PDA

View Full Version : Mustang blues



Freiwillige
06-28-2009, 03:31 PM
Wow Ive flown this bird before but never noticed how touchy she gets. 25 thousand feet fighting FW-190 A6 and im getting out turned and out ran!

And anytime I pull a little lead to get my guns on him my bird spins!
So IRL I know that the stang was a bit unstable when the tanks were full...Does the sim reflect this? Cause even light handed it wanted to swap ends.

Any Pony tips before I go back to the Jug with my head held low in defeat?

horseback
06-28-2009, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Wow Ive flown this bird before but never noticed how touchy she gets. 25 thousand feet fighting FW-190 A6 and im getting out turned and out ran!

And anytime I pull a little lead to get my guns on him my bird spins!
So IRL I know that the stang was a bit unstable when the tanks were full...Does the sim reflect this? Cause even light handed it wanted to swap ends.

Any Pony tips before I go back to the Jug with my head held low in defeat? The Mustang's FM is less than ideal with a full fuel load...

First thing you should do is go to 50% or less of fuel (25% will get you a good half hour at minimum). This will give you plenty of flying time.

Second, read Klingstroem's posts on the subject from page one, and memorize them. I've thought about getting them tattooed across my stomach, which tells you that a) I have a poor memeory, and b) I've got a big gut.

Third, practice A LOT, because it is so trim sensitive in game that it takes longer to get used to it than it would with say, a 109G-2 or a Dora 9. It is no accident that the best Mustang drivers out there fly it almost exclusively.

cheers

horseback

Trefle
06-28-2009, 04:37 PM
I suppose Bearcat would point you to the Pony thread where there is quite some useful stuffs about the P-51 by people mainly flying this bird
:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/5641027835 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5641027835)

Being outran at high alt by 190A6 is quite unlikely IMHO (were you playing against AI ? ) , if your Mustang is well trimmed on elevator and rudder axis , rad closed , your prop pitch settings around 80% with full boost on , i don't think any Anton has a chance at this height , a D9 would rivalize though

VW-IceFire
06-28-2009, 05:03 PM
Do you have a track of it...we may be able to point some things out to you.

At 25,000 feet any P-51 model in game should be outmatching the FW190A series in almost all respects (except maybe the A-9 with its slightly better altitude performance but even then it just barely closes the gap).

arjisme
06-28-2009, 08:15 PM
Also, look at your stick settings. If they are 100% across the board, that will be much too sensitive. Klingstroem recently posted his stick settings, so find that thread and read it.

idonno
06-28-2009, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

First thing you should do is go to 50% or less of fuel...


Less than full fuel?!

You're all a bunch of girly-men! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The three most useless things in aviation:
1. The runway behind you.
2. The altitude above you.
3. THE FUEL LEFT BACK IN THE TRUCK.

BillSwagger
06-28-2009, 09:12 PM
i feel your pain.

I really have little regard for the P-51. Even when it is piloted well, i find bigger challenges facing other planes, with lesser skilled pilots. This shouldn't be a slap in the face to anyone's piloting skills, i just see the same maneuvers and general tactics from that plane all too often, and it is as redundant as some of the moves commonly seen from the Fw190s.
I use to be quite impressed by the machine, but now i see a pattern and perhaps i know its weaknesses, so its easier for me to exploit them in most situations.

As for realistic operations, I made a coop that required about 10 minutes of minimum flight time, while engagements were dispersed over an even area. Just about everyone quit before the mission got interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Anyway, if there was a group that was more interested in realistic operations that would be great. I'm just looking to have a good coop that goes for 20 to 30 minutes, which to me seems more unpredictable if the settings are also realistic. But if people aren't fighting in the first two minutes they tend to get squirmish and leave.
i guess its an attention span thing, or people don't have the time to just chill and fly for a bit.

TX-Gunslinger
06-28-2009, 09:35 PM
The P-51 series are the most difficult to fly aircraft in this sim. When you've mastered it - all other fighter A/C are accessible.

First - they must constantly be trimmed (to achieve max performance and minimum drag) in all axis - particularly rudder and elevator. The aircraft should be flown by engine RPM and prop-pitch.

At 25,000 feet, the D-20 is almost 50 kmh faster than the A5/A6 in level flight

Below 335 kmh and above 500 kmh P-51D-20 will outturn A6.

The dive limit is 40 kmh greater than the A6.

Above about 21,000 feet - the 51 starts to dominate the A6. At 30,000 feet - the A6 is doomed.

