PDA

View Full Version : Finally, the Mustang



XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:26 PM
Thanks, Oleg.

Been waiting, patiently, for the thing to be flyable in this great game. Never said a word as the fight raged over the last couple of years between the purists for the Eastern Front game, and other folks that wanted to see this great game expanded.

Now, finally, the Pony is here.

First impression is that it IS fast, which was all I ever asked. I set the MG convergance to 200 meters, and have good results if I give a good squirt. If I use the combat flaps turning is OK vs German planes. Decent roll rate at high speeds, and keeping energy and B & Zing seems to work as a tactic. Dive seems to be very good. Hit 800 for a second, and everything held together. With this, we can all put together a set of tactics to fight with. All I ever asked.

Thanks again, Oleg.

BTW, fellas. No flames, OK? My Dad flew it, and was a US fighter pilot for 30 years. I grew up on AF Bases, listening to US pilots talk about the Mustang, Sabre, and Phantom. Forgive me if I seem rather happy about all this.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:26 PM
Thanks, Oleg.

Been waiting, patiently, for the thing to be flyable in this great game. Never said a word as the fight raged over the last couple of years between the purists for the Eastern Front game, and other folks that wanted to see this great game expanded.

Now, finally, the Pony is here.

First impression is that it IS fast, which was all I ever asked. I set the MG convergance to 200 meters, and have good results if I give a good squirt. If I use the combat flaps turning is OK vs German planes. Decent roll rate at high speeds, and keeping energy and B & Zing seems to work as a tactic. Dive seems to be very good. Hit 800 for a second, and everything held together. With this, we can all put together a set of tactics to fight with. All I ever asked.

Thanks again, Oleg.

BTW, fellas. No flames, OK? My Dad flew it, and was a US fighter pilot for 30 years. I grew up on AF Bases, listening to US pilots talk about the Mustang, Sabre, and Phantom. Forgive me if I seem rather happy about all this.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:29 PM
I'm happy you're happy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:53 PM
Right on!
I just cant wait to see some cool missions, squadrons and campaigns that revolve around her!!



http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~nagle/p51dalone.jpg


Atticus

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 03:55 PM
Hmmm.... A Mustang campaign, now thats worth considering! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S! Simon.
<center>

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm).

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/ex1_soon.jpg
<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:01 PM
Aye...Mustang is a fantastic fighter, feels quite good, a real pleasure to fly. But not for the trainee dogfighter, it takes some skill to fly and fight.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:09 PM
Glad you're happy fella, sounds like there's alot of history there for you. For those of us who have actually waited for the 1.2 public release though, well...

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Studio/3972/shootest1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:11 PM
Are you guys flying the official patch? If so, where did you get it. If not, where did you get it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:17 PM
VW-IceFire wrote:
- Aye...Mustang is a fantastic fighter, feels quite
- good, a real pleasure to fly. But not for the
- trainee dogfighter, it takes some skill to fly and
- fight.


Right now Mustang is the easiest plane to fly in the whole planeset, it rivals the light japanes planes very well. Even Zero spins nastier.

All this with fuselage tank full. If you read Mustang manual every maneuver has a special paragraph for restrictions that has to be met when flying with fuselage tank full. Obviously it could not be flown in combat with it. Right now, not only that there is no detrimental flight characteristic with tank full, but it actually flies better than all the planes.

In reality Mustang's handling was a nightmare. Pilots that flew first P-40 or even the lighter and less powerful P-51A thanked God that they did not flew a P-51D first. Due to laminar flow wing it had no buffeting before the stall, a shortcomming that threw Mustang pilots in nasty spins. Are there any nasty spins for FB Mustang. I wasn't able to reacreate one.

Mustang is now the most docile aircraft, which never was in reality. Only mediocre pilots will accept this Mustang model.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/09/0310:19AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:29 PM
ExtremeOne wrote:

"Hmmm.... A Mustang campaign, now thats worth considering!"

Yes, one of your excellent works EO, but without so much Gawddamn this and Gawndamn that. It wasn't the kids that I had to worry about, it was my guests and parents and I guess me too.

EF

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:33 PM
Eisen_Frettchen wrote:
- ExtremeOne wrote:
-
- "Hmmm.... A Mustang campaign, now thats worth
- considering!"
-
- Yes, one of your excellent works EO, but without so
- much Gawddamn this and Gawndamn that. It wasn't the
- kids that I had to worry about, it was my guests and
- parents and I guess me too.
-

LOL!

