PDA

View Full Version : P51D is too unstable



HayateAce
01-09-2006, 04:30 PM
The P51 is way too unstable in this game. Rediculous high-speed stall and overdone wing departure make this a complete underachiever vs the real life Mustang.

http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/graphics/f4u-main.jpg

HayateAce
01-09-2006, 04:30 PM
The P51 is way too unstable in this game. Rediculous high-speed stall and overdone wing departure make this a complete underachiever vs the real life Mustang.

http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/graphics/f4u-main.jpg

neural_dream
01-09-2006, 04:33 PM
HayateAce, you're the Last of the Whiners. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Complaining for plane characteristics is still "allowed" in ORR.
http://www.farcus.com/images/image_complaints.gif

crazyivan1970
01-09-2006, 04:40 PM
Please dont give him any ideas nd.

danjama
01-09-2006, 04:42 PM
ibtl?

nakamura_kenji
01-09-2006, 04:52 PM
what ibtl mean?

IBTL = I believe the leprecon?

Chuck_Older
01-09-2006, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
what ibtl mean?

IBTL = I believe the leprecon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Priceless! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Although I no longer beleive your English is no good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nigel_Woodman
01-09-2006, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
The P51 is way too unstable in this game. Rediculous high-speed stall and overdone wing departure make this a complete underachiever vs the real life Mustang.

http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/graphics/f4u-main.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-51 sensitive, but not unrealistically. I'm guessing that you're not flying with a force feedback stick and that you don't pay too much attention to the G's you're pulling. In a real-world Mustang you'd feel these forces and behave accordingly. It's easy to ignore them in the sim, but if you do, you'll pay the price.

I find that the Mustang, if handled right, can turn competitively with just about any fighter of it's era and dives and zooms great.

Try it with a force feedback stick. It'll open your eyes.

slo123
01-09-2006, 08:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
The P51 is way too unstable in this game. Rediculous high-speed stall and overdone wing departure make this a complete underachiever vs the real life Mustang.

http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/graphics/f4u-main.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea im thinking you've never flown it in real life so how can you say this is not right thats how i see it and well you dont here me gripeing about anything so

VW-IceFire
01-09-2006, 09:06 PM
I agree that something is wrong...but so far I haven't actually started any threads about it and then written a two sentence post.

I was almost expecting some sort of well reasoned argument...but no.

HayateAce
01-09-2006, 09:25 PM
Just an awareness-raising campaign IceFire. I'm an advertising professional so I leave the charts, graphs and figures to the nerds.

http://www.sptimes.com/photo_review/071299/Shad-pocket.jpg

ImpStarDuece
01-09-2006, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
I'm an advertising professional </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It all begins to make sense now....

HayateAce
01-09-2006, 10:34 PM
Doesn't it though. Too much money, not enough time.....

http://images.burningman.com/gallery/joelwade.24900.jpg

Dew-Claw
01-09-2006, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
what ibtl mean?

IBTL = I believe the leprecon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Priceless! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Although I no longer beleive your English is no good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

His english may not be the best, but his sense of humor and comedy timing is spot on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BfHeFwMe
01-09-2006, 11:07 PM
No other plane has wings shedding at G modeled. In the real world we'd call that a "BIAS". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-10-2006, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo123:
yea im thinking you've never flown it in real life so how can you say this is not right thats how i see it and well you dont here me gripeing about anything so </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know about Hayateace but I've flown in real life. The P-51 does fly like it's CG is definitely too far aft. What Hayateace described in the way of departures in addition to what I've experienced in terms of overly sensitive nose wander in the pitch axis reinforce this view. The plane simply flys like it's out of rig. You have to be overly conservative on the controls to minimize departures in addition to being overly conscious of your airspeed to simply keep your wings on...not good (or realistic) traits in an escort fighter and certainly not reflective of the real world P-51.

GR142-Pipper

AustinPowers_
01-10-2006, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
No other plane has wings shedding at G modeled. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yuo is Wrong.

robban75
01-10-2006, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
No other plane has wings shedding at G modeled. In the real world we'd call that a "BIAS". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is very wrong.

robban75
01-10-2006, 03:02 AM
Other planes just need some trimming in order to reach 15G's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/OOPS.jpg

anarchy52
01-10-2006, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
I'm an advertising professional </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Door to door salesman?

SeaFireLIV
01-10-2006, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Just an awareness-raising campaign IceFire. I'm an advertising professional so I leave the charts, graphs and figures to the nerds.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,if this is how you substantiate your problems in life, I can see why no one ever listens to you. Oleg certainly won`t under that deluge of `evidence`.

Hristo_
01-10-2006, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
I'm an advertising professional...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

like Amway and such ?

WTE_Ibis
01-10-2006, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I'm an advertising professional... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you handle yourself or have you got an agent? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
Somehow I think you handle yourself.

.

nakamura_kenji
01-10-2006, 05:37 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/SandwichBoard2copy.jpg

resit no sorry ^_^

p-11.cAce
01-10-2006, 05:52 AM
Here we go again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
The p-51 is modelled perfectly in that it will be very unstable when you are carrying full fuel and the aft fuselage tank is full. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fuselage fuel tank mounted behind the pilot was always a problem, and you had to take it into consideration on any combat mission. The full tank gave the Mustang an aft center of gravity, and it was actually unstable. Flying instruments with the tank full required careful attention, and with any heavy maneuvering, you could get a stick force reversal. Imagine pushing forward on the stick to control your turn with a 109 across the circle from you! It happened to me.

We had to manage our fuel according to the mission. On a long mission for which you needed all of your fuel, you started on an internal wing tank and then switched to the external tanks as soon as possible after takeoff. Once you dropped your empty external tanks, you switched to the fuselage tank. The Mustang flew like a dream after you had burned half of the fuel from this tank. You were taking a chance that you would not have to engage in combat until you were ready. On a shorter mission, you could consider using the fuel from the fuselage tank after takeoff. Once you were down to half, you went to the external tanks. That way, when you dropped your wing tanks, you were ready to fight.

C.E. "Bud" Anderson pilot of "Old Crow" and P-51 triple ace </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Bud Anderson knows a whole **** of a lot more than any of us armchair pilots and if he says the P-51 is porked with a full fuselage tank than I think I'm going to believe it. Burn off some of that fuel (you can look over your left shoulder to check the fuel gauge for the fuselage tank) and notice that the handling improves markedly.

womenfly
01-10-2006, 06:11 AM
A question to the above post on fuel tank selection.

Is there a way in the sim to select which tank to burn off first? Or do you have to select 25% fuel loads at start of fligth?

How does one do this? Please explain.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Viper2005_
01-10-2006, 06:24 AM
AFAIK the game can only handle one fuel tank.

The P-51D has 3 sets of gauges, but only the aft tank gauge works (the wing tanks are always empty!).

This suggests that some kind of fudge factor has been applied to the flight model...

BTW IMHO the P-51 is too forgiving with full fuel, and perhaps a little too unforgiving with very light fuel loads (&lt;25%).

AustinPowers_
01-10-2006, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Other planes just need some trimming in order to reach 15G's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proof-pwned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Feathered_IV
01-10-2006, 06:33 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/OOPS.jpg

Cor. Thanks for that! It is now my wallpaper http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by HayateAce:
I'm an advertising professional... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you sell your clients product as well as you sell yourself?

HayateAce
01-10-2006, 08:25 AM
Excellent gang. Some good replies, some ******s.

To the P51 porked JPG, THANKS!

To the little screenie of broken wings....nice cannon holes in the 109 and La.....

To the lovely lady: Yes the P51 is constantly saddled with a full aft fuel tank, hence the awful balance this POS_51 currently "enjoys' thanks to olegster.

As far as the ad biz, yes biz is good and I like things german more than you know.

