, ofcourse without doing the math, is a opinion of mine but experience says why do the math when it is obvious.

Skoshi Tiger
08-24-2007, 08:51 AM
Sorry Lowfighter, My sorry excuse for a memory has failed me with the internal fuel load of the P51D, I've got home and read that the actual load was 224 Imp Gals ( I originally said about 105 Sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif)

That would make 100% fuel load weigh about 723Kg. ( 1018 ltr *.71)

I Appologise for any inconvenience caused.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Thanks Tiger!
Then with 280 Kg for 100% fuel, a rough estimate would be (a50-a100)/a100=0.04 (4%)
using a50/a100=m100/m50 where m50 total mass of the plane with 50%fuel etc. (I don't know the amonition mass to be added to the empty weight but I think it'll not make a difference with this rough (the roughest) model)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an aside I bought pump unleaded today for 117.9c (AUD) a Litre in Perth, WA that would cost $1,200.22 to fill up the tanks!

I Think I need a better paying job before I can afford a Mustang! (or less children)

Aprince14
08-24-2007, 09:31 PM
A Prime example of what I'm talking about is Brain32. His assumptions out way his intelligence. Next time read a persons post thoroughly. I have not once complained about this plane in this set of posts. My post is about people like you Brain32. A man or child that has read one two many books and now feels he is the final word of all. Then you blast another person for their opinion regarding the flight characteristics of a simulation plane from WWII. Then you like the adult you are tell me to STFU? Do me a favor son. Grow up, just grow up.

M_Gunz
08-24-2007, 10:28 PM
Skoshi that plane ran on leaded Aviation Gas, at least 115 octane, aka Racing Fuel.
Don't even think about the cost today!

Does that 224 gallons include external tanks? Seems light for a 7 hour round trip with time
for full throttle fighting included.

Pilots don't measure fuel by volume anyway. They measure by weight, they buy from the airport
service by weight. Here in the US you tell the gas truck person you want so many pounds since
you need to figure your takeoff run and flight time, your charts all go by weight of fuel and
plane. Close as I can remember gas runs about 6 lbs a gallon.

lowfighter
08-24-2007, 11:05 PM
No problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Thanks again!
So that would make a rough 9% increase in horisontal acceleration with 50% fuel. And about 15% increase with 20% fuel.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
Sorry Lowfighter, My sorry excuse for a memory has failed me with the internal fuel load of the P51D, I've got home and read that the actual load was 224 Imp Gals ( I originally said about 105 Sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif)

That would make 100% fuel load weigh about 723Kg. ( 1018 ltr *.71)

I Appologise for any inconvenience caused.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Thanks Tiger!
Then with 280 Kg for 100% fuel, a rough estimate would be (a50-a100)/a100=0.04 (4%)
using a50/a100=m100/m50 where m50 total mass of the plane with 50%fuel etc. (I don't know the amonition mass to be added to the empty weight but I think it'll not make a difference with this rough (the roughest) model)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an aside I bought pump unleaded today for 117.9c (AUD) a Litre in Perth, WA that would cost $1,200.22 to fill up the tanks!

I Think I need a better paying job before I can afford a Mustang! (or less children) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skoshi Tiger
08-25-2007, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Skoshi that plane ran on leaded Aviation Gas, at least 115 octane, aka Racing Fuel.
Don't even think about the cost today!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've got rusty old Valiant Charger (Australian Variety) which has had the motor rebuilt with 10:1 compression. If you put anything less than 98 octane in it she pings and chug. But She purrs when give her the good stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Does that 224 gallons include external tanks? Seems light for a 7 hour round trip with time
for full throttle fighting included.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, That 224 Imperial gallons (about 268 US Gallons) was internal load only. According to my book that gave a range of 950 miles (1,529km) (at 25000feet, Max Cruise power).

Drop tanks came in 75 or 110 US gallon sizes. (284L or 416L)

With Maximum fuel the range is put down as 1650Miles ( 2655km)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Pilots don't measure fuel by volume anyway. They measure by weight, they buy from the airport
service by weight. Here in the US you tell the gas truck person you want so many pounds since
you need to figure your takeoff run and flight time, your charts all go by weight of fuel and
plane. Close as I can remember gas runs about 6 lbs a gallon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My 'Kane Dead Reconning' computer (Had to blow the dust off it!) is telling me that your spot on, 6 lbs to the US Gallon.

From what I remember from when I did my Pilots Licence, we did most of our flight planning in litres. The Aero Club planes always had fuel in them (got in there by magic I suppose???) but I think we buy it by the litre as well.

Unfortunately, getting married and having a few kids really restricts the money you can put into things like flying. Lucky for PC's and Sims!

Brain32
08-25-2007, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aprince14:
A Prime example of what I'm talking about is Brain32. His assumptions out way his intelligence. Next time read a persons post thoroughly. I have not once complained about this plane in this set of posts. My post is about people like you Brain32. A man or child that has read one two many books and now feels he is the final word of all. Then you blast another person for their opinion regarding the flight characteristics of a simulation plane from WWII. Then you like the adult you are tell me to STFU? Do me a favor son. Grow up, just grow up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh I have read your post very thoroughly as did everybody else, we are not stupid as you obviously think we are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
08-25-2007, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aprince14:
His assumptions out way his intelligence </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

outweigh?

DKoor
08-25-2007, 12:12 PM
As far as I see it problem here is quite simple: instead of general complaining about this and that people who aren't satisfied with some stuff need to post what exactly is wrong.

They don't need to even test the stuff because people here are quite friendly and will usually do it for them *if* the request is valid.

M_Gunz
08-25-2007, 06:16 PM
Some things have been checked before and either changed or been given answer why not including
hardware limits and/or beyond the scope of the code as based... Years Ago (TM).

So what happens? Dead horses get raised up, put in the traces and whipped over and over under
the guise of being "issues" including the old accusations of bias, etc.

So for sure, parade yourself either riding the dead horse or supporting horse and rider.

Skoshi Tiger
08-25-2007, 07:58 PM
The way I see it is that there's a lot of other sims out there. If your not satisfied with the IL2 series, go find another sim that meets your requirements.

I feel justified in saying that nearly everyone here wants IL-2 to be as good as it can be.

But most of us understand that as a sim getting close to the end of it's development cycle, there only so much that can be done in a 'final patch'. All the moaning and whinging in the world will not alter that fact!

I've got big expectations for SOW:BoB! But I know it won't be perfect. No Software is!

If the developers give the same level of ongoing support and commitment as they've given IL-2, Thats 'lightyears' ahead of nearly all other developers. (My shelves as lined with dead sims as proof!) It would be more than we can hope for!

SNACKY-353rd
08-27-2007, 02:38 PM
Ask Monroe about the P51 Mustang sometime. Of course what does he know right? he only flew them over europe in 1944. Appearently Oleg wasn't interested in what Monroe had to say about the Mustang because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

Fact is this thread has stretched to 6 pages of waisted space because the powers that be have no desire to adjust any of the American aircraft. They are as Oleg puts it, "By the Numbers"

Daiichidoku
08-27-2007, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SNACKY-353rd:
Ask Monroe about the P51 Mustang sometime. Of course what does he know right? he only flew them over europe in 1944. Appearently Oleg wasn't interested in what Monroe had to say about the Mustang because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

Fact is this thread has stretched to 6 pages of waisted space because the powers that be have no desire to adjust any of the American aircraft. They are as Oleg puts it, "By the Numbers" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

cmon!

Monroe Q. Williams is almost as much propaganda as P38 data from Lockheed and NACA!


the Motherland knows best...the man of steel said so, thus it is

Waldo.Pepper
08-27-2007, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SNACKY-353rd:
Ask Monroe about the P51 Mustang sometime. Of course what does he know right? he only flew them over europe in 1944. Appearently Oleg wasn't interested in what Monroe had to say about the Mustang because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

Fact is this thread has stretched to 6 pages of waisted space because the powers that be have no desire to adjust any of the American aircraft. They are as Oleg puts it, "By the Numbers" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems you have erased your previous post wherein you claimed (incorrectly) that

"Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
btw- Wings don't just rip off of Mustangs"

I am delighted that you have accepted my quotes of evidence that they do rip off (just as they would with ANY plane) if you exceed the redline or stress limitations.