My advice - as stated by others (it's how I learned to fly it) - is to go find every post and video by GH_Klingstrom and follow his advice to the letter.

Good luck, and hang in there.... That aircraft and the Tempest are two of the most complex modelled A/C in the sim.

S~

Gunny

Wildnoob
06-28-2009, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
The P-51 series are the most difficult to fly aircraft in this sim.

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

ok, you already tell your reasons...

I gonna sleep now, but tomorrow will back to express my opinion about this.

BillSwagger
06-28-2009, 11:20 PM
I enjoy the tempest, its got the speed and firepower and handles much like a P-51.

Trimming and rudder control are a quick adjustment of my mousewheel. Its really easy for me to stay on top of those aspects of flying, and i do use those more while flying a P-51.

Prop pitch is a fine art, too, but with practice its not that hard to recognize the tone of the engine and if its off.

i still think the P-51 is an underdog in most situations, except when its at 7000M and has an energy advantage.

horseback
06-28-2009, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

First thing you should do is go to 50% or less of fuel... Less than full fuel?!

You're all a bunch of girly-men! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The three most useless things in aviation:
1. The runway behind you.
2. The altitude above you.
3. THE FUEL LEFT BACK IN THE TRUCK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The P-51 in this game is modeled in such a way that, similar to the real Mustang, when the 85 US gallon fuselage tank is full, your CG is much too far aft. The aircraft was designed to be flown 'all-out' with just the 'main' wing tanks (approx 184 US gallons total); the fuselage tank was an add-on to get increased range for escorting bombers.

It was the very first tank you drew down, even before you used your droptanks. Otherwise, you would wallow about like a whale in a shallow stream when the fecal matter hit the fan.

RL Mustangs did not enter combat with the fuselage tank more than half full; the wing root tanks were more than adequate to get you home, unless you were dawdling around in Rumania. P-51s operating close to the combat area did NOT get the fuselage tank filled; it was an unnecessary danger.

In-game, the Mustang at 25-50% fuel (that's 67-135 US gallons, or in terms of endurance, about what you'd get from a 109 with a full tank) has more endurance than you usually need on or off line, unless you really, really want to be spending 3-5 hours on a single flight (and that, my friend, is a BUNCH of circles on any map available).

And at 25%, it handles ever so much better than it does at 75%.

Of course I guess a real man doesn't need a responsive aircraft. He wins by force of what? Chest hair?

cheers

horseback

X32Wright
06-28-2009, 11:45 PM
use all 100 INPUTS if you got a good stick and SPINS would be minimized in the Mustang if not GONE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

idonno
06-29-2009, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

... I made a coop that required about 10 minutes of minimum flight time... Just about everyone quit before the mission got interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



Heck, we often take that much time just getting to altitude before heading out when flying DF servers.


Originally posted by BillSwagger:

Anyway, if there was a group that was more interested in realistic operations that would be great.



Did you click the link to my recruiting post? We're not a coop squad though.


Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:

The P-51 series are the most difficult to fly aircraft in this sim.



I don't find it much, if any, different than any other BnZ plane. If you keep the speed up, it's one of the most survivable planes in the sim. I have noticed people tend to spin them a lot, but that's largely a matter of not taking the time to get a feel for flying it on the edge. I also believe that the best way to keep from spinning the 51, and any other plane for that matter, is to run all your sliders to 100%. That way, the amount of control surface movement is perfectly uniform throughout the joy stick's travel. There'll be no surprises when the elevator moves more than it did the last time you moved the stick “just a hair”. Having your sliders set like that takes getting used to, but it's worth it.

Freiwillige,

I'm guessing you're falling victim to the high speed climbing turn defense/offense. While the 190 maintains a steady speed around the turn, you pull ever tighter as you close in, continually bleeding your energy down until that moment when it's time to pull a little lead and take the shot, but by then you're already on the edge.

If that is what's going on, you need to use lag pursuit and the 51's speed advantage to slowly close the gap while going around the same circle as the bandit. Follow his contrail.

idonno
06-29-2009, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
The P-51 in this game is modeled in such a way that, similar to the real Mustang, when the 85 US gallon fuselage tank is full, your CG is much too far aft.

It doesn't seem that the CG in relation to fuel load is modeled in-game, because the fuselage tank is the last one to be drained. If you select 50% or more, that tank will be full. At 25%, the wing tanks are empty and there's just over 60 gallons in the fuselage tank, which should give it a drastically aft CG.