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

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/auto/images/porsche-panamera.jpg

HayateAce
01-10-2006, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/SandwichBoard2copy.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

robban75
01-10-2006, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
To the little screenie of broken wings....nice cannon holes in the 109 and La.....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the way the damage is modelled in the game.

Do like this, start at 5000m, excecute a 50-60 degree dive. Go full nose up trim, but maintain that 50-60 deg dive. When you reach around 650-750km/h IAS, yank hard back. See what happens. Or I can send you tracks? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

carguy_
01-10-2006, 10:17 AM
Yes,the P51 is too light on the elevators.

Chuck_Older
01-10-2006, 10:22 AM
Hayate, you could be right, or you could be wrong.

But I find your arguments contradictive...you tell one person they have never flown a real one, so how could they know, and then you post that you leave charts and graphs to the nerds

On one hand, you want real evidence, and on the other, you don't care to look at it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Well, you yourself...have you flown a real P-51? If not, how can you tell another that their inexperience with real flight in one makes their arguments worthless? And charts and graphs...pardon me, but after having studied aeronautical engineering at University...those charts and grpahs are often what is in the actual pilot's handbook for aircraft. I know my own personal Mustang pilot handbook has many charts and graphs

Viper2005_
01-10-2006, 12:35 PM
If your notes are anything like my notes for the Mustang III (V-1650-3), they probably also contain various warnings about the inadvisability of aerobatics with fuel in the rear tank...

SeaFireLIV
01-10-2006, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Hayate,

On one hand, you want real evidence, and on the other, you don't care to look at it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Well, you yourself...have you flown a real P-51? If not, how can you tell another that their inexperience with real flight in one makes their arguments worthless? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forget, Chuck Older, hayate doesn`t deal in things like proof or evidence. You could imagine him in a Court of Law...

Judge: "So, Mr. Hayate, what are is your evidence that P51s flew in the manner that you describe?"

Hayate: "I don`t have any, i leave that to the nerds. just believe me, my word alone above ALL ELSE!"

Judge: "Yes, yes. Insanity plea. It is then".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

StellarRat
01-10-2006, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
I'm an advertising professional </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Door to door salesman? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Amway?

StellarRat
01-10-2006, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
AFAIK the game can only handle one fuel tank.

The P-51D has 3 sets of gauges, but only the aft tank gauge works (the wing tanks are always empty!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The wing tank gauges work fine in the P-51D-NA. They are at zero if you only take 25%, but register and move down just fine if you start with more than 25%.

p1ngu666
01-10-2006, 01:34 PM
theres hardly any damping on the p51 either, and other aircraft too.

some aircraft u just fly and theres very little to worry about, the aircraft will do what u want it.

others, like p51, spitfire, yak9s seem to require constant attention to keep them flying straight and level, trim can often seem odd on the yaks too. turning,looping and other stuff your fighting the plane todo what u want it too, acurate flying isnt really possible, the plane moves about alot, wobbling (espicaly when slow) by itself (ie pulling a certain amount of elivator, some rudder and aliron probably but not much, but consistant amounts)

some planes also seem to have alot of torque roll at certain times, most noticeable on yak9s and 190s, pulling a turn and the plane will try to roll when u dont want it too.

yaks also drop a wing on takeoff, which is rather alarming, and spitfires seem drunken

faustnik
01-10-2006, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">some planes also seem to have alot of torque roll at certain times, most noticeable on yak9s and 190s, pulling a turn and the plane will try to roll when u dont want it too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but, this is good isn't it? The Fw190s were pulling over 2000hp with a very small plane. I would expect torque to be a big factor. In 4.02 with big throttle adjustments you get big torque effects. I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

p1ngu666
01-10-2006, 01:54 PM
ya but the 190s where tip stally, so :\
im some conditions of flight should be right, in others its wrong...

yaks hardly have alot of power tho, 1250hp i think.

a La series plane is waaay better behaved than a yak

HayateAce
01-10-2006, 02:04 PM
Groovy.

I fully understand flight characteristics and how they are plotted via charts/graphs. "Leaving that to the nerds" simply means I haven't the time, inclination or research materials to pound into anybody's head the fact that there is something wrong with the Mustang FM.

Lot's of folks realize that the P51 was a much better fighter than what oleg has left us with. All the "propaganda" and fanboi accusations in the world cannot erase the fact that for over 40 years, evidence has been published and most of it says one thing: The P51 Mustang was an outstanding fighter. One of the best in the world....and that isn't so in oleg land.

So oleg, let's:

1 - allow for an empty fuse tank to fix the CoG problems
2 - stabilize the nose like the 109 (which is much lighter and should wobble around)
3 - desynch the guns
4 - Give it proper late war Boost

That is all.

http://www.planepix.com/resources/photos/P51D.Cripes_04_JMD184.lg.jpg

faustnik
01-10-2006, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ya but the 190s where tip stally, so :\
im some conditions of flight should be right, in others its wrong...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you explain further please?

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-10-2006, 02:13 PM
I'm going to try to be on-topic guys. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Altough the IBTL interpretation by nakamura_kenji was hilarious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

First of all, I did not bother to read the entire thread so, I might write things that are allready being stated by other people.

1.Early Mustang variants (P-51D-5 and below) did not have the extension of the stabilizer. With the D-20 (and on some D-5's as well) they mounted an extension a bit in front of the horizontal stabilizer. It made the aircraft alot more stable in flight. Less stalls and spins.

2. The mustang elevator is indeed very sensitive. A bit too much I think. Luckily you can reduce this effect by setting the stick sensitivity (Pitch axis!!) in PF. Default is:
0-10-20-30 bla bla
Try doing 0-9-18-27 bla bla And notice the diffrence. Expiriment a bit if you want. It made a big diffrence for me.

GR142-Pipper
01-10-2006, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Here we go again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
The p-51 is modelled perfectly in that it will be very unstable when you are carrying full fuel and the aft fuselage tank is full. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>However, it behaves in the same "aft CG" way with 25% or 50% fuel as modeled in this game.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-10-2006, 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 robban75:
That's the way the damage is modelled in the game.

Do like this, start at 5000m, excecute a 50-60 degree dive. Go full nose up trim, but maintain that 50-60 deg dive. When you reach around 650-750km/h IAS, yank hard back. See what happens. Or I can send you tracks? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Rhetorical question: Other than the P-51, how many have experienced wing failure as a result of too many G's being applied (as is the case in the P-51 modeling) vice simply exceeding the redline limit of the airframe? Precious few if any I'd be willing to wager. Other than the P-51, I've never experienced wing loss to to excessive G's.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-10-2006, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
a La series plane is waaay better behaved than a yak </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's very true. The Yak-3/3P became quite squirrly with 4.02...hardly real world.

GR142-Pipper

BigganD
01-10-2006, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Groovy.

I fully understand flight characteristics and how they are plotted via charts/graphs. "Leaving that to the nerds" simply means I haven't the time, inclination or research materials to pound into anybody's head the fact that there is something wrong with the Mustang FM.

Lot's of folks realize that the P51 was a much better fighter than what oleg has left us with. All the "propaganda" and fanboi accusations in the world cannot erase the fact that for over 40 years, evidence has been published and most of it says one thing: The P51 Mustang was an outstanding fighter. One of the best in the world....and that isn't so in oleg land.

So oleg, let's:

1 - allow for an empty fuse tank to fix the CoG problems
2 - stabilize the nose like the 109 (which is much lighter and should wobble around)
3 - desynch the guns
4 - Give it proper late war Boost

That is all.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Learn to fly it or stay in you spit

luftluuver
01-10-2006, 03:27 PM
The instability of the P-51 with full wing and fuselage tanks is overblown.

The 12 P-51s of the 487th FS, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">with full fuel load</span>, took off during the attack on Asch Jan 1 1945 and dispatched 24 LW fighters, all at low lever. None of the P-51s crashed because of being unstable.

Chuck_Older
01-10-2006, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Groovy.