I didn't create the US voices you're hearing mate, they came with the game.

S! Simon.
<center>

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm).

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/ex1_soon.jpg
<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:38 PM
voxdei2 wrote:
- Right on!
- I just cant wait to see some cool missions,
- squadrons and campaigns that revolve around her!!

Try the IL2 DCG 2.4 (Dynamic Campaign Generator). I don't know if it's compatible with the latest version (i.e. anything AFTER 1.11) but if it is, then it should create dynamic missions for the Mustang. You can find the link for it on Mudmovers.com. Hope this helps!


SSgt Tim Schuster
8MXS Inspection Section
Kunsan AB, Korea

-Defend the Forums!
-Accept Follow-on Patches and stuff!
-Take the Fight Online!

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:50 PM
Aardvark892 wrote:
- voxdei2 wrote:
-- Right on!
-- I just cant wait to see some cool missions,
-- squadrons and campaigns that revolve around her!!
-
- Try the IL2 DCG 2.4 (Dynamic Campaign Generator). I
- don't know if it's compatible with the latest
- version (i.e. anything AFTER 1.11) but if it is,
- then it should create dynamic missions for the
- Mustang. You can find the link for it on
- Mudmovers.com. Hope this helps!
-
-
-

DCG v2.28+ has been set up to allow US Dynamic Campaigns. I tried to get a Mustang one going last night though unsuccessfully.
If you want to use DCG as a replacement for DGen with pilot rosters and so on, make sure you have the USSAF folder Gold Edition (click link in my sig).
Im sure Low (DCG creator) will provide an update soon that will allow the new planes as flyables.

S! Simon.
<center>

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_essential_files.htm).

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/ex1_soon.jpg
<font color="#000000">It's my attitude not my aptitude that determines my altitude.</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:54 PM
No, this is the beta 1.2 patch I finally located. None of the rc stuff yet.

Huckbein_FW, methinks thou protesteth too much about the difficulties of flying the P-51D. Getting it off the ground with a full fuselage tank and wing tanks was difficult. However, the type was easy to fly with the cg moved forward, after about 1/2 the fuselage tank burned.

My Dad says that the plane did give a slight warning before departing, but that was the price you paid for speed given by those wings you seem to dislike. No biggie, learn when it was about to stall, and avoid that. You know, keep the E up and avoid turning fights at low speeds? You know, stay in the Mustang's envelope and avoid the other guy's?

Anyway, this started off ans a rather benign thread, and we got hijacked by ANTI-MUSTANG whining, not AMI whining. Mark this on the calendars, folks.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 05:01 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- Right now Mustang is the easiest plane to fly in the
- whole planeset, it rivals the light japanes planes
- very well. Even Zero spins nastier.
-
- All this with fuselage tank full. If you read
- Mustang manual every maneuver has a special
- paragraph for restrictions that has to be met when
- flying with fuselage tank full. Obviously it could
- not be flown in combat with it. Right now, not only
- that there is no detrimental flight characteristic
- with tank full, but it actually flies better than
- all the planes.
-
- In reality Mustang's handling was a nightmare.
- Pilots that flew first P-40 or even the lighter and
- less powerful P-51A thanked God that they did not
- flew a P-51D first. Due to laminar flow wing it had
- no buffeting before the stall, a shortcomming that
- threw Mustang pilots in nasty spins. Are there any
- nasty spins for FB Mustang. I wasn't able to
- reacreate one.
-
- Mustang is now the most docile aircraft, which never
- was in reality. Only mediocre pilots will accept
- this Mustang model.
-
-
-

Bud Anderson (Mustang Ace) says this about the P-51D:

"In aerial combat it did not matter to me which type of enemy fighter I encountered. I felt that the Mustang could out perform both the ME109 and the FW190 and treated them pretty much the same. The FW190 had an air cooled radial engine and could probably take a little more damage than the liquid cooled ME109. I never encountered any of the twin engine fighters such as the ME110 & ME 410 but it appeared to me that the guy that got there first shot down the most of them."

When asked about his favorite plane he said this:

"The P51D Mustang of course is my favorite propeller driven aircraft. It is a beautiful sight to see in the air and has a wonderful unique special sound of its own. It is a fun aircraft to fly and of course it got me through WW II without a scratch. Lots of nostalgia there!"