Obviously I notice a difference in the handling between 25% and 100%, but it's the same difference as with any other plane. It doesn't feel any more or less tail heavy. It just feels heavy in general.


Originally posted by horseback:
Of course I guess a real man doesn't need a responsive aircraft. He wins by force of what? Chest hair?


Really manly chest hair. To be honest, there isn't much of it, but it is disproportionately manly.

DKoor
06-29-2009, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Wow Ive flown this bird before but never noticed how touchy she gets. 25 thousand feet fighting FW-190 A6 and im getting out turned and out ran!

And anytime I pull a little lead to get my guns on him my bird spins!
So IRL I know that the stang was a bit unstable when the tanks were full...Does the sim reflect this? Cause even light handed it wanted to swap ends.

Any Pony tips before I go back to the Jug with my head held low in defeat? Thunderbolt is more stable aircraft, there is no doubt about it.
But it isn't as fast as Mustang http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

For short online DF missions you may as well select 25% fuel.
I usually take 50%.

You shouldn't have problems with any aircraft is you have a decent SA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , none of them will outrun you if you spot them first (it is always important who will spot who first).

Since it is late war aircraft I use 250m (or a bit more) convergence because of fast action pace.

Trim is very important with P-51D http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , sometimes I don't even do joystiq turns I do them with trim (I know how it sounds but I do it).

Ki-84 is aircraft superior to FW-190A6 in every way except high speed limit, Focke has 40kph more speed durability http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Still I managed to win duel between four ace ai Ki-84's and 2 ace ai A6M7's.
Once you start to drag them around at speed in Mustang they don't really stand a chance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
http://www.esnips.com/doc/edce...Koor51D-vs-6xJPN-408 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/edce8046-80a2-4a49-8920-da3427c0b5c0/DKoor51D-vs-6xJPN-408)

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

First thing you should do is go to 50% or less of fuel... Less than full fuel?!

You're all a bunch of girly-men! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The three most useless things in aviation:
1. The runway behind you.
2. The altitude above you.
3. THE FUEL LEFT BACK IN THE TRUCK. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The P-51 in this game is modeled in such a way that, similar to the real Mustang, when the 85 US gallon fuselage tank is full, your CG is much too far aft. The aircraft was designed to be flown 'all-out' with just the 'main' wing tanks (approx 184 US gallons total); the fuselage tank was an add-on to get increased range for escorting bombers.

It was the very first tank you drew down, even before you used your droptanks. Otherwise, you would wallow about like a whale in a shallow stream when the fecal matter hit the fan.

RL Mustangs did not enter combat with the fuselage tank more than half full; the wing root tanks were more than adequate to get you home, unless you were dawdling around in Rumania. P-51s operating close to the combat area did NOT get the fuselage tank filled; it was an unnecessary danger.

In-game, the Mustang at 25-50% fuel (that's 67-135 US gallons, or in terms of endurance, about what you'd get from a 109 with a full tank) has more endurance than you usually need on or off line, unless you really, really want to be spending 3-5 hours on a single flight (and that, my friend, is a BUNCH of circles on any map available).

And at 25%, it handles ever so much better than it does at 75%.

Of course I guess a real man doesn't need a responsive aircraft. He wins by force of what? Chest hair?

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering that with the IL2 game engine, the CoG *never* moves from change in fuel level, perhaps the difference
between 25% and 75% fuel is merely down to less weight, lower wing-loading and higher power to weight?

Just a thought since the balance does not change. That is a limit of IL2 itself.

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by idonno:
It doesn't seem that the CG in relation to fuel load is modeled in-game, because the fuselage tank is the last one to be drained. If you select 50% or more, that tank will be full. At 25%, the wing tanks are empty and there's just over 60 gallons in the fuselage tank, which should give it a drastically aft CG.

All tanks are considered to be the same level in IL2 and the CoG is fixed in place as well.

There is no distributed weight in the models at all, that is something that was announced to be coming in SOW back
at the time that 4.0 was released. The difference will be distributed weight. So how can we have effects of that
which is not modeled?

Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many people judge IL2 FM by stick pull.

TinyTim
06-29-2009, 03:24 AM
I find (any) Mustang superior to any Anton (save A-9) in nearly all respects. The only occasion I fear an Anton is when I get bounced by a higher E state Anton when I'm flying low with no room to dive - which shouldn't happen in first place anyway.