I fully understand flight characteristics and how they are plotted via charts/graphs. "Leaving that to the nerds" simply means I haven't the time, inclination or research materials to pound into anybody's head the fact that there is something wrong with the Mustang FM.

Lot's of folks realize that the P51 was a much better fighter than what oleg has left us with. All the "propaganda" and fanboi accusations in the world cannot erase the fact that for over 40 years, evidence has been published and most of it says one thing: The P51 Mustang was an outstanding fighter. One of the best in the world....and that isn't so in oleg land.

So oleg, let's:

1 - allow for an empty fuse tank to fix the CoG problems
2 - stabilize the nose like the 109 (which is much lighter and should wobble around)
3 - desynch the guns
4 - Give it proper late war Boost

That is all.

http://www.planepix.com/resources/photos/P51D.Cripes_04_JMD184.lg.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point 1- Certainly. if there is in fact a CoG problem with the flight model due to that. is there?

Point 2- I would need proof that the Bf 109 should exhibit more of this trait because of simply less weight, and that the P-51 should experience less simply because of more weight. Weight where? This is a vague idea you're expressing

Point 3- this doesn't make the P-51 fly better in the game, so addrerss this in another topic. Your complaint is that the P-51 is unstable.

Point 4- what about non-late war planes?


Seems to me that your issue is with late war Mustangs

My own points:

1) You are saying that there's evidence that the Mustang was one of the best, or if not one of then THE the best. Quantifying that is important...in effect you're just saying it needs to be "better". In what ways? Nose wander? Fix it with your settings. "The best" is purely subjective. Purely. I am a big Mustang fan, and I know that fighters in WWII were constantly upgraded, changed (sometimes radically) and altered in the field to gain an edge. How does the P-51 become 'the best' in terms of this sim...are you flying the aircraft against it's historical opponents??

2) What about early Mustangs? We have several things that make early Mustangs too good! the biggest one: no gun jams

3) have you ever considered that the P-51D, before it hade it's vertical stabiliser fillet added, was in fact considered unstable in some regards?

4) The P-51 is a high performance aircraft. real life pilots noted that the P-51 could be a handful, and that it could have bad stability traits until you were used to the plane...which was true of almost ANY WWII aircraft

5) We read things like this: "The P-51D enjoyed a great improvement in visibility with it's all-round view canopy"...and then somebody says "I can't see behind me! Oleg, you screwed up! the great visibility is ruined!".

Well, that is from that person's persepctive, nd the only one he has considered. And that is because the issue is taken completely out of it's historical context. To the first pilots who flew a bubble canopy, it was a great improvement, and not because they could simply see behind them. but we as players only key on things that impact the game

And lastly, if you want to make some points about how a plane should be better, but you don't have the time or inclination to provide data...then whose fault is that, exactly? the "nerds" fault? No. It is your responsibility to provide credence for your own arguments. In the realm of technical matters, if you can't back up your claims, they will only ever be claims. that is to say, they are no better than a wild guess or personal opinion. if you can't understand that, then you don't know half as much about aeronautics as you seem to think you do



edit~ typos abound. I have carbon fiber splinters in one of my fingers so typing is a little odd

Stachl
01-10-2006, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
That's the way the damage is modelled in the game.

Do like this, start at 5000m, excecute a 50-60 degree dive. Go full nose up trim, but maintain that 50-60 deg dive. When you reach around 650-750km/h IAS, yank hard back. See what happens. Or I can send you tracks? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Rhetorical question: Other than the P-51, how many have experienced wing failure as a result of too many G's being applied (as is the case in the P-51 modeling) vice simply exceeding the redline limit of the airframe? Precious few if any I'd be willing to wager. Other than the P-51, I've never experienced wing loss to to excessive G's.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do, in a D-9 during an online war. Would you like the tape or would proof that you are wrong again ruin your day?

GR142_Astro
01-10-2006, 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 luftluuver:
The instability of the P-51 with full wing and fuselage tanks is overblown.

The 12 P-51s of the 487th FS, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">with full fuel load</span>, took off during the attack on Asch Jan 1 1945 and dispatched 24 LW fighters, all at low lever. None of the P-51s crashed because of being unstable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Wow, this certainly won't ever happen in 4.02. I certainly hope Oleg and company will take a look at the Stang before the next patch. It really has become quite useless.

Shame, I used to enjoy it quite a bit.


http://www.mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/survivors/pages/picfiles/44-74536/44-74536_31_jd3.jpg

robban75
01-10-2006, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Rhetorical question: Other than the P-51, how many have experienced wing failure as a result of too many G's being applied (as is the case in the P-51 modeling) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have. But it was long ago when the D-9's elevator was as effective as that of the Mustang.

p1ngu666
01-10-2006, 04:35 PM
190 used to skid alot in turns, i dont think it was as bad as the p51, it was there tho, for sure..

Aaron_GT
01-10-2006, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Happy
Rhetorical question: Other than the P-51, how many have experienced wing failure as a result of too many G's being applied (as is the case in the P-51 modeling) vice simply exceeding the redline limit of the airframe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much as with robban75, in the 190D9 it was easy. Haven't tried the D9 in the latest patch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1) You are saying that there's evidence that the Mustang was one of the best, or if not one of then THE the best. Quantifying that is important...in effect you're just saying it needs to be "better". In what ways? Nose wander? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When someone a while ago posted the details of USN trials of the P51 I noted that a common criticism was that it was not a stable enough gun platform for many USN pilots (compared to the F6F and F4U, presumably). In the game, though the P51 isn't particularly unstable unless you yank and bank a lot, and the great virtue of the P51 is that it keeps is speed very well indeed if you fly in BnZ manouevers. The guns lack the punch of the 190 for this, but it is a more stable gunplatform and flies much more smoothly than any 190 apart from the D9 due to the 190's relatively unstable roll axis. (See note on D9 elevator effectiveness previously, though). It is the 190D9 that compares mostly closely with the P51, I feel - they both have that 'smooth' feeling.

Brain32
01-10-2006, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Rhetorical question: Other than the P-51, how many have experienced wing failure as a result of too many G's being applied (as is the case in the P-51 modeling) vice simply exceeding the redline limit of the airframe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In 190D and Ta-152 breaking wings is as easy as on P51.I broke both 152 2 days ago, and D9 few weeks ago, I didn't boke wings on P51 though, but that was only because I was extra cauctious due to constant RED whining.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I certainly hope Oleg and company will take a look at the Stang before the next patch. It really has become quite useless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for other things about P51 in game, all I can say is that it's perfectly good, and to prove it I went online, did some killing, recorded the whole expirience and made it public. Where are your tracks? How and why is it unusable, maybe because it climbs like hell, turns like mad, and it's **** fast? You guys should really stop making circles on the deck and start using your planes the way they were meant to be used...
EDIT: I don't see anybody mentions P47, I think you should http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-10-2006, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stachl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
That's the way the damage is modelled in the game.

Do like this, start at 5000m, excecute a 50-60 degree dive. Go full nose up trim, but maintain that 50-60 deg dive. When you reach around 650-750km/h IAS, yank hard back. See what happens. Or I can send you tracks? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Rhetorical question: Other than the P-51, how many have experienced wing failure as a result of too many G's being applied (as is the case in the P-51 modeling) vice simply exceeding the redline limit of the airframe? Precious few if any I'd be willing to wager. Other than the P-51, I've never experienced wing loss to to excessive G's.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do, in a D-9 during an online war. Would you like the tape or would proof that you are wrong again ruin your day? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My day is never ruined by what goes on on this little forum. I'll take your word for it but I bet it's safe to say that it's a situation that is more common to the P-51 than any other type.

GR142-Pipper

UberPickle
01-10-2006, 06:11 PM
I play the game on full realism and I have little or no problems with the stablity of the P51D. Maybe the guy is trying to hard to catch that bogey?

Now that's Decidcation (besides the time I rammed that He-111Z with a Brewster)

BfHeFwMe
01-10-2006, 06:32 PM
Trim? Are you kidding? It proves beyond a doubt how porked the G loading system is in this game.

