PDA

View Full Version : Gunther Rall 275 Kill German Ace claims P-51 likeliest best fighter



MK2aw
08-13-2004, 11:45 PM
Rall was a 275 kill German Ace (third all time) and got to fly the P-51, P-47 and the P-38

Here is the excerpt and the article is on the link below (fascinating read, talks about all the fighters).

"What was important was the German Air Force had a formation of captured aircraft restored. They came for training to my fighter leader school. Certainly, I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane. I flew it a few times, then I flew the P-47, then I discovered the speed difference, down, perfect. P-38. And I flew the Spitfire. The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane, but with a limited endurance like all the continental aircraft. "


http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

mk2AW

[This message was edited by MK2aw on Fri August 13 2004 at 10:55 PM.]

MK2aw
08-13-2004, 11:45 PM
Rall was a 275 kill German Ace (third all time) and got to fly the P-51, P-47 and the P-38

Here is the excerpt and the article is on the link below (fascinating read, talks about all the fighters).

"What was important was the German Air Force had a formation of captured aircraft restored. They came for training to my fighter leader school. Certainly, I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane. I flew it a few times, then I flew the P-47, then I discovered the speed difference, down, perfect. P-38. And I flew the Spitfire. The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane, but with a limited endurance like all the continental aircraft. "


http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

mk2AW

[This message was edited by MK2aw on Fri August 13 2004 at 10:55 PM.]

Dawg-of-death
08-13-2004, 11:57 PM
I realy would like a P-51.....
Maybe some day. I don't think it is modeled well in the game.

S~

Bad-MF(Mongrel Fighter) AKA .......Dawg-of-death

Dammerung
08-14-2004, 12:07 AM
There was a P-51 at my local Airport, asked my instructor about it after we finished a Flight in a Cessna 152(Great little airplane), and he said he wanted to, but never got to fly in it, It was a two seater.

Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
The whole damn place is full of queers, navigators, and bombadiers...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...

Chuck_Older
08-14-2004, 06:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dawg-of-death:
I don't think it is modeled well in the game.

S~

Bad-MF(Mongrel Fighter) AKA .......Dawg-of-death
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I ask what you base your judgement on?

People who have really flown P-51s in real life say that the FB Mustang has too great a roll rate (like most FB planes do) and it also has a few other departures from reality like some speed issues at certain heights being wrong. But all in all, it is fairly well modelled, according to these people who have really flown them IF you set up your joystick properly.

There have been many threads about the joystick settings to use.

Do a search for a thread in GD and ORR that was posted concerning a man named Captain Eric Brown, and his impressions of flight modelling in FB. Capt. Brown flies 'em for-real.

Please do a bit of research into what's what before you decide what's "right" and "wrong" about the flight model in FB.

Most players of FB have no notion of what real pilots mean when they say "this or that plane was best". FB pilots think of the combat capabilities of a simulated plane that sits in their room only, not of how difficult the plane was to fly in a crosswind, or how difficult it was to take off or land in, or even how hard it was to pull up the undercarriage. Maybe I have a bit of an advantage over some folks because I studied aircraft systems and structures at University and I know many times I thought, "Why on Earth did the designer put that switch for the carb heater there? The pilot would have to take his hand off the stick to even touch it" or "Why is there no neutral position in that hydraulic system?"

*****************************
Killers in America work seven days a week
~ Clash

Bearcat99
08-14-2004, 07:05 AM
Im not surprised. But notice that he said ONE of the best. Even HE could not say which plane was THE best since that is so subjective. I am not sure about the roll rate.. but I think the Pony could be a bit faster.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

Maple_Tiger
08-14-2004, 07:46 AM
Yup, an extra 10% more power would be just right. Then mayby it could reach 703km/h TAS.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

FI WILLIE
08-14-2004, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Rata was slow but tremendous maneuvering aircraft. You never get in a dogfight on a Rata.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
G√ľnther Rall http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Virtus Junxit,
Mors Non Separabit.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQAAAGcT2og50!y1f7NgYX4rH0SBKAJ0*TnOdC3*WtgnO6hGP KX5PiB5W62XzquB*!VrAP7Zdv0N0X0XoOghYlsdCNgJc9MWMJg aWb0iiKk/109g2%20small.jpg
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati


(When all else fails, play dead.)
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QADWAvYSnGZaJjyZNeiWgIEGvdX5tvNMbEyaBCk7k0umnkdtM fvXk7UORkarzGe3nPMS77RyIzTPhfsJQW!gr!MM82pBzaYVzoz WAgBwaSg/******ss.gif

purzel08
08-14-2004, 08:22 AM
ONE of the Best BUT NOT the BEST... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

greetings...