He also added this:

"There is no doubt that the Mustang played an important role in gaining air superiority in the skies of Europe that permitted the invasion of Europe and the fall of Germany. It is just an academic question and no one really knows what would have happened if the Mustang had not shown up at just the right time. In my opinion it would have probably extended the war some but not the final outcome. Perhaps we would have kept working on the P-38 extending their range with bigger external tanks and perhaps modifications to carry more internal fuel like was done with the Mustang fuselage tank. I read some where that this was going on but worked was stopped when the Mustang became so successful. As long as we are speculating maybe we would have built something better than the Mustang when the challenge presented itself. There was a fighter being built to specifically escort the bombers over Europe, the XP-75. When the Mustang was modified and showed such great promise the P-75 was canceled. It is a good thing because the P-75 probably could not have defended itself let alone protect the bombers. But maybe its failure would have sparked another new design. Also the Thunderbolt was modified for longer range, the P-47N, and it arrived it time to participate in the last stages of the war in the Pacific. So it certainly would have been available in Europe if that the conflict in that theater had been extended. Also think about the atomic bomb perhaps if the war in that theater was extended we would have been used the bomb in Europe to end the war. You can come up with all kinds of ideas. But, as I said, we will never know what the impact would have been and it is just an academic exercise to speculate what would have happened if we did not have a Mustang during WW II. Hope this gives you thoughts about the subject."




http://faussyorktown.homestead.com/files/grab0006.jpg


Fight to fly, fly to fight, fight to win.
Motto, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School
(TOPGUN)



Message Edited on 11/09/0310:05AM by FA_Maddog

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 05:56 PM
The game does not seem to support a shifting CoG due to fuel usage, and models all fuel tanks as a single large tank. Considering how the CoG problems of the P-51 only came into play with the top fuselage tank full, and the only time a pilot would benefit from the full tank would be for flights far longer than Forgotten Battles can support, it seems likely that Maddox simply modeled the aircraft as if that fuel tank was empty.

As for the departure characteristics, currently none of the aircraft will enter into a flat spin, so it's rather unfair to pan the P-51 for not being spinable. The P-51 stalls about as much as the 190, but it does have less warning to it. Now, this isn't as noticable in the P-51 as it is in the 190, because the P-51 has a somewhat lower stall speed and somewhat better turn rate (you don't have to push it as far as the 190 to get the same turns), and its elevators load up more at high speeds. With the 190, (and the 1.2 P-47 by the way) at high speeds it only takes a little stick deflection to put the aircraft at 30 or 40 degrees AoA. For the P-51, a similare deflection at high speeds would put you at maybe 5 degrees AoA.

Note: That's not saying the P-51 is unmanuverable at high speeds. If the P-51, FW-190, and P-47 all snap stall around 20 degrees AoA (I don't know the precise stall point for them, but it is similare for all three), then the P-51 will seem more stable, simply because its the only one that can't fling itself out of its flight envelope.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 06:39 PM
Harry, as you say, not modeling the cog problems with a full fuselage tank is not cheating. It's a non-factor.

Mustang pilots for the 8th AF flew from England even in late stages of the war. They took off, flew with the fuselage tank until the thing was empty enough for combat, then switched to the exteranls. The chance of encountering an 8th AF Mustang with a C of G problem were remote.

RAF Mustangs for the most part had no fuselage tank at all. They were never mounted.

Fellas, try to understand this....the fuselage tank was used on the first stages of a long flight, and was empty enough for normal combat long before the enemy was likely to be engaged.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 06:52 PM
Slickun wrote:
Hit 800 for a second, and
everything held together.

I hit 1040 on speed bar.At that point the wing flew of./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_113_1068227103.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 06:58 PM
Of course, should be excite but it is still in beta stage and real P-51 pilots test fly and will tell Oleg what should and not. So, wait and find out. One person said about P-51A, yes much different on stall and bluffing, I had heard someone modelig A-36 so maybe we will have Mustang I and II so we will found out different. YES about full fuel cause problem and crash as I had heard that will go unstable if go dogfight.

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 07:17 PM
Huck,

Go crawl back under your rock. For once let someone discuss the Mustang and how nice a plane it is without your usual B.S. propaganda. Sell it somewhere else, we have grown tired of your borish lies and twisted quarter truths.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 07:29 PM
Agreed Eagle. Well said sir.