Where were you when the X-1 project was going on, you could have mentioned to Yeager he could trim his way out of a high speed nose down sitiuation. LoL

And to pull 15 G with a simple Tab, ludicrous. Throw book away and never look again, be sure.

VFS-22_SPaRX
01-10-2006, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Other planes just need some trimming in order to reach 15G's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the P51 just needs some trimming to NOT hit 15gs. End result, no loss of wing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

geetarman
01-10-2006, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Groovy.

I fully understand flight characteristics and how they are plotted via charts/graphs. "Leaving that to the nerds" simply means I haven't the time, inclination or research materials to pound into anybody's head the fact that there is something wrong with the Mustang FM.

Lot's of folks realize that the P51 was a much better fighter than what oleg has left us with. All the "propaganda" and fanboi accusations in the world cannot erase the fact that for over 40 years, evidence has been published and most of it says one thing: The P51 Mustang was an outstanding fighter. One of the best in the world....and that isn't so in oleg land.

So oleg, let's:

1 - allow for an empty fuse tank to fix the CoG problems
2 - stabilize the nose like the 109 (which is much lighter and should wobble around)
3 - desynch the guns
4 - Give it proper late war Boost

That is all.


amen bro!

http://www.planepix.com/resources/photos/P51D.Cripes_04_JMD184.lg.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

p-11.cAce
01-10-2006, 07:37 PM
It always cracks me up when people start in about how the planes "wander" or "always need trimming" etc. - well what do you expect planes to do? Christ if you could just trim and forget flying on instruments would be piece-o-cake simple, navigating would be error free and turbulence would be nothing. Even in a crappy little Cessna you trim it up, take your hands off the yoke, and in a moment the nose is wandering off one way a wing drops another way and soon you are going everywhere but where you want to. The only plane I've flown that remotely stays put is my blanik sailplane - of course with no prop, motor, or torque and long wings and fuselage it does not have much to disturb it.

BfHeFwMe
01-10-2006, 07:57 PM
Wandering trim? Is this the same thread? I thought it was about P-51 wings falling off to easy.

More like fanboy side skirt another issue thread.

horseback
01-10-2006, 08:54 PM
Almost every aircraft in this game that carries its guns mid-wing has a tendency to swing back and forth a bit when you fire them. I experienced this myself in an I-16 Type 24 this afternoon.

Apparently, Oleg thinks that there was a noticeable difference in the time it takes electrical impulses to reach each wings' guns and thought that it would add to immersion by modelling the recoil effect as each wing's armament alternately fired. Since most American aircraft featured HMGs in their wings, they are more prone to this effect than, say, the Me 109 (except for the Emils).

In Oleg's defense, however, I should point out that the Merlin Mustang is almost universally noted as a 'trim' plane; one that constantly needed trim adjustment as speed or throttle varied. The problem for the virtual flyer is the lack of inner ear/seat of the pants input. You can occasionally glance at the 'ball', which is conveniently placed below the gunsight as well as on the instrument panel, although the 'delayed trim effect' can be a real pain in the gluteous, and the location of the ball is sometimes deceiving.

That said, the fact is that the P-40 was even more of a 'trim' aircraft, and it's not nearly so finicky in this game. The Mustang FM seems a bit like a caricature to me at times, with certain things (usually the faults) a bit exaggerated. Every other aircraft has to trim its way to the 15G breaking point, but the Mustang's pilot is blessed with the strength of the ubermensch.

Almost EVERY aircraft that received a more powerful engine received a compensating larger/longer vertical stabilizer: the Spitfire VIII/IX got the bigger pointed rudder, the P-40F/K/L/M/N had longer tails, the later 109s had the tall wooden tails, the 190D had the fuselage extension and the bigger tail, and the later P-47 Bubbletops had a fin fillet similar to the D model Mustang.

The Allison Mustangs were notable for their smooth handling as much as their speed and range at low-medium alts; the addition of the heavier and more powerful Merlin made a difference, but not enough to justify a further delay in delivering an easily mass produced long range escort by changing vertical tail surfaces.

It was the loss of the vertical surface in the cutdown fuselage of the D model that made the fin fillet necessary, and it might be noted that the remaining B and C models were often given the fin fillet too, which indicates to me that even the razorback's lateral stability was helped by it.

In short, the Mustang may well have been a bit unstable; just not as much as HayateAce.

cheers

horseback

Professor_06
01-10-2006, 09:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Groovy.

I fully understand flight characteristics and how they are plotted via charts/graphs. "Leaving that to the nerds" simply means I haven't the time, inclination or research materials to pound into anybody's head the fact that there is something wrong with the Mustang FM.

Lot's of folks realize that the P51 was a much better fighter than what oleg has left us with. All the "propaganda" and fanboi accusations in the world cannot erase the fact that for over 40 years, evidence has been published and most of it says one thing: The P51 Mustang was an outstanding fighter. One of the best in the world....and that isn't so in oleg land.

So oleg, let's:

1 - allow for an empty fuse tank to fix the CoG problems
2 - stabilize the nose like the 109 (which is much lighter and should wobble around)
3 - desynch the guns
4 - Give it proper late war Boost

That is all.

http://www.planepix.com/resources/photos/P51D.Cripes_04_JMD184.lg.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%

That is enough.

(well, I would like it to have the CG of the Frank. The "no adverse Yaw" plane.)

Fish6891
01-10-2006, 11:39 PM
Hey Geetarman,

Whats ur sign on for WC again?

GR142-Pipper
01-10-2006, 11:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
It always cracks me up when people start in about how the planes "wander" or "always need trimming" etc. - well what do you expect planes to do? Christ if you could just trim and forget flying on instruments would be piece-o-cake simple, navigating would be error free and turbulence would be nothing. Even in a crappy little Cessna you trim it up, take your hands off the yoke, and in a moment the nose is wandering off one way a wing drops another way and soon you are going everywhere but where you want to. The only plane I've flown that remotely stays put is my blanik sailplane - of course with no prop, motor, or torque and long wings and fuselage it does not have much to disturb it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you have any experience flying real planes? If you do, then you'd know that they just don't require the level of trim attention the likes of many aircraft here do in this game. A simple bank with slight G loading can throw many planes straight out of trim (to wit: Spit, P-51, even Yak-3). It's just not realistic whatsoever.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-10-2006, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Almost every aircraft in this game that carries its guns mid-wing has a tendency to swing back and forth a bit when you fire them. I experienced this myself in an I-16 Type 24 this afternoon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's not only yaw axis wandering that's the problem. My major issue is with wandering in the pitch axis regarding the P-51. It's so bad that I don't even bother with the plane anymore as it's not a serious fighter (it was, of course, in real life but not in Oleg-land).

GR142-Pipper

StG77_Stuka
01-11-2006, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Groovy.

I fully understand flight characteristics and how they are plotted via charts/graphs. "Leaving that to the nerds" simply means I haven't the time, inclination or research materials to pound into anybody's head the fact that there is something wrong with the Mustang FM.

Lot's of folks realize that the P51 was a much better fighter than what oleg has left us with. All the "propaganda" and fanboi accusations in the world cannot erase the fact that for over 40 years, evidence has been published and most of it says one thing: The P51 Mustang was an outstanding fighter. One of the best in the world....and that isn't so in oleg land.

