1. #1
    msalama's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,577
    Well, we've heard the yelling here, pro and con, many many times ad nauseum already. This, however, is what a well-known RL P-51 demonstration pilot has to say about the beast and its habits, bad or otherwise...

    Now please be so kind as to notice that I don't have a personal opinion one way or another about the beast and / or its modelling in this game myself. I just wanted to bring this article to your attention, that's all. S!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hippies FTW!
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Nice read, thanks for sharing. IMHO I think the P51 flies better than it ever did in 4.07 and I am enjoying flying it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">



    There are only two types of aircraft ? fighters and targets.

    ? Doyle 'Wahoo' Nicholson, USMC.



    Share this post

  3. #3
    joeap's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,999
    Yea very good find, love that starting procedure though, and the P-51 was one of the "easy" birds??
    Share this post

  4. #4
    VW-IceFire's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,646
    A good read! Its nice when you get all of the propoganda BS out of the way and the real pilots talk about the real airplane and how she handles.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


    Find my missions at Flying Legends and Mission4Today.com.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    DuxCorvan's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    5,968
    Interesting from a pure civil and aerobatic operation point of view but says little or nothing about P-51's combat pros and cons.

    I mean, it says that the plane is touchy to fly now and then, and that it is rewarding and exciting to fly for a pilot (what warbird isn't?), but gives no clue about if Mustang is worthy of his WW2 legend or not.

    A Curtiss Jenny is equally pleasing and exciting to fly aerobatics with, but it doesn't mean Curtiss Jenny 'won WW1'.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Rjel's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,260
    Interesting. But why is this info taken at face value (I'm not saying it's inaccurate) but the boatloads of wartime test pilot and combat pilot reports are dismissed out of hand as propaganda or being of dubious value?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    ______________________________________________

    The man's prayer from The Red Green Show -
    I?m a man, but I can change, if I have to, ?. I guess.

    And remember - keep your stick on the ice.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Originally posted by Rjel:
    but the boatloads of wartime test pilot and combat pilot reports are dismissed out of hand as propaganda or being of dubious value?
    - Because somebody said 0.50cal could burn Tigers.
    - Because somebody said P51s could outturn BF109s at low speed.
    - Because somebody said Bf109s could outturn Spitfire.
    - Because a lots claimed so many kills that RAF pilots laughted at.

    But, above all, in wartime the nation must provide to his people some heroes who demostrated that all is going well: human heroes or metal heroes, it's no difference.

    And this is also called propaganda: good or bad, left or right, it's always propaganda.

    <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    Share this post

  8. #8
    Rjel's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    1,260
    Originally posted by Manu-6S:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rjel:
    but the boatloads of wartime test pilot and combat pilot reports are dismissed out of hand as propaganda or being of dubious value?
    - Because somebody said 0.50cal could burn Tigers.
    - Because somebody said P51s could outturn BF109s at low speed.
    - Because somebody said Bf109s could outturn Spitfire.
    - Because a lots claimed so many kills that RAF pilots laughted at.

    But, above all, in wartime the nation must provide to his people some heroes who demostrated that all is going well: human heroes or metal heroes, it's no difference.

    And this is also called propaganda: good or bad, left or right, it's always propaganda.

    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I'm not talking about what has been beaten to death here. I'm talking about the detailed flight tests done during the war by both the manufacturer and the USAAF and the RAF. Those aren't propaganda IMO. Propaganda wouldn't serve any purpose in that case, except to get a pilot killed. To dismiss wartime studies, flight tests and reports as propaganda or faded memories is laughable.I could care less what has been argued here about whether or not .50 cals ever killed a tank. What I do care about is accurate flight models like most everyone else here. I think finally with 4.07 we have a P-51 that is at least closer to truth than in the past.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    ______________________________________________

    The man's prayer from The Red Green Show -
    I?m a man, but I can change, if I have to, ?. I guess.

    And remember - keep your stick on the ice.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Originally posted by Rjel:
    I'm not talking about what has been beaten to death here. I'm talking about the detailed flight tests done during the war by both the manufacturer and the USAAF and the RAF. Those aren't propaganda IMO. Propaganda wouldn't serve any purpose in that case, except to get a pilot killed. To dismiss wartime studies, flight tests and reports as propaganda or faded memories is laughable.I could care less what has been argued here about whether or not .50 cals ever killed a tank. What I do care about is accurate flight models like most everyone else here. I think finally with 4.07 we have a P-51 that is at least closer to truth than in the past.
    Oh yes, I totally agree. Doc u mented tests aren't propaganda

    And to be unbiased neither the Russian and the german tests were propaganda.

    Before you used the "combat pilot reports" words... pilots accounts and tests, it's sure, are different things. <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

    Share this post

  10. #10
    VW-IceFire's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,646
    Originally posted by Rjel:
    Interesting. But why is this info taken at face value (I'm not saying it's inaccurate) but the boatloads of wartime test pilot and combat pilot reports are dismissed out of hand as propaganda or being of dubious value?
    I haven't read any test pilot reports but those are usually the best to go by. Also folks who fly the plane and paint a fairly objective view of the plane.

    If you're referring to my post them my problem is with the "legend" of the plane getting infront of the abilities of the plane. Some aircraft have no legend and people put them on a fairly even footing. Others like the Mustang, Spitfire, and 109 have a legend to live up to. So we read some anecdote about the plane and expect it to be true 100% of the time. Which is never the case regardless of the plane.

    Combat pilot reports are useful, interesting, and valuable to me. But the don't paint a great picture of what their plane is actually like. You get some sense of it...but not as good as test pilots who are usually more methodical.

    My point largely is to just say that its nice to read about someone who flies the plane and knows its quirks and talks about those instead of trying to link the planes greatness with its victory tally. The two are both impressive features...but not related. I'm very much interested in how the plane flies.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


    Find my missions at Flying Legends and Mission4Today.com.
    Share this post

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... Last ►►