ElAurens
08-14-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Yup, an extra 10% more power would be just right. Then mayby it could reach 703km/h TAS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Tiger...

the P51 in general is pretty well modeled, with three caveats.

1. Seed at altitude for all the models is incorrect. the B/C should be faster up high than the Ds.

2. The B/Cs should be more maneuverable than the Ds.

3. NOT EVERY SINGLE P51 PULLED IT'S WINGS OFF IN HIGH SEED PULL OUTS!!! By far the most incorrect part of the P51 currently.
Most wing losses were traced to bad landing gear locks on certain production blocks, NOT THE ENTIRE PRODUCTION RUN!

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

Yellonet
08-14-2004, 09:45 AM
The P-51 is a lovely bird, especially the P-51B, such beautiful lines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ...and it's a earlier version http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also it's one of the best models in the game ...beautiful http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v332/yellonet/Yellonet_sig.jpg

arcadeace
08-14-2004, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
the P51 in general is pretty well modeled, with three caveats.

1. Seed at altitude for all the models is incorrect. the B/C should be faster up high than the Ds.

2. The B/Cs should be more maneuverable than the Ds.

3. __NOT EVERY SINGLE P51 PULLED IT'S WINGS OFF IN HIGH SEED PULL OUTS!!!__ By far the most incorrect part of the P51 currently.
Most wing losses were traced to bad landing gear locks on certain production blocks, _ NOT THE ENTIRE PRODUCTION RUN!_
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are exactly correct. Not many talk about the shortcomings in the B/C models, possibly because the D is pretty well done and plenty enjoyable.

lbhskier37
08-14-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Yup, an extra 10% more power would be just right. Then mayby it could reach 703km/h TAS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Tiger...

the P51 in general is pretty well modeled, with three caveats.

1. Seed at altitude for all the models is incorrect. the B/C should be faster up high than the Ds.

2. The B/Cs should be more maneuverable than the Ds.

3. __NOT EVERY SINGLE P51 PULLED IT'S WINGS OFF IN HIGH SEED PULL OUTS!!!__ By far the most incorrect part of the P51 currently.
Most wing losses were traced to bad landing gear locks on certain production blocks, _ NOT THE ENTIRE PRODUCTION RUN!_

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like Oleg has said, the only reason P51 pulls its wings off in pullouts is because you are pulling 15Gs+. I really wish he would get rid of the instant full 50lb force on the controls, it would solve a lot of problems in this game I think.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

AdmiralWarlord
08-14-2004, 10:50 AM
Not the plane - it is the Pilot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Sometimes I cannot shoot anything with a P-51, and sometimes I get 3 kills with a P-11. All depends on pilot skill I believe.

My favorite American contribution to the Aircraft world is the P-38. But then again, I am a ground-attack nut http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MK2aw
08-14-2004, 11:13 AM
I said and posted exactly what Rall said "likeliest the best fighter" not "one of "but "likeliest the best fighter".

For my 2 cents the P-51 is modeled just about exactly the way I would expect it to perfomr in real life (a smuch as a game could get it right). Of course there will be nuances with each plane..IT'S A GAME afterall.

In any case great article.

MK2aw

KIMURA
08-14-2004, 02:10 PM
Try the eletrical staring system on the Pony while in Russian winter. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Kimura

WUAF_Badsight
08-14-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
3. __NOT EVERY SINGLE P51 PULLED IT'S WINGS OFF IN HIGH SEED PULL OUTS!!!__ By far the most incorrect part of the P51 currently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok you got a 12G limit placed on the Pony IRL

in FB its 15G B4 the wing comes off

jeez i dunno , you get better than RL stats & still want more

the Ponys turn was overmoddeled in 2.01 too . . . . . would out-turn a LA-7 for one circle

**if their was a smiley that was jerking itself off available id insert it here**

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
08-14-2004, 02:16 PM
In -54*C weather, the P-51 would be recommended to have been pre-heated for 65 minutes with a standard F-1A heater with one duct re-routed to the heater intake. then the prop would be pulled manually to determine any need for additional heating.

after that, the electrical starter should work just fine.