VW-IceFire
08-27-2007, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
As far as I see it problem here is quite simple: instead of general complaining about this and that people who aren't satisfied with some stuff need to post what exactly is wrong.

They don't need to even test the stuff because people here are quite friendly and will usually do it for them *if* the request is valid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The P-51 isn't making them aces...thats what the problem is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The biggest problem I see right now is separating the concept of a rear fuel tank from flight simulator modeling on a computer.

M_Gunz
08-27-2007, 06:33 PM
One other problem, licensing fees demanded by US aircraft corporations.

joeap
08-28-2007, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SNACKY-353rd:
Ask Monroe about the P51 Mustang sometime. Of course what does he know right? he only flew them over europe in 1944. Appearently Oleg wasn't interested in what Monroe had to say about the Mustang because it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

Fact is this thread has stretched to 6 pages of waisted space because the powers that be have no desire to adjust any of the American aircraft. They are as Oleg puts it, "By the Numbers" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

cmon!

Monroe Q. Williams is almost as much propaganda as P38 data from Lockheed and NACA!


the Motherland knows best...the man of steel said so, thus it is </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't swallow the hook Daiichidoku.

Daiichidoku
08-28-2007, 06:17 AM
no hook, i was contributing MY sarcasm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MQ has told me persoanlly the same, after i asked him about his credit in the il2 manual

he said he old Oleg about the 47 and 51, and i recall his relpy was somethign along "Oleg's engineers told him otherwise ande he chose to beleive them instead"

kinda like, perhjaps, he ignored P 38 NACA and LAckheed data, dismissing them as "propaganda"

joeap
08-28-2007, 09:52 AM
Ah ok, I see what you mean and agree with you. It's just that none of the folks complaining about the P-51 on this thread have been very convincing compared to the info and arguments presented by Waldo Pepper, IMHO. That said...yes I recall that and agree with your arguments about the P-38. As it goes we have two different cold war mindsets pitted against each other here sometimes...I mean Oleg's "propaganda" statement vs. "USA won the war cause they built the best" on the other.

DKoor
08-28-2007, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">kinda like, perhjaps, he ignored P 38 NACA and LAckheed data, dismissing them as "propaganda" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Hm.

Hm.

Huh....... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Not good.

DKoor
08-28-2007, 09:56 AM
My personal opinion is that I don't really know what is it in for Lockheed to lie about the 38......doesn't sound convincing at all if you ask me.

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

Daiichidoku
08-28-2007, 11:30 AM
i can see lockheed, or any other private company trying to sell a product, fudging the numbers a BIT in its favor

but NACA tests?

if NACA falsified anything, then "be sure", Tsagi, or USSR eq. did the same and far worse for its state evaluations

either way, it stinks

DKoor, u can ask bolillo loco, TAGERT, and i think Kahuna, at least, about this...i know others submitted the same stuff, but was put down as "propaganda"

i have heard mention that Soviets had a/some P38s, left over from the "operation Frantic" shuttle bombing missions, and naturlally were evaluated by VVS, who found these weary/damaged ships the USAF didnt want, lacking...and that the evaluation data MAY be what oleg uses as "non-propaganda" 38 FM data http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

DKoor
08-28-2007, 01:02 PM
Yes you're right.
100%. I cant even see Lockheed falsifying things let alone NACA tests.

IFly_1968
08-28-2007, 02:57 PM
I think the fact is we all need to just give up on it. Yes we have countless pilots quotes saying hey no problem mixing it up with the German aircraft and coutless pilots quotes saying hey no problem mixing it up with the US aircraft. What does it realy matter. Everygame is Bias one way or the other. Look at MS stuff. All US biased. Just give up and move on.

VW-IceFire
08-28-2007, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IFly_1968:
I think the fact is we all need to just give up on it. Yes we have countless pilots quotes saying hey no problem mixing it up with the German aircraft and coutless pilots quotes saying hey no problem mixing it up with the US aircraft. What does it realy matter. Everygame is Bias one way or the other. Look at MS stuff. All US biased. Just give up and move on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but the key is mixing it up is a subjective term that all pilots can use to mean completely different things. But what happens is that some people naturally assumes that vague and subjective comments made by a pilot that may have been written down the same day and embellished a bit (and with absolutely no reason not to as far as I'm concerned) or written down years later is an accurate accounting of everything that happened.

Thats also where the FW190 being "more maneuverable" than the Spitfire being taken to mean all sorts of things that realistically were not (and vice versa too!).

I agree with you though...it would be nice if everyone moved on from beating the same dead horse. I'd like to see everyone start talking about getting the most out of the virtual version of the plane instead.

M_Gunz
08-28-2007, 04:35 PM
Just ask the WWII vet that flew the real planes if:

1) Most anyone from off the street with little to no pilot training would do well in one.
2) How much of how well he did was due to being IN the plane and feeling where it was going.

The parts that get me is your average never been so much as through ground school gamer
assuming that somehow they should be able to match what the best test pilots did in reality.

Flight simming is not as close to real combat flying as swimming in a 3 ft deep backyard
above ground pool is to swimming in open ocean 15+ ft shark infested waves. Why not even
that close? In the backyard splash you at least get wet!

Clipper_51
08-28-2007, 06:45 PM
You guys really have a hard time, "mixing it up" with the German planes? The P-51D is such a badass plane in this sim that it can easily handle any 190 or 109, if flown properly.

I mean, really, what is the problem with the plane? It is faster than almost all prop planes. It dives better than any 190 or 109. It rolls well at high or low speed. It zoom climbs better than the 190's and 109's. At 25%-35% fuel, it sustains a nice rate of climb. The gyro gunsight ensures hits if used properly.

It can turn as fast or faster than any 109 or 190, horizontal mind you, at speeds above 275mph. Better than any 190 even below that speed. Against a 109 at low speed, why would you turn in the first place? Find me a ETO American ace that made a habit of turning with 109's at low speed and low altitude. Hell, they went down there to strafe parked planes!Most of the good ones (and not the 90-day wonders), held the 109 and 190 in very high regard.

Eagleston, in one of his combat reports, mentions meeting a 109 jock in 1944 during an encounter. He was astonished at what the German did with his 109 in terms of climb and turn.

Yes, the Mustang breaks it's wings off at high speed with a slight bit of ham-fistedness, I agree. But, massage your way through the pull and the wings stay on. Plus, you're in lag pursuit and will have a good shot opportunity shortly.

I think it's the best 43-44 prop plane in the game as it is now. The 8th AF thought so too and did well with it.

M_Gunz
08-28-2007, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Clipper_51:
Yes, the Mustang breaks it's wings off at high speed with a slight bit of ham-fistedness, I agree. But, massage your way through the pull and the wings stay on. Plus, you're in lag pursuit and will have a good shot opportunity shortly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Even with not breaking off the wings, it takes light control at lesser speeds to not bleed
the thing but compare to the FW's.

A lot of players pull back on automatic or so it seems, just keep pulling before the nose
responds. That is with any plane. Many of those don't bother with coordinating flight either.
I can tell by what they call impossible, it's that simple. Not saying that anything is possible
but when I read about "speed bleeds with the slightest amount of stick" or "insta-spins with the
slightest turn" and I don't get the same... I don't need a freaking CHART to know it ain't true!

HayateAce
08-29-2007, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Clipper_51:
..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great, some squaw quoting Brian32. Or perhaps you ARE brian32.

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

M_Gunz
08-29-2007, 04:21 PM
Who is Brian32?

I know you have mental filters when it comes to planes, Hayate-AH, but names as well?

msalama
08-29-2007, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I mean, really, what is the problem with the plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Incompetent pilots
2) Bad controller settings

SNACKY-353rd
08-31-2007, 03:14 PM
People who are devoted to Oleg and this video game have convinced themselves that this game is realistic. Sadly it's not, it's just all we have.