Huckie.....tell you what bud. grab your favorite German junk pile & meet me in HL. I've got some .50's waiting on you any time you wish. that's an open invatation.

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my USAAF 8th AF Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 07:41 PM
Quote
"Features, Advantages, and Benefits of the P-51

This final Mustang design was superior to anything else that flew at the time. The P-51B had a huge internal gasoline tank capacity (around 425 gallons) and its engine was very economical, using about half the gasoline of other American fighters. This meant its range was 1080 miles and could be extended to 2600 miles when extra drop-tanks were attached to the wings. This made its range far more than any Allied or German fighter's. As far as performance went, it was superior to all others as well. Neither of the other two main American fighters could compete; the P-47 was too heavy and the P-38 had too many technical problems. The British fighters, the Spitfire and the Hurricane, did not have the range, speed, or power. But most important was its superiority over the German fighters, the most important of which were the FW-190 and the Me-109. The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109. The Mustang had between 3000 and 4000 lbs. more weight, and so was able to outdive either German plane. The tightness of its turns was much better than the Me-109 and slightly better than the FW-190. (Grant 31, Boyne 389-390, Bailey 153) The result of all of this was that the Allies now had a plane that could go with the bombers all the way to and from their targets, fight and defeat the bombers' German attackers, and not run out of fuel"

End quote




http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~nagle/p51dalone.jpg


Atticus

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 07:53 PM
Good point Harry,
I have not flown nor will I with more than 50% fuel in the Mustang. There is no need, even with 50% fuel the Mustang has longer legs than any other fighter in this game with 100% fuel and drop tanks. I flew in a 450KM escort then just like in real life after the bombing was done went down low and strafed everything in sight. In total the mission was just short of 2 hours at full throttle or real close on 50% fuel and landed with about a 1/4 tank left.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG




<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 08:02 PM
voxdei2 wrote:
- Quote
- "Features, Advantages, and Benefits of the P-51
-
- This final Mustang design was superior to anything
- else that flew at the time. The P-51B had a huge
- internal gasoline tank capacity (around 425 gallons)

It did??? The D carried 269 US gal internally (92+92+85). Where did the extra 150+ gal go?


- and its engine was very economical, using about half
- the gasoline of other American fighters. This meant
- its range was 1080 miles and could be extended to
- 2600 miles when extra drop-tanks were attached to
- the wings. This made its range far more than any
- Allied or German fighter's. As far as performance
- went, it was superior to all others as well. Neither
- of the other two main American fighters could
- compete; the P-47 was too heavy and the P-38 had too
- many technical problems. The British fighters, the
- Spitfire and the Hurricane, did not have the range,
- speed, or power.

More powerful than the Spitfire's Merlin??? The -3/-7 engines were based on the Merlin 60 series. Then there is the RR Griffon engine which no P-51 ever used.


No doubt the UTs will have something to say about the final parqagraph./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 08:40 PM
Huck, with all respect, you are qute wrong as to the reality of learning to the P-51 in WW2. The P-38 was 2x harder for new and transitional pilots.

You may get a source document from this USAF WPAFB document, here on the USSAF 496th FTG, Fighter Training Group. You will note that this is where many pilots were first in type, and also rotated from the states from the T-6. The P-51 has a very low 85mph stall, it is gentle. The big "snappy" issue is jerking the throttle forward too fast while at low speed.

www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/ (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/) Wright_Flyers/Text/wf13.pdf

"The 496th FTG made its primary contributions to the
war operating as CCRC No. 8 during January-October
1944. After October 1944 the group was relegated to less
substantive missions unrelated to fighter training.
Trained Combat Crew
During 10 months of CCRC No. 8 operations, 2,481 student
pilots entered training with the 496th. With the number
of students assigned in each, there were four categories:
1. P-38 Lightning replacement pilots (ground and flight
training)-718
2. P-51 Mustang replacement pilots (some received
ground training only)-567
KELLEY 33
3. P-51 Mustang transition pilots (new to aircraft;
ground and flight training)-1,179
4. Bomber Scouting Force pilots (ground and flight
training; aircraft not specified)-1795
Category two, P-51 Mustang replacement pilots,
included some pilots who had recently received P-51-type
training in the United States and did not require extensive
additional flying training. These students only attended
ground school with the 496th for theater familiarization.
Category four included Eighth Bomber Command bomber
pilots who cross-trained into fighters to scout weather conditions.
A total of 2,434-or 98.1 percent-of entering student
pilots successfully graduated.96 A few graduates went to
other units for additional training, but records indicated
that the great majority were posted to operational groups
in the Eighth and Ninth Air Forces.97 Table 1 replicates a
table from group records, and lists descriptive data for
each of the group's 43 classes.98