So oleg, let's:

1 - allow for an empty fuse tank to fix the CoG problems
2 - stabilize the nose like the 109 (which is much lighter and should wobble around)
3 - desynch the guns
4 - Give it proper late war Boost

That is all.

http://www.planepix.com/resources/photos/P51D.Cripes_04_JMD184.lg.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Shamefully true I'm afraid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Aaron_GT
01-11-2006, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Apparently, Oleg thinks that there was a noticeable difference in the time it takes electrical impulses to reach each wings' guns and thought that it would add to immersion by modelling the recoil effect as each wing's armament alternately fired. Since most American aircraft featured HMGs in their wings, they are more prone to this effect than, say, the Me 109 (except for the Emils). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It might be an attempt to model the precession you get when applying force to a gyroscope (prop). The force should be the same no matter where the guns are mounted, as long as they are applying the overall force perpendicular to the gyroscope, but planes with wing guns tend to have more guns, so on average the effect will be larger. The way to test would be with the B-239 - two wing mounted 50s and two fuselage mounted 50s on different triggers.

p1ngu666
01-11-2006, 09:22 AM
the 7mm guns on il2 shake plane more than the 23mm cannons. same on some spits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

the il2's guns could hardly be any closer together..

darkhorizon11
01-11-2006, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
Other planes just need some trimming in order to reach 15G's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/OOPS.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't quite but my finger on it but is there some sort of pattern here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

p-11.cAce
01-11-2006, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> posted by Gr142:
Do you have any experience flying real planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've nearly 1000 hours flight time spread among ultralights, sailplanes, and light aircraft - Mostly C-152 and Diamond Katana. Any change in attitude, power, or configuration will require a trim change. If you bank into a turn and pull even a small amount of G the angle of attack must be increased to compensate for the additional downward force experienced by the aircraft. This increase in angle of attack will result in a loss of airspeed unless a power change is applied which exactly matches the increased drag due to a larger angle of attack. Now if you roll out of this turn and are able to reduce power and angle of attack to exactly match the trim condition you were in before entering the turn then you are right - you will not need to re-trim. However the moment you begin to bank into a turn, apply or decrease power, or increase or decrease your angle of attack you will have to make a trim change. If you have any real life experience you would know that is why the trim switch is always on or right near the yoke or control stick and is usually polished to a high sheen - it is the most used control in any aircraft!

darkhorizon11
01-11-2006, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> posted by Gr142:
Do you have any experience flying real planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've nearly 1000 hours flight time spread among ultralights, sailplanes, and light aircraft - Mostly C-152 and Diamond Katana. Any change in attitude, power, or configuration will require a trim change. If you bank into a turn and pull even a small amount of G the angle of attack must be increased to compensate for the additional downward force experienced by the aircraft. This increase in angle of attack will result in a loss of airspeed unless a power change is applied which exactly matches the increased drag due to a larger angle of attack. Now if you roll out of this turn and are able to reduce power and angle of attack to exactly match the trim condition you were in before entering the turn then you are right - you will not need to re-trim. However the moment you begin to bank into a turn, apply or decrease power, or increase or decrease your angle of attack you will have to make a trim change. If you have any real life experience you would know that is why the trim switch is always on or right near the yoke or control stick and is usually polished to a high sheen - it is the most used control in any aircraft! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gr you just got served.

BSS_Vidar
01-11-2006, 03:10 PM
True statement about not feeling the forces in the aircraft and environment which would allow you to act accordingly. (Buffet, stall, G's)

Their is no way that you could be able to achieve 15 G's without some sort of aeromedical effect on the pilot i.e tunnel vision or complete black out - before that wing pops off, but we get that in-game. Particularly excessive in the P-51's damage model.

I've allways had a pet-peeve about the aircrews aeromedical values from one aircraft to the next in this game. While blackout is achievable in all fighter aircraft in this game, it is by no means equal. Yes I fly both sides and notice the difference in airspeeds, rate of turns, and arch at specific speeds.

BTW, I have flown a P-51... and this ain't it folks.

Good thing this is JUST a game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

robban75
01-11-2006, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
I can't quite but my finger on it but is there some sort of pattern here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

GR142_Astro
01-11-2006, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> posted by Gr142:
Do you have any experience flying real planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've nearly 1000 hours flight time spread among ultralights, sailplanes, and light aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gr you just got served. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee I just don't know about that. Between P11-ace and Pipper, one of them has time in combat aircraft, and me thinks I know who.

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

fordfan25
01-11-2006, 04:01 PM
IMHO nearly all the fighters in the game are to unstable. just some like the the stang,47 are a little worse. there just to twitch and wobblie even with full stick filter. play CFS2 then play FB+AEP+PF. i think the truth is some were in between.

fordfan25
01-11-2006, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> posted by Gr142:
Do you have any experience flying real planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've nearly 1000 hours flight time spread among ultralights, sailplanes, and light aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gr you just got served. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee I just don't know about that. Between P11-ace and Pipper, one of them has time in combat aircraft, and me thinks I know who.

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

astro,any chance that sig of yours could be made into a desk top wallpapper? im loven it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif M

Bo_Nidle
01-11-2006, 04:43 PM
I've never had a structural failure in any aircraft during ACM.

What am I doing wrong?

With the P-51 I tend to trim a little "nose heavy".
Don't get me wrong, I'm no ace flyer,I get my behind handed to me often and regularly,(and I only fly off line!) but the only time I have my aircraft fall to pieces due to speed/G is when i set out to test them from altitude.

I would agree that they have become more unstable with each successive patch. The P-47 swinging to the right when firing is quite odd as is the skittish handling of the P-51.Hopefully it will be modified in the next patch?

GR142-Pipper
01-11-2006, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> posted by Gr142:
Do you have any experience flying real planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've nearly 1000 hours flight time spread among ultralights, sailplanes, and light aircraft - Mostly C-152 and Diamond Katana. Any change in attitude, power, or configuration will require a trim change. If you bank into a turn and pull even a small amount of G the angle of attack must be increased to compensate for the additional downward force experienced by the aircraft. This increase in angle of attack will result in a loss of airspeed unless a power change is applied which exactly matches the increased drag due to a larger angle of attack. Now if you roll out of this turn and are able to reduce power and angle of attack to exactly match the trim condition you were in before entering the turn then you are right - you will not need to re-trim. However the moment you begin to bank into a turn, apply or decrease power, or increase or decrease your angle of attack you will have to make a trim change. If you have any real life experience you would know that is why the trim switch is always on or right near the yoke or control stick and is usually polished to a high sheen - it is the most used control in any aircraft! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>My experience is well over 1000 hours in high performance tactical jets (F-4/F-14) in addition to some T-34 and T-28 time so I have a working familiarity with trim requirements. In this game the trim requirements on many aircraft are nothing short of excessive.

GR142-Pipper

GR142_Astro
01-11-2006, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
astro,any chance that sig of yours could be made into a desk top wallpapper? im loven it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif M </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I haven't looked at that file in awhile. I did compile it in photoshop, I just don't recall how large the original shot of the 2 aircraft is. I'll dig it up and check it fer ya.

GR142-Pipper
01-11-2006, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
True statement about not feeling the forces in the aircraft and environment which would allow you to act accordingly. (Buffet, stall, G's)

Their is no way that you could be able to achieve 15 G's without some sort of aeromedical effect on the pilot i.e tunnel vision or complete black out - before that wing pops off, but we get that in-game. Particularly excessive in the P-51's damage model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Very true. At 15 G's, there is NO WAY that the pilot wouldn't be blacked out before the wings left the aircraft. Absolutely no way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've allways had a pet-peeve about the aircrews aeromedical values from one aircraft to the next in this game. While blackout is achievable in all fighter aircraft in this game, it is by no means equal. Yes I fly both sides and notice the difference in airspeeds, rate of turns, and arch at specific speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This has long been a suspicion of mine as well. All G's aren't created equal in this game.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-11-2006, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> posted by Gr142:
Do you have any experience flying real planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've nearly 1000 hours flight time spread among ultralights, sailplanes, and light aircraft - Mostly C-152 and Diamond Katana. Any change in attitude, power, or configuration will require a trim change. If you bank into a turn and pull even a small amount of G the angle of attack must be increased to compensate for the additional downward force experienced by the aircraft. This increase in angle of attack will result in a loss of airspeed unless a power change is applied which exactly matches the increased drag due to a larger angle of attack. Now if you roll out of this turn and are able to reduce power and angle of attack to exactly match the trim condition you were in before entering the turn then you are right - you will not need to re-trim. However the moment you begin to bank into a turn, apply or decrease power, or increase or decrease your angle of attack you will have to make a trim change. If you have any real life experience you would know that is why the trim switch is always on or right near the yoke or control stick and is usually polished to a high sheen - it is the most used control in any aircraft! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gr you just got served. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Riiiiiight. (snicker)