Worf101
06-29-2009, 09:01 AM
I've been playing this game for some time. As a Redtail I've flown a lot of ponies, usually against my will. With a B or a C I'm an competent dogfighter, with a D I'm a wallowing, snorgling bullet magnet. Can't do anything in a D but flat spin. In a B or a C with 2 less guns I can actually manage multi-kill sessions. This is just based on my online experience.

Da Worfster

Wildnoob
06-29-2009, 09:57 AM
ok, my view is the following:

the Mustang may have it's disadvantages like any airplane, but would risk to say that they are less then a issue. some people like TX-Gunslinger say "are the most difficult to fly aircraft in this sim".

just would say that in my personal view, NO!

know wat's the big problem in use the P-51 for new pilot's on this sim?

horseback's signature tells it:

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

obviosly that LTCOL Don Blakeslee was joking when say this. but for some people that's exactly like a nugget should learn to a fly a plane. take a real pilot for example, he would have a lot of fligth theory about the aicraft, fligth training, and would know virtually everything about the aicraft, it's limiations and all that stuff. a pilot like that may be a rookie in his first missions, but it will know, at least in theory some basic things about the plane he is flying. and he will have a fligth leader with a lot more experience then him. but now, just give a P-51 to a novice, can be a real one or a IL2 one. and tell it virtually:

"You can learn to fly it on the way to the target"

that's the realitty in many cases...

the pilot will have to learn everything alone, he will not have a instructor or nothing, it will just have some tips, but not a pratical application of then. I will say something also. take a friend that like from WWII aviation but never flew anything and enjoy the P-51, introduce him to IL2 with totally assistence in training, give him didatic fligth theory, combat tactics and fligths. just a BASIC example is the stall. many of the poor nuggets that have to learn to fly alone enter in stall, that is mostly because they do much harder movemments with the stick and don't look the airspeed indicator, especially at lower speed. enter in stall is a basic procedure of fligth training and a vital one. the pilot must know how it's plane's behavior in a stall. so fly alongside your nugget at 30,000 ft (7500 meters if I'm not wrong) and training him for that, first training intentional stalls and tell him to pay much attention to the aircraft. then training him how to break for take offensive. even like that he/she may enter in involuntary stall in the first times, but each time it does that tell it "let's start again". depends of the person of course, but I bet that if you do this just a few times and explain everything correct to the pilot, it will learn in a few times the limit's of his plane. of course that may take some time until the master it completly, and even the most experience pilot is always improving it's skills, but that's basically that. now, for a person learn this alone without a fligth instructor may take much time. in some cases even years and perhaps it still not learn the basics. so, the key word is a good directioned (that's everything) fligth training with a instructor close to the student all the time. there's no error. if you teach a person like that, close to the real fligth training, I really doubt if it will complain. the pilot soon will be shooting down enemy planes online, despite that the online mode isn't a challange like a squadron vs squadron figth, but anyway...

SILVERFISH1992
06-29-2009, 10:04 AM
IMO, the P-51 is way overrated.

Wildnoob
06-29-2009, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
IMO, the P-51 is way overrated.

yeah, people think that IL2 is "game" and don't take in consideration basic fligth training, think that turn, turn and turn is everything, don't know how to manage speed or nothing, that's logic this will happen...

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 10:18 AM
That's what you get through "learn by combat".

Wildnoob
06-29-2009, 10:23 AM
last nigth I was flying on Zeke's vs wildcat's server with a P-38. the mission was in Burma, in september of 1944.

I came from high altitude and spot the furballs, and hell, and there are so many many of them...

I break from high altitude fligth and no way would understimate ANY enemy plane, but I was really worry with the Frank's (Ki-84's). but luckly for me the inteligence as inform that they where few in the area. altough this no way mean I was safe. my gunnery is very poor and I don't manage to shoot anything down, but have at least 3 fire oportunitys. the Oscar's (Ki-43's) and Tony's (Ki-61's) just stay in furballs. I pass from then at high altitude and they probably even saw me, and even if they had, wouldn't be able to catch my fast ligthing. altough I was hoping to see a Frank. and when I saw one thought: "ok, the fun is over". climb to 30,000 ft and keep orbiting the combat area, but have to close the game, as I are sick with a cold, so preffer go to the bed.

but know, I have shame of this pilot's, really. and I'm the most n00b pilot ever.

PS: I'm no way calling the online public persons as noobs, never, every person can be a extremetly deadly pilot, combat experience account? LOGIC! but basic fligth and combat training is absolutely vital. ask this to the late war axis pilot's ...