Aircraft accidents were an unfortunate fact of life in the
496th. Seven student pilots were seriously injured, 23
killed, and 53 aircraft were lost in 117 major accidents.99
Table 2 replicates an accident analysis table from group
recordsInjuries or fatal accidents accounted for all but 18 students
who did not complete CCRC training. The extraordinarily
high graduation rate suggested CCRC No. 8 was not
intended to sort out pilots unfit for combat; instead, the
CCRC was a "finishing school" for pilots already considered
suitable for fighter duty.
Table 2 indicates 496th FTG students were approximately
twice as likely to suffer accidents in the P-38 as the
P-51 (6.2 versus 3.1 accidents/1,000 hours). Significantly
higher P-38 aircraft loss, pilot fatality, and pilot injury
rates suggested P-38 accidents were also more severe

Table 2
Accident Analysis
Source: Headquarters 496th Fighter Training Group, Historical Data, GP-496-HI(F) in USAF
collection, AFHRA, Maxwell AFB, Ala., October 1944.
Source: Headquarters 496th Fighter Training Group, Historical Data, GP-496-HI(F) in USAF
collection, AFHRA, Maxwell AFB, Ala., October 1944.

Hope this helps.

S~


" The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down ": General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262 - - -
" Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting ": Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in W.W.II.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 08:41 PM
He may be including the external tankage with the interal fuel. Aircraft maximum fuel capacities often seem to be listed including maximum possible external tankage. Two 75 gallon external tnaks would nicely make up the difference.

I suspect the author was not refering to horsepower when he said the Mustang was more "powerful" than the Spitfire.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 10:42 PM
MUHAHA, wait till all of you dudes install the RC-01 file!! That will un-Ufo all of the new planes. The mustang is still intresting but, not so uber anymore. AS with the Zero and the other Jap thingie, they now behave realistic.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 11:09 PM
The plane is excellent. E retention is superb, speed and dive are its trump cards, while .50 cals work as advertised.

I was playing with 4 ace Ki-84s offline and had no problem to first cripple them and then finally drop them one by one in a P51. Even its roll rate is good, and take that from a 190 driver /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

As a target, it catches flames slightly easier than other planes, which is correct, I believe. Not all that durable. .50 cals are nasty, many times they find their way to the pilot.

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

Fw 190 durbatulŻk
Fw 190 gimbatul
Fw 190 thrakatulŻk,
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

Buzz_25th
11-09-2003, 11:19 PM
Huck is just trolling as usual. The P-51 stalls easier than the 109. So what does that make Huck's beloved 109?

As for the fuel tank making the P-51 unstable. What does it matter. Does anybody take more than 25% fuel?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 11:19 PM
Harry, in the PTO the Mustang carried even larger tanks for the ultra long range B-29 escort missions. Over 100 gallons each, IIRC.

Again, fellas, in reality the CoG problem rarely, if ever, occurred in combat. That fuel was burned first.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 11:44 PM
TBS_TWIGTOTO wrote:
- Huck, with all respect, you are qute wrong as to the
- reality of learning to the P-51 in WW2. The P-38
- was 2x harder for new and transitional pilots.
-

Thank you for that information!

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:25 AM
Yeah, great post on the P-51 and P-38 training accidents. Learn something new every day here!

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:44 AM
TBS_TWIGTOTO wrote:
- Huck, with all respect, you are qute wrong as to the
- reality of learning to the P-51 in WW2. The P-38
- was 2x harder for new and transitional pilots.

P-38 is a twin, of course is more difficult to fly and more prone to accidents. What I wanted to say is that P-51 and P-47 were much difficult to handle in maneuvers than P-40 for example. They were high wing loaded planes developing a lot of torque, not pleasant to fly.