VW-IceFire
08-31-2007, 04:29 PM
Conversely everyone who thinks that Oleg has a Russian agenda to re-write history and teach those Americans a lesson believes that the game is inherently flawed in all respects and doesn't reflect a shred of reality.

But really now...the truth is somewhere in between and far far simpler.

IFly_1968
08-31-2007, 05:20 PM
OK for Hayat and all. Here is a track of the 51 from game in action. 2 P51 against 8 Zeros. Now when I made this track mind you I did have the settings so I could not take damage but I made this to show how the 51 is a capable plane to fight with. Even with no damage I only get hit once with one bullet. Anyways, as I said before in this thread, I think that energy needs to be retained more in the heavier planes. Think how much easier I would have done this if I was able to maintain the speed.

Track Link: http://www.rapidshare.in/download.php?file=fb987e754e37a10b25329ac7155bace2

Wildnoob
08-31-2007, 08:25 PM
the Mustang problem :

The P-51 is always know by most of the aviation entusiastics (and of course fligth sim players) as a great dogfigther, capable of bring both energy or angle figths to the enemy with soberb performance.

when a people exposed to this idea have contact with the Mustang in IL2 series they a hearth attack, because the Mustang should be a DOGFIGTHER capable of deal with the enemy in both energy or angle figths with the same performance (something like the YAK-3 to tell the truth).

most of the people's don't like this (even me sometimes think that way).

so, the question is not "the pilot" most of the people's see the Mustang as a soberb plane in general, like the YAK-3.

IFly_1968
08-31-2007, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
the Mustang problem :

The P-51 is always know by most of the aviation entusiastics (and of course fligth sim players) as a great dogfigther, capable of bring both energy or angle figths to the enemy with soberb performance.

when a people exposed to this idea have contact with the Mustang in IL2 series they a hearth attack, because the Mustang should be a DOGFIGTHER capable of deal with the enemy in both energy or angle figths with the same performance (something like the YAK-3 to tell the truth).

most of the people's don't like this (even me sometimes think that way).

so, the question is not "the pilot" most of the people's see the Mustang as a soberb plane in general, like the YAK-3. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you watch the track file?? It is the pilot and the tactics. Just give me more energy retention and watch out.

Wildnoob
08-31-2007, 10:23 PM
I are talking about the most comm ideas witch the people's have to say the the P-51 is a bad plane in IL2 series.

I know about the tactics (not that well) but the point is turning dogifgths, most of the critics are about the Mustang not be a turn figther like the YAK, like the popular belive says...

M_Gunz
08-31-2007, 10:29 PM
109 fans say the 109 is wrong
FW fans say the FW's are wrong
etc
etc
even Yak fans, both of them, have posted same

but everyone is special to their Mommies

Xiolablu3
09-01-2007, 05:16 AM
The P51 is a FAST fighter, not really a Close in DOGfighter, depending on what it was facing.


Interview with Pierre Clostermann :-


AJ: What did you think of the P-51 Mustang, the so-called flower of the American aviation industry?

PC: Yes, well it was a beautiful plane but it was not as worthy as the Spitfire in my opinion because of the weaker match of engines to airframe; it was a wonderful fighter primarily because of its long distance flight capacity.



Jack Levett :-
Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)



Please dont expect from the P51 what she was not.

She was a very fast long range fighter, with excellent view, not really a Close in Dogfighter when compared with the Yak3 or the Spitfire. But, remember everything is relative. The P51 would most likely be a better close in dogfighter than the Me262 for example.

I do think the P51 could do with a bit of tweaking, maybe made a bit better handling, but thats just a gut feeling. The ingame P51 matches up very well to the tests/docs/comparisons we read about in official reports.

It only doesnt match up when people start taking pilot comments out of context and trusting too much in them. For every pilot who says the P51 could outturn the Bf109, there is a Bf109 pilot who says the Bf109 could outturn the P51. Most likely explanation, is the P51 could outturn it at high speed and the Bf109 be the better turner at low speeds (slats), just like the game.

Just like SNACKY and the others, I have never flown a P51, so all our comments are just gut feelings. Until any of us actually flies a P51 against a Bf109 or FW190 in combat we will never know and must trust the most common/reasonable Combat reports/Docs/Performance figures. However none of us can make absolute statements about the P51, just ignore anyone insisting he 'knows' for sure until he provides some credentials.

Ratsack
09-01-2007, 05:28 AM
Please, somebody, bin this thread. This forum needs a 'thread hole', like CWOS. This thread would be a prime candidate.

cheers,
Ratsack

IFly_1968
09-01-2007, 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 Ratsack:
Please, somebody, bin this thread. This forum needs a 'thread hole', like CWOS. This thread would be a prime candidate.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You come to this tread after so much discussion and your first post into it you say bin it. Real constructive. If you do not like it then do not read the thread.

M_Gunz
09-01-2007, 12:35 PM
Gunther Rall comes to the opposite conclusion of Jack Levett in dives between 109 and P-51 and
gave a wide difference in top dive speed, not close at all. He told this to the Finns a few
years ago and why.

That's what happens when people go out looking for quotes, there's other ones saying different.
No one can say except from their perceptions of what happened to them.

Waldo.Pepper
09-01-2007, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did you watch the track file? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I watched your track file. I am not trying to be nasty so please understand that straight away. But if you think that this is the way to fly the Mustang I completely understand why some people (including yourself) feel that it under performs.

I an early post you mentioned that it is too slow. Stop flying/turning like you are in a Pitts Special and it will be way way way fast enough for you. She is not a dogfighter like you wish her to be!

IFly_1968
09-01-2007, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did you watch the track file? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I watched your track file. I am not trying to be nasty so please understand that straight away. But if you think that this is the way to fly the Mustang I completely understand why some people (including yourself) feel that it under performs.

I an early post you mentioned that it is too slow. Stop flying/turning like you are in a Pitts Special and it will be way way way fast enough for you. She is not a dogfighter like you wish her to be! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I made the track to proove that it is not a bad plane in game. The way I was turning it should not have bleed off the speed as much as it did. But nevermind, it is hard to talk to a crowd that is all opinionated anyways. I actually think the plane performs well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
LMAO PITTS Special

Ratsack
09-01-2007, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IFly_1968:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Please, somebody, bin this thread. This forum needs a 'thread hole', like CWOS. This thread would be a prime candidate.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You come to this tread after so much discussion and your first post into it you say bin it. Real constructive. If you do not like it then do not read the thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right. I say bin it.

If you'd been around longer than morning tea time you'd know that this pitiful pile of cr@p has been rehashed so many times it is no longer even vaguely amusing.

Yes, the P-51 is fast in this game. Fact. If you find it too slow, the problem is sitting at your keyboard.

Yes, the P-51 can dogfight with the German fighters and beat them handily. If you're one of the mental deficients who equates dog fighting with pulling on the stick, then you will lose. Again, the problem is not with model, but with the thing sitting at your keyboard.

Half-arsed discussions of 'energy retention' with analogies to wiffle balls really don't cut it.

This noisome little thread is just a whine fest without a single new fact or observation to redeem it. On the other hand, quite a few old factoids have made their predictable appearances. Fuselage fuel tank and CoG, anybody?

So yes, with the exception of Waldo's earlier posts, this thread is utterly lacking in any value whatsoever. It is merely a vehicle for Hayate-Loser and his ilk to spew their usual vacuous drivel.