GR142-Pipper

p-11.cAce
01-11-2006, 06:22 PM
I did not question your experience - and anyone with T-28 time is in a much better position to speak about this than I - Christ the horizontal stab from a f-4 probably weighs more than anything I've ever flown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif All my flying has been in light a/c and sailplanes - both of which experience large & rapid trim changes as speeds and attitudes vary. In my flight experience I'm used to working the trim alot so I guess I just never gave it much thought. In my Blanik I use the trim more as a "stick pusher" - I trim it out so when I get to slow in a thermal the stick forces ramp up reminding me to drop the nose and regain airspeed.
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c99/acmeaviator/l-23blanik.jpg

GR142-Pipper
01-11-2006, 07:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is one beautiful sailplane. Czech?

GR142-Pipper

darkhorizon11
01-11-2006, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> posted by Gr142:
Do you have any experience flying real planes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've nearly 1000 hours flight time spread among ultralights, sailplanes, and light aircraft - Mostly C-152 and Diamond Katana. Any change in attitude, power, or configuration will require a trim change. If you bank into a turn and pull even a small amount of G the angle of attack must be increased to compensate for the additional downward force experienced by the aircraft. This increase in angle of attack will result in a loss of airspeed unless a power change is applied which exactly matches the increased drag due to a larger angle of attack. Now if you roll out of this turn and are able to reduce power and angle of attack to exactly match the trim condition you were in before entering the turn then you are right - you will not need to re-trim. However the moment you begin to bank into a turn, apply or decrease power, or increase or decrease your angle of attack you will have to make a trim change. If you have any real life experience you would know that is why the trim switch is always on or right near the yoke or control stick and is usually polished to a high sheen - it is the most used control in any aircraft! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gr you just got served. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was just looking for an excuse to say that, nothing personal

Bearcat99
01-11-2006, 09:56 PM
It would be nice if fuel tanks were properly modeled in FB.. but they arent.. and they probably wont be... the bottom line is.. it is what it is.... so we either deal with it or we fly something else. I like the P-51 regardless so I am trying my best to just learn how to handle it as it is.

p1ngu666
01-11-2006, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
True statement about not feeling the forces in the aircraft and environment which would allow you to act accordingly. (Buffet, stall, G's)

Their is no way that you could be able to achieve 15 G's without some sort of aeromedical effect on the pilot i.e tunnel vision or complete black out - before that wing pops off, but we get that in-game. Particularly excessive in the P-51's damage model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Very true. At 15 G's, there is NO WAY that the pilot wouldn't be blacked out before the wings left the aircraft. Absolutely no way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've allways had a pet-peeve about the aircrews aeromedical values from one aircraft to the next in this game. While blackout is achievable in all fighter aircraft in this game, it is by no means equal. Yes I fly both sides and notice the difference in airspeeds, rate of turns, and arch at specific speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This has long been a suspicion of mine as well. All G's aren't created equal in this game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ingame, its from spiking 15g, like slamming into a wall.

its not realistic, i think when they was whined to put in gmodeling in, ppl thought it would favour bnz aircraft, the pet favourite of the onwhine webboards. hurrah! yaks and la's and spits and zeros wont be able to turn so much.

the end result is rather ironic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and mostly bogus too

FatBoyHK
01-12-2006, 01:25 AM
one more issue about over-g structural damage, is that it behave differently in online and offline.

Granted, it is tricky in both online and offline, but they are so different it make you wonder....you can practice weeks after weeks offline, finally you can ride on the edge of structural failure freely.....just to found that, you can't do the same maneuver at the same speed at the same altitude online.....

Is it something to do with the lag, or the fundamental bug inside netcode itself, or something else, i don't know..... but I do know this is the run-away number 1 reason of my online death.....

GR142-Pipper
01-12-2006, 02:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It would be nice if fuel tanks were properly modeled in FB.. but they arent.. and they probably wont be... the bottom line is.. it is what it is.... so we either deal with it or we fly something else. ..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed. It's just a pity that Oleg and company can't get the P-51, P-47 and F4U right after all this time. At least at long last the P-38 is much improved.

GR142-Pipper

Abbuzze
01-12-2006, 02:49 AM
At the end the wingbreak at 15g for the P51 just proof one thing: The elevator effectivity of the Mustang is overdone!
Maybe just because without this setup low and mid speed effectivity would be to low, I can´t answer this.
But this elevatorsetup is also the cause for the high speed stall behavior. (It´s just logic!).
I fear it´s simply a limitation of the gameengine, and you have to choose what kind of elevator is worse...
Many plane have to live which such limitations - on both sides!

GR142-Pipper
01-12-2006, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
At the end the wingbreak at 15g for the P51 just proof one thing: The elevator effectivity of the Mustang is overdone!
Maybe just because without this setup low and mid speed effectivity would be to low, I can´t answer this.
But this elevatorsetup is also the cause for the high speed stall behavior. (It´s just logic!).
I fear it´s simply a limitation of the gameengine, and you have to choose what kind of elevator is worse...
Many plane have to live which such limitations - on both sides! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, all Oleg has to do is to program this nonsense away. They were programmed to break (as they didn't do that initially) so they can be programmed not to break. Simple as that.

GR142-Pipper

JG5_UnKle
01-12-2006, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
At the end the wingbreak at 15g for the P51 just proof one thing: The elevator effectivity of the Mustang is overdone!
Maybe just because without this setup low and mid speed effectivity would be to low, I can´t answer this.
But this elevatorsetup is also the cause for the high speed stall behavior. (It´s just logic!).
I fear it´s simply a limitation of the gameengine, and you have to choose what kind of elevator is worse...
Many plane have to live which such limitations - on both sides! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, all Oleg has to do is to program this nonsense away. They were programmed to break (as they didn't do that initially) so they can be programmed not to break. Simple as that.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well not really.

You see when FM adjustments get made they can affect all sorts of things. I think Abbuzze is right - the Pony suffers because of the overmodelled elevator/stickforces/whatevertheheckitis which allow it to pull 15G.

There is nothing wrong with the wings. The wings on all aircraft can pop off at 15G - Fw-190 included.

G does affect all aircraft the same way - it is one model. If you think the Mustang has been singled out and is affected by G in some "special" way then no offense but that's a bit paranoid.

Now if they lower the stick forces then the Pony might not turn so well - we know what would happen then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

The bottom line is this - change your joystick profile, don't yank and bank and enjoy one of the most capable fighters in this sim.

Abbuzze
01-12-2006, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
No, all Oleg has to do is to program this nonsense away. They were programmed to break (as they didn't do that initially) so they can be programmed not to break. Simple as that.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be nice if all the limitations of the gameengine would be such easy to delete... The P51 wing didn´t break initially, because the elevator was not as effective as now! Improving strenght of the wing would be also a nice solution - who need wings ripping of after hits? P51 driver of course not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Noone of us know how deep the 15g breakload is hide in the gamecode!
There are a lot of nonsense in this game. Planes are reaching maximum speed with closed radiators. I´m a 109 Pilot have to fight sometimes more with the engineoverheat than with the enemy... Radiatorsetting for max. speed in the 109 was not closed, but 6.5 cm (2.55 inch) opend. I would like to have a realistic Radiator- but the gamecode is insufficient for this!
In this sim we all have to learn small child lessons sometimes: You don´t allways get, what you want! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anarchy52
01-12-2006, 05:22 AM
A) All aircraft are modelled with 15G structural limit
B) Pilot blacks out in all aircraft at same G number
C) Deflection of the stick is not proportional to control deflection, but to virtual pilot's force applied on virtual stick. For example: 100% deflection of your joystick will not result with 100% deflection of the elevator. It corresponds to deflection with whatever max force virtual pilot can pull which is a constant for all planes in the game.