Now both are the easiest planes to fly in the whole planeset. I didn't flew Ki-84 much but I can say that P-47 and P-51 have a much gentle handling even than Zero, which I'm sorry but is absurd.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:06 AM
800 for a second. sweet. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

best b&z i guess.

http://www.treffnix.onlinehome.de/trk/51.zip


Slickun wrote:
Hit 800 for a second, and
- everything held together.

Buzz_25th
11-10-2003, 01:10 AM
Actually the P-51 will do 1000 km/h IAS before it breaks apart. Beating out the German planes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:11 AM
And did you read anything anyone else posted? We provided at least SOME backing for our opinions.

Geez, Huchbein_FW. Why are you doing this? All I said was I was glad the Mustang was here. You set out to negative whine the thing for not being crummy enough for you. You could be the first guy in IL-2 history hoping a new plane would be crummy.

Just ignore it if it annoys you so much.

BTW, my Pop flew the P-40 quite a bit. I'll relay a bit of info, just for you so you won't think I don't like you.

Don Gentile became sort of famous for a trick he could pull with the P-40. It's undercarriage retracted slowly, first one leg then the other. He'd bank the plane on takeoff just enough to keep one wheel on the ground, then hit the retract button. With only one leg to pull up, the hydraulics would really pop the strut up fast. He'd go a bit longer with the one wheel on the ground, letting the pressure build up, then he'd pull up. The other leg would really pop up in a hurry.

Dad said it was a real trick. You had to be very careful not to put the prop into the ground while blasting down the runway, banked a bit at takeoff speed, cross controlling with the rudder.

Gentile seemed to be one of those guys that EVERYONE knew was special.



Message Edited on 11/10/0301:38AM by Slickun

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:19 PM
Hristos wrote:
- The plane is excellent. E retention is superb, speed
- and dive are its trump cards, while .50 cals work as
- advertised.
-
- I was playing with 4 ace Ki-84s offline and had no
- problem to first cripple them and then finally drop
- them one by one in a P51. Even its roll rate is
- good, and take that from a 190 driver /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .
-
- As a target, it catches flames slightly easier than
- other planes, which is correct, I believe. Not all
- that durable. .50 cals are nasty, many times they
- find their way to the pilot.
-

The RC_01 patch will un-UFO the new planes, including the P-51. in the 1.2Beta version, the new planes are really Uber, they seem UFO's alike! However, the 1.2RC version will make the new planes come down to earth. (figure of speech /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:37 PM
Hristos wrote:
-
- As a target, it catches flames slightly easier than
- other planes, which is correct, I believe. Not all
- that durable. .50 cals are nasty, many times they
- find their way to the pilot.
-

In the beta (not RC), it seems the prop governor is the first thing to go if the plane is hit. Its wierd.

The .50's are nasty. A short burst at convergence is devastating. Maybe a bit too strong?



<font face="Courier New">

‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ _____ | _____
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ _\__(o)__/_
‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‚ ./ \.

</font>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:39 PM
the mustang is such a newb plane...

but i love shooting it down....

overall i hate it in its form now it flyies like a ufo.

but anyway now that everone has thier beloved mustang.

maybe they will fix the p-47.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:54 PM
Hristos wrote:


"The RC_01 patch will un-UFO the new planes,
- including the P-51. in the 1.2Beta version, the new
- planes are really Uber, they seem UFO's alike!
- However, the 1.2RC version will make the new planes
- come down to earth."



Yeah your right, more than likley that is what will happen. To bad because I felt like the Bf-109G-A6 and the Bf-109G-10 could hold it own against the P-51. I had some great matches this past weekend flying the 109 and shot down several 51's. Of course I was shot down a several times too, but it seemed even.

http://faussyorktown.homestead.com/files/grab0006.jpg


Fight to fly, fly to fight, fight to win.
Motto, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School
(TOPGUN)

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:55 PM
LOL, just wait for the TA 152 guys, if its properly modelled it will out do the mustang in everything... EVEN OUT RUNNING THE OVERHYPED BIRD... lol.. plus, you will have to use a few hits of .50... but 1-2 30mm hits makes even the hardiest(47) planes blow to bits..

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:57 PM
Harry, maybe I'm just that bad of a pilot, but I've sent my Jug into a flat spin before. Both on purpose and not.
And now that the mustang is here (stealing the limelight from my beloved Jug, once again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) Huckebein has the unenviable task of trying to convince the entire world (minus a few, at least one, for sure) that the mustang sucked in comparison to the 109. It's a heavy burden he bears, so cut him some slack, will ya guys? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 13th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my BOOMSTICK!! It's a 12 gauge, double-barreled Remington.
S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop S-Mart. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, e-ven Touches me.....