So I say bin it. Free up the bandwidth for a useful discussion, or a discussion of something that is at least objectively real, like the forward view of the razor back P-47s for example.

cheers,
Ratsack

IFly_1968
09-02-2007, 08:32 AM
So you are saying that the WWII pilots never got into turns while fighting. Well aern't you a funny little man. LOL
And while your on forward views...how about the 190. Who cares anyway. I thought the threead was fun to talk about and discuss. SO what if I think it is slow. I still think it is a capable plane to fight in any style of fight. If you open your mind alittle, I used the wiffle ball analogies to make simple so I guess your right with half arsed. LMAO funny little man.

lowfighter
09-02-2007, 09:16 AM
Aren't you a bit a bit arrogant here Ratsack? And if so why?
And are you not a bit exagerating saying that the P51 can beat the german fighters HANDILY? Or was it just a little rethoric exercise?
On these forums you've got to be so careful with words because of the "righteous" who'll take any opportunity to tell you how stupid you are and how clever they are. Why not telling your oppinion in a civil way?


<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 IFly_1968:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Please, somebody, bin this thread. This forum needs a 'thread hole', like CWOS. This thread would be a prime candidate.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You come to this tread after so much discussion and your first post into it you say bin it. Real constructive. If you do not like it then do not read the thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right. I say bin it.

If you'd been around longer than morning tea time you'd know that this pitiful pile of cr@p has been rehashed so many times it is no longer even vaguely amusing.

Yes, the P-51 is fast in this game. Fact. If you find it too slow, the problem is sitting at your keyboard.

Yes, the P-51 can dogfight with the German fighters and beat them handily. If you're one of the mental deficients who equates dog fighting with pulling on the stick, then you will lose. Again, the problem is not with model, but with the thing sitting at your keyboard.

Half-arsed discussions of 'energy retention' with analogies to wiffle balls really don't cut it.

This noisome little thread is just a whine fest without a single new fact or observation to redeem it. On the other hand, quite a few old factoids have made their predictable appearances. Fuselage fuel tank and CoG, anybody?

So yes, with the exception of Waldo's earlier posts, this thread is utterly lacking in any value whatsoever. It is merely a vehicle for Hayate-Loser and his ilk to spew their usual vacuous drivel.

So I say bin it. Free up the bandwidth for a useful discussion, or a discussion of something that is at least objectively real, like the forward view of the razor back P-47s for example.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DKoor
09-02-2007, 10:37 AM
This is my personal feeling, but the P-51 and Tempest are the two most dangerous airplanes I've encountered flying axis on Oleg's virtual western skies.

Ratsack
09-02-2007, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IFly_1968:
So you are saying that the WWII pilots never got into turns while fighting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. You've just plucked that from...somewhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...if I think it is slow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you are not flying it properly. It really is that simple. It's not hard.

Regarding the forward views, yes indeed, what about the 190. But again, if you use the search function you will find more threads than you can count on the Fw 190's forward view. It's been done to death, and Oleg will not change it. He's said so.

I used the forward view issue as an example of a tangible problem that is real: it has a basis in verifiable fact. This is in stark contrast to the imagined problems with the P-51.

Too slow...

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

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
09-02-2007, 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 lowfighter:
Aren't you a bit a bit arrogant here Ratsack? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I was.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And if so why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because I am tired of people who are unable to use the search function, or who are so uncritical of their virtual piloting skills that it occurs to them first to say the model is wrong, before seeking advice on their flying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
And are you not a bit exagerating saying that the P51 can beat the german fighters HANDILY? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Not one bit. As I've said before in other threads on this topic, I find all versions of the P-51 beautiful to fly, and I've never felt vaguely threatened by any normal Axis type while flying a Mustang online. As I've also said before, I don't get kills in the thing because I can't aim the 0.50s. But that's an issue with me, not the model.

I have been shot down precisely twice in a dogfight while flying a Mustang. On both occasions the guy flying the Axis type (Fw 190) was DEY_Raven. He's simply better than me. The rest of the time, the boot's been on the other foot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Or was it just a little rethoric exercise? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I try not to indulge in rhetoric when discussing these planes, particularly American ones. People can be so sensitive about them. I only use straight rhetoric if I can make it absolutely clear from the context that it's rhetoric.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Why not telling your oppinion in a civil way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As discussed above. Sick of uncritical whiners.

cheers,
Ratsack

Sturm_Williger
09-02-2007, 04:54 PM
Well said Ratsack !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I try not to get into these discussions myself because I'm not a good pilot and prefer to lurk anyway, but I couldn't agree more with your post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Wildnoob
09-02-2007, 04:57 PM
http://tailslide.firelightsoftware.com/p51strat.asp

IFly_1968
09-02-2007, 05:56 PM
Well Ratsack...sorry to question an obvious expert in the matter dog fighting. As said to you before, if you do not like the thread then just do not read it. Plain and simple. Instead you want to come in here and sling **** around at others for making a comment on something. You feel the mustang is perfect then fine. You are at your own right to believe so. However I am not going to say you are wrong or right. Nor am I going to attack you personnaly. As you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine and nobody, especialy a loud mouth pain in the arse as yourself is going to change that. Fine you right. I fly it all wrong. I am not supposed to turn when I fly. OK thanks for the advise on your flying tactics. By the way....If you go back and read, I have been defending the plane that you hold so dare in your heart and only believe that energy retension may not be correct. Hmmmmm....same for all heave planes in the sim. Go figure. But no you go ahead and basch away like a little child who was just told that someone elses dad is bigger than yours. I will just sit back and laugh at you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

joeap
09-02-2007, 05:59 PM
FFS, he didn't say you are not supposed to turn to fly. Read the link Wildnoob posted.

lowfighter
09-02-2007, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
No. Not one bit. As I've said before in other threads on this topic, I find all versions of the P-51 beautiful to fly, and I've never felt vaguely threatened by any normal Axis type while flying a Mustang online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That the P51 is a great performer I completely agree. So is the Dora or 109k4 for 1944. Looking at il2compare P51-D is superior in some aspects and inferior in others to the planes mentioned. I don't find a definite superiority of any of them if you consider all the factors. Or perhaps there is? (It would me nice to have those characteristics calculated in il2compare also with 30-50% fuel for the P51.)

M_Gunz
09-02-2007, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IFly_1968:
The way I was turning it should not have bleed off the speed as much as it did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it was bleeding speed too much then prove it.

Otherwise you should loosen the stick when it starts to bleed and find where the groove is, the
best return for drag not the most you can pull. You end up able to stay faster. Making turns
that slow you down can help you get quick angle just from being slower but then you are slower.
So turn in the vertical and hold your speed.

Ratsack
09-03-2007, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
No. Not one bit. As I've said before in other threads on this topic, I find all versions of the P-51 beautiful to fly, and I've never felt vaguely threatened by any normal Axis type while flying a Mustang online. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That the P51 is a great performer I completely agree. So is the Dora or 109k4 for 1944. Looking at il2compare P51-D is superior in some aspects and inferior in others to the planes mentioned. I don't find a definite superiority of any of them if you consider all the factors. Or perhaps there is? (It would me nice to have those characteristics calculated in il2compare also with 30-50% fuel for the P51.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that in very high speed combat the P-51 enjoys parity or even an advantage in rate of roll when fighting the Fw 190. This is not historical, but it's how it's modeled in the sim.

This, combined with a speed advantage at medium altitude, gives you the edge over the Dora or the Anton. You can also out turn them at most speeds, particularly the Antons.

In relation to the Bf 109 K-4, I can't say I've fought very many of them on line. When I have, I've found them tough customers, but quite vulnerable if the speed is kept high. Their ability to change direction (i.e., roll and then use elevator) is fairly poor at high speeds (as the the 109 drivers will endlessly tell you!!). This doesn't mean you should go floating in front of that 30 mm elephant gun with gay abandon, and nor does it mean that you should ignore them if they're perched a couple of thousand feet above you. But all in all, the Mustang is one very well-balanced plane. I don't think there's a type in the German arsenal that can equal it across the range of altitudes and speeds that it can work at. The Dora is close, but not quite there.

cheers,
Ratsack

GH_Klingstroem
09-03-2007, 05:29 AM
The P51 bleeds speed too fast?!??!?!?
Man what sim are u playing?!?!?
There is NOTHING! I repeat NOTHING that will maintain E as good as the P51 in this game!!