D) Variables are obviously stick-force-per-G or stick-force-per-deflection-at-speed (You need to apply more force to get the elevator moving at high speed). Another one is elevator effectivenes (how much does the plane "move" at certain speed and certain control surface deflection)

The "P-51 problem" is very simple: P-51 has too low stick force per G at high speed. While high speed (not extreme speed, especially bubbletop models) handling was one of the better traits of the P-51, in game it has fly-by-wire and boosted elevators enabling it to pull extreme G's at high to extreme speed.

Maybe it's not the best term to use, but basically P-51 problem is caused by vastly overmodelled control authority of P-51.

Brain32
01-12-2006, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Maybe it's not the best term to use, but basically P-51 problem is caused by vastly overmodelled control authority of P-51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought about it and found the solution, let's switch elevators, P51 get's late ME109's elevator and vice-versa. That way everybody will be happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p-11.cAce
01-12-2006, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> by GR142-Pipper:
That is one beautiful sailplane. Czech?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep - built by LET in the Czech Republic and is 100% metal which means I save a ton on storage fees compared to a glass ship! They also build a few regional airliners. I would really like to have a L13 Blanik - it is the clipped wing version of the L23 that I fly. LET took the horizontal stab of their L13 single seater, created a one piece canopy and shortened the span; you trade off some glide performance but you gain an airframe certified for aerobatics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TooCooL34
01-12-2006, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I thought about it and found the solution, let's switch elevators, P51 get's late ME109's elevator and vice-versa. That way everybody will be happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I love that idea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FFB stick with tension variation like MSFFB2 really helps P-51 wing breakers.
It gets stiff in high speed so you usually know when not to pull stick hard.
I break it on rare occasions anyway. But that frequency is same with 190s.

OldMan____
01-12-2006, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
True statement about not feeling the forces in the aircraft and environment which would allow you to act accordingly. (Buffet, stall, G's)

Their is no way that you could be able to achieve 15 G's without some sort of aeromedical effect on the pilot i.e tunnel vision or complete black out - before that wing pops off, but we get that in-game. Particularly excessive in the P-51's damage model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Very true. At 15 G's, there is NO WAY that the pilot wouldn't be blacked out before the wings left the aircraft. Absolutely no way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've allways had a pet-peeve about the aircrews aeromedical values from one aircraft to the next in this game. While blackout is achievable in all fighter aircraft in this game, it is by no means equal. Yes I fly both sides and notice the difference in airspeeds, rate of turns, and arch at specific speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This has long been a suspicion of mine as well. All G's aren't created equal in this game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does pilot black out every time they eject in modern jets? No.. and they pass more than 15 g. More important than the amount of G is the amount of time you spend on it to black out.

Just some numbers to prove it. If you spend 1/500 of second at 20 g. Your blood could at WORST case scenario be moved at 0.33m/s for a total of 0,00066 meters. In other words, less than 1 milimiter inside your body... not enough to let your brain out of blood.

But if you spend 1 full second... it would be a completely different story.

Slickun
01-12-2006, 12:09 PM
My Dad, who flew the Mustang a lot, agrees that trimming was something that was almost constant. Also something that became second nature.

p1ngu666
01-12-2006, 12:40 PM
authority is too strong, anyways much isnt used (apart from by acciedent)

abit better or same as p47, that would be good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
01-12-2006, 12:58 PM
Blackout is not caused by the blood actually flowing "downhill". Rather it is caused by the reduction in blood pressure above the heart.

Meanwhile, the pressure within the eye increases (since pressure = M*g*h, where g is the local acceleration).

This reduces the rate at which oxygen can diffuse into the cells of the retina.

This reduction in the rate of oxygen transfer by diffusion takes place much faster than the macroscopic flow of blood downhill.

Once the pressure differential between the blood in the eye and the vitreous humour falls too low blackout will happen after a short time delay determined by the quantity of oxygen, ATP and pigment left in the rods and cones of the eye.

Blackout happens before loss of consciousness because the pressure of the vitreous humour is greater than the pressure of the rest of the tissue fluid - it has to be in order that the eye doesn't collapse.

Bulk downhill flow of blood is not necessary for either blackout or GLOC and seems unlikely as it implies revesed flow through the heart which would likely cause valve damage with serious consequences.

Anti Blackout and GLOC techniques are largely based upon straining which can act to raise blood pressure. Some aerobatic pilots are known to increase their salt intake in an attempt to raise their blood pressure before flight. In addition, it is worth noting that dehydration reduces the volume of the blood and therefore reduces blood pressure. As such, dehydration may be expected to reduce G tolerence.

Since eating lowers blood pressure, it's probably a bad idea to fly right after lunch if you intend to engage in aerobatics. But then you knew that anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BSS_Vidar
01-12-2006, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Does pilot black out every time they eject in modern jets? No.. and they pass more than 15 g. More important than the amount of G is the amount of time you spend on it to black out.

Just some numbers to prove it. If you spend 1/500 of second at 20 g. Your blood could at WORST case scenario be moved at 0.33m/s for a total of 0,00066 meters. In other words, less than 1 milimiter inside your body... not enough to let your brain out of blood.

But if you spend 1 full second... it would be a completely different story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Careful now. Numbers are great but experience over-rides that just a tad. I HAVE ejected from an aircraft... with the weakest seat in the Navy's enventory too: The ESCAPAC- used in S-3's, A-4's, and A-7's. It knocked me out to where I could not see, but I was still concious. My sight did not recover fully untill I broke the surface of the water just in time to watch the J.F.K sail right by me.

Any other seat, GRU-7's in Tomcat A's, Martin/Bakers in Hornets knock the aircrew out cold. They simply wake up in the chute... hopefully. However, my ejection was right after take-off and I rocketed directly into the water after a lateral hard-over off the cat.

G-Lock can and will happen instantaniously if enough G-force is inflicted. 15 G's definatly fits that parameter for instant G-Lock.

As for elevator effectiveness in the Pony. The 190 and 109's are freakisly effective at high speeds without blacking out the pilot, or snaping off wings. I've experieced it from both perspectives in the game.

GR142-Pipper
01-12-2006, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Does pilot black out every time they eject in modern jets? No.. and they pass more than 15 g. More important than the amount of G is the amount of time you spend on it to black out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, they do blackout and typically regain vision upon chute deployment (depending on the altitude of the ejection).

GR142-Pipper

fordfan25
01-12-2006, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
astro,any chance that sig of yours could be made into a desk top wallpapper? im loven it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif M </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I haven't looked at that file in awhile. I did compile it in photoshop, I just don't recall how large the original shot of the 2 aircraft is. I'll dig it up and check it fer ya. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks id appreciate it. i just love that sig and think it would make 4 a killer wallpapper

p1ngu666
01-12-2006, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Does pilot black out every time they eject in modern jets? No.. and they pass more than 15 g. More important than the amount of G is the amount of time you spend on it to black out.

Just some numbers to prove it. If you spend 1/500 of second at 20 g. Your blood could at WORST case scenario be moved at 0.33m/s for a total of 0,00066 meters. In other words, less than 1 milimiter inside your body... not enough to let your brain out of blood.

But if you spend 1 full second... it would be a completely different story. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Careful now. Numbers are great but experience over-rides that just a tad. I HAVE ejected from an aircraft... with the weakest seat in the Navy's enventory too: The ESCAPAC- used in S-3's, A-4's, and A-7's. It knocked me out to where I could not see, but I was still concious. My sight did not recover fully untill I broke the surface of the water just in time to watch the J.F.K sail right by me.