God I love this F-51 flight manual http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/myp51.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Chuck_Older
08-14-2004, 02:23 PM
badsight-

El has a point though

Other aircraft that have a structural weakness or design flaw that may effect only some aircraft in a batch but not others are not saddled with a universal defect that didn't effect all the aircraft.

that would mean that all the Ki-84s should have reduced performance because some had poor maintenance

It also means that the P-51 should suffer a rough running engine every once in a while due to fouled spark plugs- a MUCH more common and documented problem than wing or elevator shedding- and that a sim P51 pilot would have to run at full power for one minute every half hour to clean the plugs out.

El is also on the money that this was a gear door issue in SOME aircraft not all

I agree that the P51 has better performance in some areas than it should, but that doesn't mean that other faults should be piled onto it just because something got overmodelled, does it? I don't think so. Just because it has a better turn than it should, that doesn't make it "OK" that other problems exist with it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/myp51.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-14-2004, 04:03 PM
hey mates one thing

please try a ONE on ONE with the P51 vs a BF109 or FW190, same Jear.
Fly versus an Experianced Pilot.
Than swith the Planes.

i realy don't think that the P51 is "undermodelled" not even in a singel aspect.
The plane was one of the best to it's time.
And the best for its PURPOSE.

One thing you guys never look at.
Do you actually know what laminar-airflow is and how it does influence the "performence" of a wing ?

And loosing a wing at verry HIGH-G-load was not uncommon, thats why 109's prefered to level out verry verry slow from a dive.
If you wanted you could get the 109 out of a dive in secends (trim tail heavy, and pull the stick) but the G-load would go past the 12G and the 109 will have clipped wings, the same is with the P51, the only difference: in the game (and maybe RL too) you have verry good elevator response at high speeds which may results in high-g-loading while pull-out.

just my 2 cents.

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

WUAF_Badsight
08-14-2004, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:

Other aircraft that have a structural weakness or design flaw that may effect only some aircraft in a batch but not others are not saddled with a universal defect that didn't effect all the aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i hope you are not refering to wing snaps

cause the FW-190 & Doras & Ta-152 do it in FB

as do Ki84s among others

the limit was set at 15G . . . . . . but IRL the G limit was 12G as posted by a Mustang fan at this forum



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
that would mean that all the Ki-84s should have reduced performance because some had poor maintenance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

again . . . . we are talking wing snaps here aint we ?

they were introduces in patch 1.22 & are from "over-G" . . . . . not historical operating problems


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I agree that the P51 has better performance in some areas than it should, but that doesn't mean that other faults should be piled onto it just because something got overmodelled, does it? I don't think so. Just because it has a better turn than it should, that doesn't make it "OK" that other problems exist with it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok . . . . but what problems !

the pony in FB is in perfect running condition as are all other A/C

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
08-14-2004, 04:30 PM
Badsight-

you are taking my examples much, much too literally.


I am not saying well, the P-51 has a plug problem in FB. I am not saying that overG wing snapping isn't OK


My examples are used to illustrate my point. My point is not my examples.

My point is this:
Not all models of Mustang exhibited this problem. Also, not all examples of the model that HAD the problem exhibited it.

If you read my other posts on the subject, you will find that i am sickened by the fact that P-51 drivers tend to think that a max stick pressure pullout at 600 mph shouldn't be a problem

The problem is that some Mustangs had a flaw in which a gear door problem could make a wing shear off. Not all. But in FB, ALL Mustangs have this problem.

I made an analogy with this, by saying that this would be like the Ki-84 having a reduction in performance across the board, because SOME had poor maintenance

It is not a comment on how all planes run perectly in FB.

It is simply an example of a problem that is in parallel with the P-51's

SOME Ki-84s had poor maintenance. Should ALL suffer a performance hit? No

SOME P-51s could lose a wing because of an isolated design flaw in certain production blocks. Should ALL P-51s suffer this problem? No.