I personally can outrun ANY plane in this game (leave the jets) in my P51D. Its all about prop pitch and radiator setting!
As for turning thats another question. I will not turnfight if I still have a full rear tank.
Vs 190s (any model) its gonna be up the pilot not so much the plane. 109 I never worry about. The catch fire easely but will outturn u if you stay too long at slow speed.
I will record tracks if you want of me out distancing 190Ds if any of you dont believe me!

I assume noone of the P51 fliers in here fly the P51 with Radiator Auto and Prop pitch 100. That is just very noobish and if you do, dont come to this thread till you have learnt to fly the plane first! Its like constantly flying a plane with gear down and then complaining that it underperforms....
Jeeeeses... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Fnd me online on Warclouds WF as F16_Kling!

Brain32
09-03-2007, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
****Praises the P51D****
Fnd me online on Warclouds WF as F16_Kling! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Kling maybe you are Brian32 too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VW-IceFire
09-03-2007, 07:54 AM
Yes well the Mustang bleeds speed in tight turns...for obvious reasons...but don't try and tell people that. Dogfights are all slow speed turning matches after all...right....right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GH_Klingstroem
09-03-2007, 11:10 AM
hehe Im sure u mean Bwian! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
09-03-2007, 02:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

lowfighter
09-04-2007, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
In relation to the Bf 109 K-4, I can't say I've fought very many of them on line. When I have, I've found them tough customers, but quite vulnerable if the speed is kept high. Their ability to change direction (i.e., roll and then use elevator) is fairly poor at high speeds (as the the 109 drivers will endlessly tell you!!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you caught me, quite true and a big advantage against the 109.

Wildnoob
09-05-2007, 11:20 PM
some people's have said in this discuss the Mustang doens't have a very good power to wheigt rate, and because that, the plane was not so agile like some people's maybe think.

I tougth the same thing, but I get confuse by wat a just found.

F-6F5 Hellcat :

Empty weight: 9,238 lb (4,190 kg)
Loaded weight: 12,598 lb (5,714 kg)

Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (260 W/kg)

P-51 D Mustang :

Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg)
Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg)

Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)

the Hellcat is MORE heavy and have 2 more HP in power to weigth ratio than the Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

it's not my wish to creat chaos here, but it's really very strange some sources claimed the Mustang as an agile dogfigther while others claimed it as a energy figther.

PS : everybody knows wat the Hellcat is capable with it's weigth.

Waldo.Pepper
09-06-2007, 12:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mustang doesn't have a very good power to weight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't mean to burst your bubble about the value of the power to weight comparison. But once again the real world is vastly more complicated that we would like. As such an isolated comparison of two factors is all but meaningless, and cannot be isolated so cleanly.

Consider the following from - WW2 Fighter Conflict by Alfred Price page 43. (I bolded the relevant text)

"One important airframe change which was not incorporated in the Spitfire during the Second World War was the so-called 'laminar flow' wing. This was a wing with an exceptionally fine finish: the surface roughness had to be less than .0005 of an inch and the maximum wave allowance was .0001 of an inch in any two inches of surface. This fineness of finish was combined with a high speed aerofoil section, with its thickest point about half way back from the leading edge (rather than a third of the way back, in a conventional aerofoil).

The first aircraft operational with the laminar flow wing was the North American P-51 Mustang, which entered service in the RAF in the summer of 1942. Later, re-engined with a Rolls-Royce Merlin with a two-stage supercharger, the Mustang became one of the outstanding fighters of the war.

The effect of the laminar flow wing can be seen if the performance of the P-51B Mustang is compared with that of the Spitfire IX; the comparison is valid, because the two aircraft were powered by almost exactly the same type of Merlin. In terms of wing span and area the Mustang's wing was closely comparable with that of the Spitfire; the latter's wing was 2 inches longer and about 4 per cent greater in area. Yet in spite of the similarity in wing dimensions and engine power, and the considerably greater weight of the Mustang (about a quarter greater), the latter was approximately 20 mph faster than the Spitfire IX for any given cruising power setting of the engine , and about 30 mph faster at maximum speed. The main factors responsible for this were the laminar flow wing and the high speed aerofoil."

ImpStarDuece
09-06-2007, 03:43 AM
The other great addition that the P-51 had was its meredith-effect type radiator scoop, which actually added thrust at high speed.

In fact, there is still debate whether the P-51's wing really contributed that much to its high speed, given that the imperfections in the wing (riveting, distortion of the skin) would of prevented true laminar flow from forming.

To quote Peter Caygill from "Ultimate Spitfre":

"Another unfortunate aspect of the Spiteful's performance that the significant improvement in drag that had been expected with the new [laminar flow] wing failed to materialise. This was due to the fact that the wing had to be manufactured to extreemly high tolerances and had to retain its smooth finish at all times to obtain the desired reduction in drag. This proved to be virtually impossible during flight operations as even the smallest item of debris which adhered itself to the wing, even a squashed fly, tended to disrupt the boundary layer air and led to drag inducing turbulence"

The Spiteful laminar flow wing was 15% smaller than the Spitfire's wing, which was enough for a decent improvement in speed. Further additions in speed with the Spiteful came from the redesigned, low profile radiatiors and a redesigned canopy/fuselage mating (which may of added as much as 10-12 mph by istelf).

Kocur_
09-06-2007, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
I personally can outrun ANY plane in this game (leave the jets) in my P51D. Its all about prop pitch and radiator setting!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear, hear!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
In fact, there is still debate whether the P-51's wing really contributed that much to its high speed, given that the imperfections in the wing (riveting, distortion of the skin) would of prevented true laminar flow from forming.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still laminar flow airfols are used universally ever since P-51, today it stretches from say C-130, to F-22.

MrMojok
09-08-2007, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
The P51 bleeds speed too fast?!??!?!?
Man what sim are u playing?!?!?
There is NOTHING! I repeat NOTHING that will maintain E as good as the P51 in this game!!

I personally can outrun ANY plane in this game (leave the jets) in my P51D. Its all about prop pitch and radiator setting!
I assume noone of the P51 fliers in here fly the P51 with Radiator Auto and Prop pitch 100. That is just very noobish and if you do, dont come to this thread till you have learnt to fly the plane first! Its like constantly flying a plane with gear down and then complaining that it underperforms....
Jeeeeses... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You were right about that. I printed out one of your posts a while back discussing PP and Rad and it helped me a great deal.

GH_Klingstroem
09-08-2007, 12:11 PM
thx MrMojok! Always great when I can be of help to someone! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

R_Target
09-09-2007, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
some people's have said in this discuss the Mustang doens't have a very good power to wheigt rate, and because that, the plane was not so agile like some people's maybe think.

I tougth the same thing, but I get confuse by wat a just found.

F-6F5 Hellcat :

Empty weight: 9,238 lb (4,190 kg)
Loaded weight: 12,598 lb (5,714 kg)

Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (260 W/kg)

P-51 D Mustang :

Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,465 kg)
Loaded weight: 9,200 lb (4,175 kg)

Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (300 W/kg)

the Hellcat is MORE heavy and have 2 more HP in power to weigth ratio than the Mustang. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

it's not my wish to creat chaos here, but it's really very strange some sources claimed the Mustang as an agile dogfigther while others claimed it as a energy figther.

PS : everybody knows wat the Hellcat is capable with it's weigth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're comparing a Mustang at Combat power without a full internal fuel load with a Hellcat at Military power with a full internal fuel load. Also, your F6F-5 weight is ~200 pounds too much.

Wildnoob
09-09-2007, 12:39 PM
the Mustang would jettsion their drop tanks before enter in combat. and the internal central fuel tank was the first to be used.

R_Target
09-09-2007, 01:49 PM
I'm talking about internal fuel, not droptanks. Full internal fuel for P-51D is 269 gallons; for the F6F, 250 gallons. P-51 with full internal fuel is about 10,200 pounds. F6F-5 with full internal fuel is about 12,400 pounds.