TX-Gunslinger
06-29-2009, 09:36 PM
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

By "hard to fly" - I mean, harder to obtain the maximum performance from, than say an FW-190 or Me-109.

Do any of you use Il2-Compare? If so, it's obvious where the Mustang's performance advantages are in relation to German A/C for example, BUT you must be compeltely trimmed out in all axis to achieve this.

A Mustang flown out of trim loses speed and speed is life in a Mustang as it's a primary advantage of the aircraft.

Some of this is dependent on the level of competitors your flying against and if flying against AI, they are always trimmed. By trimmed I mean the ball is exactly in the center - not a little left or right but exactly centered.

A Mustang can dive to 890 Kmh, but if your diving too much out of trim, you'll lose an elevator or aileron prior to that speed if out of trim. Of course, you want to begin pull out prior to this - very gently....

Just want you to understand what I mean. I particularly enjoy aircraft that are "hard to fly". Maybe a better choice of words, would have been harder to fly - I don't know...

S~

Gunny

Trefle
06-29-2009, 09:57 PM
Well , since you don't have rudder trim in FW-190 and 109 , it's even harder to get its best speed/performance IMHO , because you need to compensate yourself with rudder which is quite hard in combat situation during manoeuvers .. 90% of 190 and 109 flyers do not do it (except a small percentage of those who have rudder pedals ) and thus never achieve their best speeds ..


Whereas in a Mustang once you are trimmed you don't need to worry until you change your prop pitch settings or change energy state , a quick glance to the ball indicator , trim it a bit to re-center it and let's roll .

Honestly , give me rudder trim anyday , i'd pay cash to have rudder trim on my 109 .I'd say personally , the hardest fighters to fly in this sim are those with inferior performances to their historical opponents , awful rearward cockpit visibility or crapp armament like Italian planes or Hayabusas , but i guess it's subjective to say which is hardest to fly, people will have different opinions

Wildnoob
06-29-2009, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

By "hard to fly" - I mean, harder to obtain the maximum performance from, than say an FW-190 or Me-109.

Do any of you use Il2-Compare? If so, it's obvious where the Mustang's performance advantages are in relation to German A/C for example, BUT you must be compeltely trimmed out in all axis to achieve this.

A Mustang flown out of trim loses speed and speed is life in a Mustang as it's a primary advantage of the aircraft.

Some of this is dependent on the level of competitors your flying against and if flying against AI, they are always trimmed. By trimmed I mean the ball is exactly in the center - not a little left or right but exactly centered.

A Mustang can dive to 890 Kmh, but if your diving too much out of trim, you'll lose an elevator or aileron prior to that speed if out of trim. Of course, you want to begin pull out prior to this - very gently....

Just want you to understand what I mean. I particularly enjoy aircraft that are "hard to fly". Maybe a better choice of words, would have been harder to fly - I don't know...

S~

Gunny

no, no, think I understand. also would like to apologize if I talk in a too radical way with you in relation to my views, really sorry, it was not my intention by any form.

just let me see if I understand you correctly, you mean that the Mustang is more hard to fly because the constant need of trim the control surfaces to extract maximum fligth performance in combat?

Trefle
06-29-2009, 11:00 PM
Yes Wildnoob , i think he meant this and he's right in a way , cause with the P-51 as soon as your speed change , you have to adjust trim in consequence (especially rudder , elevator is less of a problem ) , so you need to know well this airplane until it becomes instinctive for you to adjust trim everytime you change prop pitch or throttle

But what's great is that when you know how to trim it well , you can make it fly on his own perfectly stable and get the best speeds , you can do this with a 109 or 190 too but you need to center the rudder "ball" yourself constantly manually which for me is not ideal cause i don't have pedals . The way i see it , having rudder trim is very useful , but the P-51 is special because he's quite sensitive to small changes of input so it's not easy to get the best out of it when you're not used to it

WTE_Galway
06-29-2009, 11:17 PM
Yeah its not hard to fly a P51 acceptably but it IS hard to fly one really well.

The P51 will always disappoint people who assume that simply making a clever choice of plane (over the noobs who fly 109's or Yak's or whatever) will guarantee them an awesome kill score online.

TX-Gunslinger
06-30-2009, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Trefle:
Well , since you don't have rudder trim in FW-190 and 109 , it's even harder to get its best speed/performance IMHO , because you need to compensate yourself with rudder which is quite hard in combat situation during manoeuvers .. 90% of 190 and 109 flyers do not do it (except a small percentage of those who have rudder pedals ) and thus never achieve their best speeds ..