You are looking much much too hard at the examples and missing the point that they illustrate

i hardly feel that ANY aircraft in FB is operating at less than peak efficiency

I am also not trying to discuss problems with the Ki-84. That was just an example. nothing more.

Do you feel that because certain examples of one model P-51 suffered a problem, ANY problem, that ALL examples of EVERY P-51 should have the same problem?

I do not. I also do not think that just because the P-51 has an overmodelled turn rate it is "OK" that it has other problems magnified.

And that's all. I do not want to talk about the Ki-84. It was just an example of an aircraft that also had problems, and not in FB. You are foucsing on the wrong thing in my post

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/myp51.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

Chuck_Older
08-14-2004, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
hey mates one thing

please try a ONE on ONE with the P51 vs a BF109 or FW190, same Jear.
Fly versus an Experianced Pilot.
Than swith the Planes.

i realy don't think that the P51 is "undermodelled" not even in a singel aspect.
The plane was one of the best to it's time.
And the best for its PURPOSE.

One thing you guys never look at.
Do you actually know what laminar-airflow is and how it does influence the "performence" of a wing ?

And loosing a wing at verry HIGH-G-load was not uncommon, thats why 109's prefered to level out verry verry slow from a dive.
If you wanted you could get the 109 out of a dive in secends (trim tail heavy, and pull the stick) but the G-load would go past the 12G and the 109 will have clipped wings, the same is with the P51, the only difference: in the game (and maybe RL too) you have verry good elevator response at high speeds which may results in high-g-loading while pull-out.

just my 2 cents.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should address who you want to address. "You guys" is not MY name certainly.

And by the way, at Engineering school, we studied laminar flow.

I know what it is, and I also know the P-51 doesn't have true laminar flow. I also don't think I need to prove what I know or don't know to you. If you think I'm full of it, have the pluck to just say it, we'll all be better off.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/myp51.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-14-2004, 04:58 PM
u should read the entire post...

maybe i should have said : "most of you"

but than again, u can not pull 15G and complain about wing-loos...that's BS!

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

WUAF_Badsight
08-14-2004, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I do not. I also do not think that just because the P-51 has an overmodelled turn rate it is "OK" that it has other problems magnified.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed 100%

i think that the planes in FB that lose wing are losing them due to over-G tho

the Me262 catches fire . . . . . we know they had historical manufacturing problems but their catching fire is due to how those turbines actually worked

i dont think there is any plane in FB that has historical manufacturing or operating "problems" moddeled

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

_Neveraine_
08-14-2004, 06:48 PM
The P-51 is a bit too fast (last patch it was 40kms to fast?) at low altitude.

ElAurens
08-14-2004, 06:53 PM
Yes G loading is the cause of the failures in FB (unlike RL I might add), but this mythical 15G is what's bothering me. It is quite easy to shear the wings off a P51 without blacking out. So am I to believe that my "pilot" can withstand 15G during a pull out, but blacks out at 7 or 8 in a turnfight? Something is amiss here. And I have never, ever, once pulled the wings off a Bf 109, no matter how hard I tried. So am I to believe that only the P51 (and several Japanese aircraft) are capable of the magic 15G?

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

plumps_
08-14-2004, 08:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
And I have never, ever, once pulled the wings off a Bf 109, no matter how hard I tried. So am I to believe that only the P51 (and several Japanese aircraft) are capable of the magic 15G?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's a track of a BF-109 K-4 losing its wing from high G load. (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/BF109K4_wing_loss.ntrk)

You have to trim the aircraft tail-heavy to make this possible because otherwise the BF-109's elevator is not effective enough at high speeds to pull such high G loads.

It will happen more easily in aircraft with a more effective elevator like the P-51.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

[This message was edited by plumps_ on Sat August 14 2004 at 07:46 PM.]

Chuck_Older
08-15-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
u should read the entire post...

maybe i should have said : "most of you"

but than again, u can not pull 15G and complain about wing-loos...that's BS!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I misunderstood you

But here is the problem once again:

You start off referring to me with the pronoun "you"

Then you say, I quote: "but than again, u can not pull 15G and complain about wing-loos...that's BS!"

NEVER have I once complained about the wingloss or the stress level required.

I could not make the wings come off the P-51 until I did two things:
1) turned blackouts off
2) kept hauling back the stick at over 600 mph in a vertcal dive.