P-51D Combat hp is 1700 at 67" Hg. F6F-5 Combat hp is 2250 at 60" Hg and ADI engaged.

All I'm saying is you gotta compare like to like.

M_Gunz
09-09-2007, 10:05 PM
If you want to compare power to weight then try some non-US planes.
109's, Yaks or Spitfires; compare those to P-51 contemporary when there was one.

Bearcat99
09-15-2007, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4.) Should the P-51 be a hard plane to handle?
5.) Should it be more of a chore/more twitchy than the P-40?
6.) Should it require great skill to be good effective/with?

Yes to all! And guess what it is!
For a prop plane she is unbelievably fast! This evening I was easily catching enemy planes. Routinely going over 800kmph, and pulling out safely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have to strongly disagree with you here. Talking to pilots at airshows who ahve flown both types over the years, including Bob Hoover (who just went on and on about the Spitfire when I asked about Mustangs), I got one overwhelming impression: The Mustang was much less twitchy and demanding to fly than the P-40 (and most other USAAF fighters of the time) in all their respective forms.

I know that the elitist in all of us wants to believe that the higher the performance, the greater the skill demanded, but the real-life logic is that the P-38, P-40 and P-39 were much earlier technology than the Mustang, and the concept of adjustable trim was less effectively executed in these aircraft. It's like comparing the setup of your first generation DVD player to the one you got last month-better performance AND <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ease of use.</span>

The Mustang was conceived and built as a vastly improved fighter vehicle for the Allison V-1710 engine, and it was. Replacing it with the Merlin 60 series made it a bit less refined, but it was still far less twitchy and demanding of pilot input than any P-47, much less a P-40.

According to all sources, the Mustang was similar to the Spitfire, Hellcat and FW 190 in that it was much easier for a pilot new to the type to learn and fly effectively in combat than it's contemporaries. That is not merely a function of cockpit layout; there has to be a certain aerodynamic rightness and balance inherent in the design, and these aircraft all had it in spades.

According to America's Hundred-Thousand, page 340 (as you might guess, I have it bookmarked), under "P-51 Handling Qualities And Characteristics" and "Trimming", it says:

ALLISON powered Mustangs were particularly notable for <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">lack of required trim changes.</span> Power or flap setting changes gave only small trim variations, and the same was true of gear retraction. The changes in tab settings for climbing and diving were negligible. Tab controls were sensitive and had to be used carefully.

Trimmability was also quite good in the MERLIN Mustangs, and tabs were sensitive. In those versions directional trim changed more with speed and power changes. When the rudder trim system was changed and rigged as an anti-balance tab to give opposite boost, a resulting disadvantage was more tab was required to trim the aircraft from a climb into a dive.

Along with trimming the plane for longer term steady flight conditions, some pilots trimmed their aircraft almost continuously to wash out any high stick or pedal force during maneuvering in combat.

Now let us drop back to page 248, for the section on the P-40's handling characteristics and specifically, trimming:

A major aspect of flying the P-40 series airplanes was handling trim changes from power and speed changes. A veteran AAF pilot stated "The trim changes with speed were more than in other contemporary fighters." Typical of many single engine propellor fighters, the vertical tail was slightly offset to counter propellor slipstream effect at cruising speed. IN a dive, as speed increased, more and more left rudder had to be added; slowing down in a climb some right rudder was needed.One pilot said "--a drawback was having to virtually stand on the left rudder to keep the ball centered--it could be a real handful in a loop" (where trim reversed from dive to climb and then back again). Although directional trim tab power was available to zero out pedal force, left rudder trim could not be rolled in fast enough with high dive accelleration. No matter what P-40 version was involved, it was the same: "In the air, the Tomahawk tended to yaw considerably with speed changes", needing directional trim, and for the P-40E/H87A:

"Every power and speed change brings an immediate trim change which the pilot must counteract or trim out." The H87 was, if anything, worse than the H81 Tomahawk.

On the P-40E lowering the landing gear made the aircraft slightly nose heavy; there was no appreciable trim change with flap positioning. Dropping a belly tank resulted in minor tail heaviness. The elevator trim system could take care of these effects as well as longitudinal variations due to speed and power changes.

A lot of the Mustang's current reputation for twitchiness is due to the number of flyable Mustangs still around; modern pilots will compare it to the Beech Barons or whatever modern general aviation or military aircraft they have flown, not its contemporaries. Compared to more sophisticated later generation airframes, of course the Mustang is more raw and demanding of the pilot. The later designs are the beneficiaries of the Mustang's heritage.

Jeffrey Ethell did a number of articles (in Flight Journal I think) about flying preserved warbirds, including the various P-40s, and especially the three flavors of Mustang. As I recall, he references the P-40 repeatedly in the account of his P-51A flights, as well as to the P-51B and D models he had flown, and he makes it quite clear that the P-40s were far more work and far more treacherous to fly and taxi than the late model Mustangs, which were a bit more work in the air than the Allison Mustang.

The fact is, I could go on and on (and have a published authoritive citation for every occasion), but it very much appears to me that Oleg has the trim portions of the Mustang and the P-40 reversed: in game, the P-40 is vastly more docile and trimmable than the Mustang and that's just <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">wrong.</span>

cheers

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

From Flight Characteristics of the P-51 (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1541332312841515347)
<sub>Major: Hello Chilton.. How is she on directional trim changes when speed & horsepower are variant?

Pilot: I'll throttle back and give it a whirl...... The airplane is stable at all normal loadings, but the directional trim changes at low speeds as horsepower (MP or throttle) & speed is varied, however the rudder tab corrtects this effectively with only a slight adjustment and it should be used as neccessary. Normally there is no trouble as the plane is naturally stable.

Engineer: That means the P-51B will remain at any altitude without adjusting the trim tabs. Less work for the pilot.

Pilot: Now I'm going to show her stalling characteristics. The stall is comparatively mild and occurs at approximately 95 mph indicated with gear & flaps up. About 3 or 4 miles above this stalling speed a slight elevator buffett occurs. The plane [sinks a distance... (unclear)], then rolls over on one wing. It doesn't whip over as some other planes do, and it has very little tendancy to drop into a spin. The recovery is completely normal. All that has to be done is to release the back pressure on the stick, and apply opposite rudder. With the gear and flaps down the stall would have the same characteristics as before only it occurs at about 85mph indicated.

Engineer: Naturally with combat tanks or bombs making an extra load the stalling speeds are higher.

Pilot: Now let's go into an accelerated stall.

P-51:VvVvVvVvvVVvVVVVvrRRRRRRrRrrRroOooOooOoOOOOOOoM mMMMmmmmmm

Pilot: A heavy buffet occurs around the wing root fillet and the horizontal stabilizer 3 or 4 miles above actual stalling speed, but the plane recovers immediately by releasing pressure on the stick. The accelerated stall has stronger warning characteristics than the normal stall.

Colonel: Hello Bob... show us a couple of dives....

Pilot: OK Col. here she goes.....

P-51: vvVVVvVVVvrRRRrROoOOoooooommmmmm

Pilot: The plane gains speed extremely fast in a dive. Tends to veer slightly to the right, and continue in a dive without puilling itself out for quite a long time.

.......................
Colonel:How about doing a couple of rolls for us.

Pilot: Here's one to the left. Rate of roll is extremely fast. Especially at high speeds.

Engineer: Thats due to the sealed balance ailerons. The final result of 14 different designs.

Major: That fast roll really counts too.

Colonel: Yes that means the pilot can disengage the enemy a lot quicker.

Engineer: We beleive the only ship that can approch it for speed of roll is the Fw-190.

Pilot: Here's another dive.

P-51:VVVVvvvvvvrrrroooommmmmmMmMMMMmmm

Pilot: In the dive the pilot doesnt have to maintain excessive forward pressure on the stick. Catch the slight tendency to veer to the right with a trim tab if in a prolonged dive, otherwise the ship is posiotively stabkle in a dive. Hello Arthur, I'm going up high altitude and put her into a maximum speed dive to show you how fast she'll go before reaching compressability.