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 06:17 PM
Hmmm, the Mustang I piloted in 5 g aerobatics in and did spins in both directions as well as vertical hammerhead stalls would usually give warning of a stall in a shudder/vibration in the stick. If I yanked the stick too fast (ie. was excited), then yes it would stall without warning because I pulled right past its narrow-ranged stall warning buffet.

Secondly, if I had the airplane slightly cross-controlled (using positive rudder inputs), then it would snap roll without warning to an inverted position.

Now, when I pulled into a steady increasing vertical bank, it would do the meanest, fastest porpoising to give warning before it snap rolled to inverted.

It always started flying again even when inverted if I just let the stick go...literally letting go. However, if I was too panicked (like being 500 feet above the ground), I might keep pulling back on the stick..and it would be fatal because it would just keep on snap rolling and then spinning into the ground.

Spins are bizzare affairs where the horizon sickeningly swings between horizontal to near vertical to near horizontal to near vertical, etc.

If you apply anti-spin techniques too late it might take several spin revolutions and many thousands of feet to recover...not cool if you are 1000 feet above the ground.

The one situation in which I found the Mustang giving consistently the least warning was in a sharp climbing turn
where you had to keep inputting increasing rudder amounts to compenstate for torque effects.

The Mustang was a joy to pilot. It responded instantly to the smallest stick inputs...

However, to get big changes you had to make big stick inputs...very much unlike the Spitfire I piloted.

At 5 gs, the mustang started getting to be hard work to fly..a two handed airplane for me...using stick inputs required lots of physical strength...

At 400 mph, the rudders were almost stuck in cement..and the controls stiff and hard to move.

I personally think FB does a good job of modelling the P-51..except as you stated with a full fuselage tank when the controls reportedly reversed...ie. to stay in a steep turn, you had to apply forward pressure as the aircraft was trying to steepen up the turn to a stall all on its own.

Richard

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 06:22 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- that P-47 and P-51 have a much gentler handling even
- than Zero, which I'm sorry but is absurd.

Don't have 1.2 yet, so can't comment directly, but yes, if true that would seem absurd.

Did someone say the latest version corrected things?

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 06:31 PM
any volunteers for testing if the P51's got enough fuel in the game? you just have to take 100% fuel and droptanks and check how long you can fly. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

2 things we need in FB:
The 110 and the desert!!!
http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423-Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 07:15 PM
He he, everyone so exited about the new birds that they haven't noticed the New FM for the La-7 and Yak-3. The La can do amazing stunts and make a full roll in 2 seconds! It's amzing!

And yes having the Mustang is great!! Finally a plane I can put Swedish markings on and not be historically incorrect, if you ignore the time frame that is!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 07:20 PM
Slickun wrote:
-
- BTW, fellas. No flames, OK? My Dad flew it, and
- was a US fighter pilot for 30 years. I grew up on
- AF Bases, listening to US pilots talk about the
- Mustang, Sabre, and Phantom. Forgive me if I seem
- rather happy about all this.
-

Don`t worry. Be happy. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Dooooo-dooow-doow-doo-doo-doo-do doo-doo-doooooo, doo-doo doo-doo dooooooooo..... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Vez√©r√ľnk a B√°tors√°g, K√¬*s√©r√¬Ķnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

Message Edited on 11/10/0307:36PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 08:39 PM
Now now, don't be condescending. You've had 10 or 12 109 models for years. Don't begrudge me a single P-51!

:-)

:-)