Any other seat, GRU-7's in Tomcat A's, Martin/Bakers in Hornets knock the aircrew out cold. They simply wake up in the chute... hopefully. However, my ejection was right after take-off and I rocketed directly into the water after a lateral hard-over off the cat.

G-Lock can and will happen instantaniously if enough G-force is inflicted. 15 G's definatly fits that parameter for instant G-Lock.

As for elevator effectiveness in the Pony. The 190 and 109's are freakisly effective at high speeds without blacking out the pilot, or snaping off wings. I've experieced it from both perspectives in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

OldMan____
01-12-2006, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Does pilot black out every time they eject in modern jets? No.. and they pass more than 15 g. More important than the amount of G is the amount of time you spend on it to black out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, they do blackout and typically regain vision upon chute deployment (depending on the altitude of the ejection).

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From everything that I have read, they do not black out ALL the times.

anarchy52
01-12-2006, 04:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:

As for elevator effectiveness in the Pony. The 190 and 109's are freakisly effective at high speeds without blacking out the pilot, or snaping off wings. I've experieced it from both perspectives in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't understand how you can compare 109 control effectiveness at high speed with P-51 and FW-190.

Brain32
01-12-2006, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I really don't understand how you can compare 109 control effectiveness at high speed with P-51 and FW-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's obviously a mistake, as 109's have heavyest(overdone?) elevator in the game...

p1ngu666
01-12-2006, 06:23 PM
simple, the p51s featherlight controls weigh about the same as the remains of the dead pilot, and the 109s controls feel like the near set cement that makes the aformentioned pilots headstone.

so anarchy, u is wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Stackhouse25th
01-12-2006, 06:24 PM
CHECK UR JOYSTICK BUDDY!! ITS PROBABLY TOO LOOSE!

Tight Sticks are better

Brain32
01-12-2006, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> CHECK UR JOYSTICK BUDDY!! ITS PROBABLY TOO LOOSE! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks to FoolThrotel's excellent utility I don't have to start the game to tell you:
U is wrong:
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/6779/joys8uv.gif (http://imageshack.us)

GR142-Pipper
01-12-2006, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
Does pilot black out every time they eject in modern jets? No.. and they pass more than 15 g. More important than the amount of G is the amount of time you spend on it to black out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, they do blackout and typically regain vision upon chute deployment (depending on the altitude of the ejection).

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From everything that I have read, they do not black out ALL the times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In nearly all instances there's at minimum a momentary blackout. The chance for the least amount of blackout is a low altitude, slow speed controlled ejection. The faster/higher ejections can result in longer periods of blackout and even periods of complete unconsciousness....or worse.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
01-13-2006, 02:01 AM
It is quite obvious to anyone who plays the game, that the slightest movement on a p51 makes it wobble a lot more than most other planes, it wobbles around its axis like it not moving with any real speed.

The corsair also suffers with this. Why these planes and not any others? Russian planes dont do this.

GR142-Pipper
01-13-2006, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It is quite obvious to anyone who plays the game, that the slightest movement on a p51 makes it wobble a lot more than most other planes, it wobbles around its axis like it not moving with any real speed.

The corsair also suffers with this. Why these planes and not any others? Russian planes dont do this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The obvious and only answer is that they were programmed that way on purpose.

GR142-Pipper

anarchy52
01-13-2006, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It is quite obvious to anyone who plays the game, that the slightest movement on a p51 makes it wobble a lot more than most other planes, it wobbles around its axis like it not moving with any real speed.

The corsair also suffers with this. Why these planes and not any others? Russian planes dont do this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The obvious and only answer is that they were programmed that way on purpose.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Overmodelled control effectiveness resulting in bad control harmony.

carguy_
01-13-2006, 04:56 AM
If one takes a closer look,the VVS planes have little next to no problems compared to USAAF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

AustinPowers_
01-13-2006, 04:57 AM
Trim the FW-190D9 tail heavy, and you can snap the wing off without blacking out.. just like in the Mustang.

robban75
01-13-2006, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
If one takes a closer look,the VVS planes have little next to no problems compared to USAAF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But torque seems to have a greater effect on the VVS birds though. At least it's much more present on the Yak-3 and Yak-9U than on other fighters.

Vipez-
01-13-2006, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The instability of the P-51 with full wing and fuselage tanks is overblown.

The 12 P-51s of the 487th FS, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">with full fuel load</span>, took off during the attack on Asch Jan 1 1945 and dispatched 24 LW fighters, all at low lever. None of the P-51s crashed because of being unstable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Wow, this certainly won't ever happen in 4.02. I certainly hope Oleg and company will take a look at the Stang before the next patch. It really has become quite useless.

Shame, I used to enjoy it quite a bit.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it can happen, sorry to say, but maybe you just are not that good of a virtual pilot..

GR142_Astro
01-13-2006, 09:19 AM
Oh I dunno, I seem to come away from 95% of my 1 v 1's with a big grin on my face. Oh, and if you are being serious that 100% or even 25% fuel loaded Forgotten Battles P51s CANNOT do ANYTHING with 109s down low, then you are just blowing smoke out your backside area.


http://www.cloud9photography.us/reno/RENO000020_NAP-51DMissAmericaPM.jpg

Brain32
01-13-2006, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> P51s can do ANYTHING with 109s down low </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Erhm, what are you doing down low with 109's in a P51?

Xiolablu3
01-13-2006, 01:23 PM
I hope Oleg or the developers are reading this.

I am one of the first to attack some of the young yanks who come into the forum with their 'P51 won the war' threads, but anyone from any country can see that the p51 and Corsair seem to be unfairly modelled in some areas.

It is getting so that people think there is bias against the US planes in the sim, I have never read any quotes from pilots or tests who say that the Corsair or P51 wobbled around when trying to aim their guns.

Its just one of those things (along with other things like the synchronised 50's) that makes flying these planes a little more difficult than it should be, not a massive lot, but add all these little (unhistorical) 'quirks' together and you come out with a big disadvantage vs contemporary planes.

(I fly both sides, I welcome an easy to shoot down p51 when I am in a Dora, but this doesnt make the poor flight model right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif)

GR142_Astro
01-13-2006, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> P51s can do ANYTHING with 109s down low </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Erhm, what are you doing down low with 109's in a P51? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erhm,

Read several posts up:

Originally posted by luftluuver:
The instability of the P-51 with full wing and fuselage tanks is overblown.

The 12 P-51s of the 487th FS, with full fuel load, took off during the attack on Asch Jan 1 1945 and dispatched 24 LW fighters, all at low lever. None of the P-51s crashed because of being unstable.

Erhm. Cough. Erhm.

It means it happened in history, and the outcome cannot be duped in IL2: WobblyBattles

Grey_Mouser67
01-13-2006, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It is getting so that people think there is bias against the US planes in the sim, I have never read any quotes from pilots or tests who say that the Corsair or P51 wobbled around when trying to aim their guns.

Its just one of those things (along with other things like the synchronised 50's) that makes flying these planes a little more difficult than it should be, not a massive lot, but add all these little (unhistorical) 'quirks' together and you come out with a big disadvantage vs contemporary planes.

(I fly both sides, I welcome an easy to shoot down p51 when I am in a Dora, but this doesnt make the poor flight model right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And don't forget about the P&W engines whose radiators don't work....I won't even touch damage modelling...too subjective...the radiator is easily verified and objective.

The instability of the Mustang, imho, has nothing to do with modelling of the fuel tank.

The real Mustang didn't suffer from wobbles when the tank was full, but rather its COG shifted under high G load...this would cause the plane to want to "swap ends". The pilot would be pulling on the stick when suddenly it would lose feeling and he'd have to push on the stick to keep the plane from violently stalling....as long as you weren't in a high G turn, the plane handled like normal.

In addition, the different models in the game, don't all have the tank behind the pilot's seat if my memory is working...and their stability is very similar.