........................
Pilot:38000.. you all set down there? .......
300..... 350.... 400.... 440..... compressability.. stick movinf fore and aft, slight elevator over balance, heavy buffeting on tail section, oscilation occurs rapidly, however control forces on elevator reman unchanged plane hunts sklightly along horizontal axis.... pulling out now. No difficulty, excpet buffetting continues until a lower speed has been reached.

Major: 440 indicated at that height!!! That's really moving!!!

Colonel: Enemy fighters will have a h@ll of a time trying to keep up with this ship in a dive.
...................
Pilot: I'm going to try a couple of spins. I'll do a right spin first. Here she goes.
In a right spin there is a continuous oscillation. A slight rudder buffet is present. Procedure for recovery completely normal. No trouble getting out of the spin.

P-51:VVvvvvvvvvvrvvrvrvvvvooooooooooooommmmmmmm

Colonel: Why dont you try one to the left now.....

Pilot: For 3 turns an oscillation is present as in the right spin. Then the spin becomes stable. Recovery is the same. Roll opposite rudder then stick in neutral. </sub>

Bearcat99
09-15-2007, 09:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFA-195 Snacky:
Ask =353=Monroe his opinion of the P51D flight model in this game. You will be surprised what you hear and the Oleg fanboys wouldn't like it either.

There is bias in this game and always will be.

btw- Wings don't just rip off of Mustangs and Jugs don't take a 30 cal round to the motor and just freeze up. The P38 was a very fast aircraft, 50 cals ripped apart planes, and the P39/63 was barely good enough to be a trainer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That term Oleg Fanboy..... it just.... irks me ya know.... I mean... I am a fan of 1C Maddox sims no bout a doubt it.. Do I have issues with the sim? Sure do..... one of my absolutely favorite planes in fact... but I am still a fan.... so you guys who like to toss that word around like right wingers toss the "liberal" label around ... or left wingers toss that "right wing evangelical born again Christisn" bit out there, ought to just ... find another flipping term.. because like everywhere else in this world.... no group of people are a monolith...and I am sick and tired of being lumped in with some imaginary group that is just too stupid to think for themselves and like lemmings blindly follow their flight sim messiah off a cliff.... The sim has issues .. and it isnt just the P-51 either... but it is still a D@MN good product... and I dont appreciate being insulted all the time for thinking so. So please.... can you guys just .... get a grip.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SNACKY-353rd:
People who are devoted to Oleg and this video game have convinced themselves that this game is realistic. Sadly it's not, it's just all we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Conversely everyone who thinks that Oleg has a Russian agenda to re-write history and teach those Americans a lesson believes that the game is inherently flawed in all respects and doesn't reflect a shred of reality.

But really now...the truth is somewhere in between and far far simpler. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

lowfighter
09-16-2007, 12:14 AM
About trim, maybe someone with trim rotaries can check this: take a P51 and trim at 300 Km/h, mark the position of the rotaries. Bring it to say 500 Km/h, trim and mark again the position of the rotaries. Take other plane (say a P47 or a FW190D) which can reach the 500 Km/h and do the same. Compare the amount of trim change necesary when going from 300 to 500 Km/h.
The german planes don't have rudder trim though so you could compare only the elevetor trim. But I'm quite curious.

Wildnoob
09-16-2007, 01:28 PM
I just want to know one thing.

the P-51 was able to outperform the P-40 in all aspects in RL like I've always heard ?

Bearcat99
09-16-2007, 08:50 PM
I tell ya what..... Klingstroem's great thread not withstanding... and yes the P-51 as is has some good traits... but fly a QM.... 16 P-40Es or Ms against 16 Emils.... no flak. All pilots average, Smolensk at noon. Fly it several times..... at least 15 take into consideration how you do.... then try the exact same QM... and substitute a P-51D. Take a week or so... if neccessary... Then come back here talk about it.

M_Gunz
09-17-2007, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
I just want to know one thing.

the P-51 was able to outperform the P-40 in all aspects in RL like I've always heard ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRL P-40 will turn better at least below high speeds and high alts.
Always remember that speed and altitude change maneuver performance.

Krt_Bong
09-18-2007, 02:13 PM
I used to fly R/C scale planes quite a bit and my Dad still does, I've had three Mustangs, 2 were pure fighter models and one was Dago Red, a Reno Air Racer and modified for stability. The in game P-51 flies much like the fighter models I had and I can tell you that in heavy handed manuevers the Mustang will bite you very, very hard. my models were 1/6-1/5 scale but even in giant scale 1/4-1/3 they fly the same as long as the model is accurate in regards to airfoil cross section. Each Fighter type has it's own personality, the best fighters are usually the most unstable, by contrast the flight characteristics of the P-40 are quite benign given it has a fairly large degree of dihedral (look at it head on and note where the wingtips are in relation to the wing root) which makes it easier to fly. I would say that Oleg got it mostly right more than wrong and it takes practice to learn how to fly to the strength of each aircraft.

M_Gunz
09-19-2007, 06:31 PM
Try reading up on "Reynolds Number". Scaling up and down so much does NOT work the same.
That's why many early wings did not work well, they were scaled up bird wing foils.
They worked at all.
Do the RC planes scale in weight and power to weight?

horseback
10-06-2007, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
I just want to know one thing.

the P-51 was able to outperform the P-40 in all aspects in RL like I've always heard ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRL P-40 will turn better at least below high speeds and high alts.
Always remember that speed and altitude change maneuver performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Combat experienced instructers supposedly used the P-40 vs P-51 contest to demonstrate how important the pilot is in a fight, and how one should depend upon his own abilities rather than his mount's technical advantages. At low alts and speeds, the P-40 had the greater potential for tighter turns, BUT the P-40 demanded a more experienced/capable pilot with a strong rudder leg to compete with a Mustang (Allison or Merlin types).

The Mustang at combat weight (vs the oft-quoted takeoff weights) is a much quicker and better climbing aircraft than any version of the P-40.

If you put pilots of equal skills and hours in the competing aircraft, the Mustang driver's advantages become much greater.

cheers

horseback

PS- nice catch there, Gunz. Power to weight, torque and CGs are vastly different in the scale RC aircraft, and will vary from model to model according to materials used to build them.

Frequent_Flyer
10-06-2007, 02:54 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The other great addition that the P-51 had was its meredith-effect type radiator scoop, which actually added thrust at high speed.



In fact, there is still debate whether the P-51's wing really contributed that much to its high speed, given that the imperfections in the wing (riveting, distortion of the skin) would of prevented true laminar flow from forming.

To quote Peter Caygill from "Ultimate Spitfre":

"Another unfortunate aspect of the Spiteful's performance that the significant improvement in drag that had been expected with the new [laminar flow] wing failed to materialise. This was due to the fact that the wing had to be manufactured to extreemly high tolerances and had to retain its smooth finish at all times to obtain the desired reduction in drag. This proved to be virtually impossible during flight operations as even the smallest item of debris which adhered itself to the wing, even a squashed fly, tended to disrupt the boundary layer air and led to drag inducing turbulence"

The Spiteful laminar flow wing was 15% smaller than the Spitfire's wing, which was enough for a decent improvement in speed. Further additions in speed with the Spiteful came from the redesigned, low profile radiatiors and a redesigned canopy/fuselage mating (which may of added as much as 10-12 mph by istelf).[/QUOT

The P-51 had the rivets filled and sanded smooth on the wings. The P-51 was 35 - 40 mph faster than the spit with the samne engine. The ultimateP- 51 H attained 487 mph with further refinements of the wing. Also, a " built in " engine mounting substantially reduced the weight. 555 were produced and shipped to the PTO but arrived too late.

Frequent_Flyer
10-06-2007, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The other great addition that the P-51 had was its meredith-effect type radiator scoop, which actually added thrust at high speed.



In fact, there is still debate whether the P-51's wing really contributed that much to its high speed, given that the imperfections in the wing (riveting, distortion of the skin) would of prevented true laminar flow from forming.