I still can't do it if I am fighting in the P-51. I have to set up a situation in which I intend to do it.

I argued a lot against the fact that the wings came off because I simply couldn't do it. I wasn't abusing the airframe enough.

But when you say "but than again, u can not pull 15G and complain about wing-loos...that's BS!" you are telling me that it's me complaining that the wings come off at "only" 15gs. And you're correct that it is BS. You're only mistaken that I was the one who said it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/myp51.jpg
Killers in America work seven days a week~
Clash

ElAurens
08-15-2004, 08:20 AM
Curiouser and curiouser.....

I have lost wings repeatedly in online DFs in all models of 51, without encountering blackouts. And yes, blackouts were on. The same maneuvers in the Ki 84 will yeild instant black screen. I may have to do some more testing online... Which leads to another adjunct to this phenomonon, the effect of netcode. I suspect that offline play has somewhat different results than online does.

Sorry for digging a deeper hole here. I am just wanting to get to some resolution of this, because correct modeling will benefit all of us.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

lrrp22
08-15-2004, 12:18 PM
Currently the P-51D does about 370 mph/595 kph at sea level.

AHT shows between 368 mph/592 kph (NAA) and 373/600 (USAAF)@SL for a P-51D at 67" Hg WEP. So FB's P-51D is very consistent with data for a factory fresh P-51D.

Bear in mind that 67" Hg WEP represesents the lowest combat power setting used by P-51D's in WWII. 8th AAF Mustangs ran at 72" beginning in June of '44 with RAF Mustangs pushing 81".


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _Neveraine_:
The P-51 is a bit too fast (last patch it was 40kms to fast?) at low altitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fehler
08-15-2004, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
If you read my other posts on the subject, you will find that i am sickened by the fact that P-51 drivers tend to think that a max stick pressure pullout at 600 mph shouldn't be a problem<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That IS the point exactly, but I dont think you actually understand the problem.

In FB you can pull the 15g-loaded yank on the stick immediately. When in a dive in a real plane, do you think the 50lbs of stick force are there at 1/4 inch pull on the stick? The pull becomes greater the further back you pull.

In the game, you get your great response fromt he elevators because your 50lbs is immediate. You can go from no deflection to full deflection in a split second. That's why you can pull the 15g's necessary to snap a wing on a P51.

All planes have the 15g limit, but THE P51'S ELEVATORS ARE SO OVERMODELLED that you can pull it immediately. You cant snap the wing off of a 109 in the same maneuver because FB WILL NOT ALLOW FULL DEFLECTION in order to simulate heavy stick forces.

That is the problem.

The Solution? Dont yank on the stick at very high speed. How hard is that to comprehend? Yet no one seems to understand that.

Another solution, well, your pony jocks wouldnt like it... Get accurate, accumulative stick forces. But that also means those instant yank pull up into a steep climb moves you use to get away from FW's and 109's wouldnt work anymore, and there would be a lot of boo-hoo'ing in here over that, I assure you.

Just dont be so ham-fisted in the pony, and it wont snap off wings, or go into black out.

The simple fact is that since you can do both, nearly instantaneously, this ONLY means that the plane is more maneuverable at high speeds than any other plane in the game. That is your edge, you can either choose to fly on it, or over it, but over it you will go BOOM!

Or you can do what most dedicated FW pilots have done, like myself... turn down the joystick settings. That's how you make a 190 less jittery in the roll, and that's how you will escape the "Lawn-Dart-from-having-no-wings" effect in the Pony.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

WUAF_Badsight
08-15-2004, 11:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
All planes have the 15g limit, but THE P51'S ELEVATORS ARE SO OVERMODELLED that you can pull it immediately. You cant snap the wing off of a 109 in the same maneuver because FB WILL NOT ALLOW FULL DEFLECTION in order to simulate heavy stick forces.

That is the problem.

The Solution? Dont yank on the stick at very high speed. How hard is that to comprehend? Yet no one seems to understand that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

eheheheh

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WTE_Galway
08-16-2004, 12:16 AM
well actually if you yank hard on the stick during a high speed dive in a real aircraft you get a dynamic stall and the nose attitude changes but the aircraft continues on its existing path straight into the ground

never really experimented with dynamic stalls to see if they are modelled in FB or what effect they have