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 09:22 PM
ordwayr wrote:
- Hmmm, the Mustang I piloted in 5 g aerobatics in and
- did spins in both directions as well as vertical
- hammerhead stalls would usually give warning of a
- stall in a shudder/vibration in the stick. If I
- yanked the stick too fast (ie. was excited), then
- yes it would stall without warning because I pulled
- right past its narrow-ranged stall warning buffet.
-
- Secondly, if I had the airplane slightly
- cross-controlled (using positive rudder inputs),
- then it would snap roll without warning to an
- inverted position.
-
- Now, when I pulled into a steady increasing vertical
- bank, it would do the meanest, fastest porpoising to
- give warning before it snap rolled to inverted.
-
- It always started flying again even when inverted if
- I just let the stick go...literally letting go.
- However, if I was too panicked (like being 500 feet
- above the ground), I might keep pulling back on the
- stick..and it would be fatal because it would just
- keep on snap rolling and then spinning into the
- ground.
-
- Spins are bizzare affairs where the horizon
- sickeningly swings between horizontal to near
- vertical to near horizontal to near vertical, etc.
-
- If you apply anti-spin techniques too late it might
- take several spin revolutions and many thousands of
- feet to recover...not cool if you are 1000 feet
- above the ground.
-
- The one situation in which I found the Mustang
- giving consistently the least warning was in a sharp
- climbing turn
- where you had to keep inputting increasing rudder
- amounts to compenstate for torque effects.
-
- The Mustang was a joy to pilot. It responded
- instantly to the smallest stick inputs...
-
- However, to get big changes you had to make big
- stick inputs...very much unlike the Spitfire I
- piloted.
-
- At 5 gs, the mustang started getting to be hard work
- to fly..a two handed airplane for me...using stick
- inputs required lots of physical strength...
-
- At 400 mph, the rudders were almost stuck in
- cement..and the controls stiff and hard to move.
-
- I personally think FB does a good job of modelling
- the P-51..except as you stated with a full fuselage
- tank when the controls reportedly reversed...ie. to
- stay in a steep turn, you had to apply forward
- pressure as the aircraft was trying to steepen up
- the turn to a stall all on its own.
-
- Richard

It's about time we had somebody come in here who's actually flown one of these birds. How did you come to such a priviledge?

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:48 PM
FA_Maddog wrote:
- Hristos wrote:
-
-
- "The RC_01 patch will un-UFO the new planes,
-
-- including the P-51. in the 1.2Beta version, the new
-- planes are really Uber, they seem UFO's alike!
-- However, the 1.2RC version will make the new planes
-- come down to earth."
-
-
-
- Yeah your right, more than likley that is what will
- happen. To bad because I felt like the Bf-109G-A6
- and the Bf-109G-10 could hold it own against the
- P-51. I had some great matches this past weekend
- flying the 109 and shot down several 51's. Of
- course I was shot down a several times too, but it
- seemed even.
-
Well, I think of ik the other way. You are flying P-51's and you get loads of 109's in your gunsights. You can smash them all very easily, like insects, bothering you. It gets boring really quick /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:56 PM
Yep, the Mustang is a nice plane and it's really nice to fly her...

But she won't top the 190 in my aviator's heart /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:23 PM
voxdei2 wrote:
- The British fighters, the
- Spitfire and the Hurricane, did not have the range,
- speed, or power.

Time to read the AFDU tests! The Spit XIV was
faster than the P51 at some altitudes, slower
at others. Also don't forget the Tempest (faster
than the P51B at low altitudes). With the range
comment you are completely correct, however.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:29 PM
ordwayr wrote:
- I personally think FB does a good job of modelling
- the P-51..except as you stated with a full fuselage
- tank when the controls reportedly reversed...ie. to
- stay in a steep turn, you had to apply forward
- pressure as the aircraft was trying to steepen up
- the turn to a stall all on its own.

Does this mean you are inclined to agree with Huckebein,
then? As one of the few of us here to fly anything close
to the real thing then yours is an opinion that counts.
I noted that on a site (My bookmarks are a mess spread
over several machines, and hampered by disk crashes
and reinstalls) from first hand accounts that a unit in
Italy had issues with handling when moving from the P40
to P51 and lost a couple of pilots on take off initially,
if I recall correctly. I wish I could find the bookmark
for the site.

Before anyone jumps on me, commenting on any adverse
aspects of the P51 does not make me a P51 or American
hater. I love the P51. The more accurately is portrayed
in FB the better, though, even if that involves modelling
a couple of warts.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:09 PM
My Pop flew the thing. He pulled over 6 G's many times, in several different versions.

The photo recon version had the cameras behind the pilot's head. According to Pop, the C of G was always kind of messed up because of this, always acting like fuel was in a fuselage tank.

He says you got used to negative pressure on the stick the same way you got used to working the trim, or popping 1 notch of flaps. No biggie. You'd pull 3 G's, and the thing would try to wrap into 5 G's. A little forward pressure was all you needed.

Just like the mushiness of the P-47 at low altitudes, "you got used to it."