To quote Peter Caygill from "Ultimate Spitfre":

"Another unfortunate aspect of the Spiteful's performance that the significant improvement in drag that had been expected with the new [laminar flow] wing failed to materialise. This was due to the fact that the wing had to be manufactured to extreemly high tolerances and had to retain its smooth finish at all times to obtain the desired reduction in drag. This proved to be virtually impossible during flight operations as even the smallest item of debris which adhered itself to the wing, even a squashed fly, tended to disrupt the boundary layer air and led to drag inducing turbulence"

The Spiteful laminar flow wing was 15% smaller than the Spitfire's wing, which was enough for a decent improvement in speed. Further additions in speed with the Spiteful came from the redesigned, low profile radiatiors and a redesigned canopy/fuselage mating (which may of added as much as 10-12 mph by istelf). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The P-51 had the rivets filled and sanded smooth on the wings. The P-51 was 35 - 40 mph faster than the spit with the same engine. The ultimate P- 51 H attained 487 mph with further refinements of the wing. Also, a " built in " engine mounting substantially reduced the weight. 555 were produced and shipped to the PTO but arrived too late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Y0RGO
10-08-2007, 08:48 AM
I am transplant Amerikan, and very proud this P/51 aero.

luftluuver
10-10-2007, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
The P-51 had the rivets filled and sanded smooth on the wings. The P-51 was 35 - 40 mph faster than the spit with the samne engine. The ultimateP- 51 H attained 487 mph with further refinements of the wing. Also, a " built in " engine mounting substantially reduced the weight. 555 were produced and shipped to the PTO but arrived too late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agh? Yes 555 were produced but 555 did not make it to the PTO.

The P-51 had a filler coat applied to wing.

One P-51H was given to the RAF for evaluation at Boscombe Down. Its serial was KN987.

A P-51H (44-64420) was borrowed by the US Navy In August of 1945 for trials to determine the type's suitability as a carrier-based fighter.

By the late summer of 1945, some P-51Hs had been issued to a few operational units. These units were in the process of working up to operational status when the war in the Pacific ended with the Japanese surrender.

The last P-51H rolled off the production line in 1946.

M_Gunz
10-10-2007, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Combat experienced instructers supposedly used the P-40 vs P-51 contest to demonstrate how important the pilot is in a fight, and how one should depend upon his own abilities rather than his mount's technical advantages. At low alts and speeds, the P-40 had the greater potential for tighter turns, BUT the P-40 demanded a more experienced/capable pilot with a strong rudder leg to compete with a Mustang (Allison or Merlin types).

The Mustang at combat weight (vs the oft-quoted takeoff weights) is a much quicker and better climbing aircraft than any version of the P-40.

If you put pilots of equal skills and hours in the competing aircraft, the Mustang driver's advantages become much greater. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The AVG pilots moved back into the USAAF did tell that the P-40 -turned- better than P-51 and
they did fly both and they qualified as experienced with both. That does NOT cover high speed
and no, I have no number for how high is high. Look to the wingloading and airfoils. At the
high speed or high alt I am sure than power of the P-51 brings it out as the better.

P-40 line are all good planes just not as fast or long range as P-51 but still respectable.

There are people here with charts for both just as there are for 109 and FW.

However if you want rule of thumb of airframes that holds until speed is high enough for
power limits to play then compare the clean stall speeds and for any G's of turn the one
with the lower clean stall will turn tighter. It's THAT SIMPLE.

Waldo.Pepper
10-10-2007, 09:15 PM
Sea Horse, for any interested.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Sea%20Horse/P-51DSeahorseNov4401a1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Sea%20Horse/P-51DSeahorseNov4402a1.jpg

luftluuver
10-10-2007, 10:19 PM
Agh, 57987/414017 during carrier qualification trial aboard the Shangri-La in Nov '44. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

horseback
10-14-2007, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The AVG pilots moved back into the USAAF did tell that the P-40 -turned- better than P-51 and
they did fly both and they qualified as experienced with both. That does NOT cover high speed
and no, I have no number for how high is high. Look to the wingloading and airfoils. At the
high speed or high alt I am sure than power of the P-51 brings it out as the better.

P-40 line are all good planes just not as fast or long range as P-51 but still respectable.

There are people here with charts for both just as there are for 109 and FW.

However if you want rule of thumb of airframes that holds until speed is high enough for
power limits to play then compare the clean stall speeds and for any G's of turn the one
with the lower clean stall will turn tighter. It's THAT SIMPLE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I read Don Lopez' Into the Teeth of the Tiger too, and the impression I got from his book was that he had the same complaint everyone made about the first Mustangs: those damned slanted fifties' ammo feeds would jam almost as soon as the wings flexed in a tight turn. Since the Japanese' first response to any attack was a tight turn, this was a critical flaw.

The P-40 had a 50% heavier armament than the razorback Mustangs, and its guns could be counted on to fire after that first pass--that was the sum of its advantage over the first Mustangs deployed over China.

Although the 14th AF got the Pony long after the 8th & 9th Air Forces had solved this problem, the solution apparently did not trickle down to the CBI before the arrival of the more reliably armed D model, by which time most of the 'Old Guard' P-40 drivers had rotated back to the States, and guys like Herbst and McComas were able to run up their scores in Mustangs.

My point, however, was that dogfighting is about more than just making a tighter horizontal turn.

As to the relative strong points, maybe we could use the analogy of the Spitfire V vs the FW 190A-3/4. The Spit V could make a lovely tight turn, but the FW 190A could out climb, out dive, out accelerate, and out roll the Spit. The Mustang (even the Allison powered versions) enjoyed similar advantages over the Warhawk.

To cancel out the turn advantage in the Warhawk vs Mustang contest you then have to add this: A pilot in a P-40 had to work (as in physically labor) harder to get the maximum out of his aircraft than he would in a Mustang.

I repeat: if both pilots are equally skilled, the Mustang driver holds more cards.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
10-14-2007, 01:08 PM
wat I most see in the sim is exactly this...

but I don't see a clear advantage in climbing with the Corsair against an enemy Zero for example. in fact, I have to say that is not very hard for a Zero caugth a Corsair in horizontal combat (online experience).

so, I think planes such as the Corsair are a lot more powerful in RL them in the sim. in this same case I can cited WEP, always I use WEP when on full trottle, and always a Zero can caugth my Corsair with not much difficult. if we see in RL, WEP was mostly really used in emergency cases, not as "normal extra power".

but that's just a personal opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

M_Gunz
10-14-2007, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I read Don Lopez' Into the Teeth of the Tiger too, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't. I've read from Eric Schilling and some other AVG's through their site.
Also from what I was told by a later veteran of the USAAF unit the AVG's went into,
the P-40 and P-51 are deep tradition for those men and no lies allowed.

I also go on the lower stall speed of the P-40, that is an airframe limit.
THAT is the clincher if you understand the basics.
I also state that at high speeds it will not be better, you figure out why.

M_Gunz
10-14-2007, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
wat I most see in the sim is exactly this...

but I don't see a clear advantage in climbing with the Corsair against an enemy Zero for example. in fact, I have to say that is not very hard for a Zero caugth a Corsair in horizontal combat (online experience).

so, I think planes such as the Corsair are a lot more powerful in RL them in the sim. in this same case I can cited WEP, always I use WEP when on full trottle, and always a Zero can caugth my Corsair with not much difficult. if we see in RL, WEP was mostly really used in emergency cases, not as "normal extra power".

but that's just a personal opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF -- and I do mean IF

IF you are comparing climb at best climb speed of either plane then how can you not expect the
Zero to win?

IF you compare the climbs at combat speed of the F4U then expect different.

Look at the IL2Compare chart ROC at constant TAS to find relevant speeds depending on which
models, F4U-1A and A6M5b have equal climb at 270kph at sea level and from any speed higher
the F4U-1A outclimbs that Zero (best I can find). Combat speed being well over 300kph.......