Whereas in a Mustang once you are trimmed you don't need to worry until you change your prop pitch settings or change energy state , a quick glance to the ball indicator , trim it a bit to re-center it and let's roll .

Honestly , give me rudder trim anyday , i'd pay cash to have rudder trim on my 109 .I'd say personally , the hardest fighters to fly in this sim are those with inferior performances to their historical opponents , awful rearward cockpit visibility or crapp armament like Italian planes or Hayabusas , but i guess it's subjective to say which is hardest to fly, people will have different opinions

That's exactly what I meant - but there's one more part....

The software Il2Compare - if you don't have it, google it - you'll find it (if not let me know and I'll find a link). Imho Il2 compare is one of the best utilities to have with Il2 as it plots one aircraft performance versus another - TAS, Climb rate versus altitude, turn rate at 1000m and energy retention.

The graphs in Il2Compare were made by directly reading 4.07 *.sfs files (aircraft performance files). This program incorporates all game functions into it's performace graphs. For a 190, since there is no rudder trim - max performance provided is without small rudder input which would allow trim, while Mustang performance includes rudder trim.

To achieve then the exact performance depicted - one must be "in 4 axis trim" in the Mustang - but not in the 190 (since it has none).

Wildnoob - no apologies necessary, friend. I just wanted to make sure you understood what I was saying, and I wanted to understand you.

It's hard on forums sometimes....

S~

Gunny

Ronbo3
07-01-2009, 04:43 PM
Here is another set of tutorials mentioned a few months back. I saved it...

http://352ndfg.com/smf/index.php?topic=1214.0

Xiolablu3
07-04-2009, 05:05 PM
I totlaly agree with Gunslinger - the P51 is one of the hardest planes to get the most from in the sim.

Its like the Fw190 or Tempest but without the heavy firepower.

I dont think most of the qualities of the P51 come across in a PC sim, as Eric Brown listed the P51 as one of his top 3 (probably Western, not sure if he flew an La5/7 or Yak3) WW2 fighters along with the Spit XIV and Fw190D9. Can anyone REALLY say that this is the case in IL2?

A comfortable cockpit, light controls, well laid out controls, visibilty, range, etc etc just dont come across in a PC sim. Hell I can see out and behind of a Bf109 cockpit just about as well as I can a P51 pit in the sim, and that aircraft was supposed to have very bad visibilty to the rear, the P51 excellent.

idonno
07-04-2009, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
... Eric Brown listed the P51 as one of his top 3 (probably Western, not sure if he flew an La5/7 or Yak3) WW2 fighters along with the Spit XIV and Fw190D9. Can anyone REALLY say that this is the case in IL2?
.

Absolutely! It's fast. It's stable. It's responsive. It has great high speed maneuverability. It most definitely is one of the best fighters in IL2.

It's biggest problem in the sim is the fact that the 50 cals aren't as effective in-game as they were in real life. I'm not saying the 50's are undermodled, it's just very hard to get the kind of sustained bursts into the enemy that they did in real life, and when you do manage to do some damage to an enemy plane, people keep fighting you when a real life pilot would have bailed out.

BillSwagger
07-04-2009, 08:20 PM
I guess people fly the P-51 for the added challenge. I understand how to trim out and use prop pitch to get the best performance, but IMO, there are a couple planes better suited for the job that have a broader range of performance.

I know historically the plane has been cast in a favorable light. I've read many stories, however, of pilots who didn't like the plane for various reasons.


Also, il2 compare is current for the most part, but i've found a couple planes that beat the specs it shows by a noticeable amount. Especially in speed (25-35kph) .

VW-IceFire
07-04-2009, 09:22 PM
I quite enjoy the Mustang but there is a strange dichotomy with the Mustang. It is both easy to fly and extremely hard to master. Doing the basics of flying, landing, takeoff, and a couple of rolls here and there and the Mustang is extremely well behaved and floats along as happy as can be.

Start doing basic air combat and things get more complicated. I suspect the real one was like that (by reading test pilot reports) and the in-game one is definitely like it. You have to be really good and know what you're doing to get the maximum from it but it rewards with substantial performance.

What I was always impressed about the Mustang was that it manages to get such extreme performance with only 1600ish horsepower. Consider the Mustang and Spitfire IX have essentially the same power (and engine) on tap and yet it took the 2000hp Griffon engine and a badly behaved Spitfire (takeoff ground loops and so forth) to achieve the same performance. Its an impressive fighter and best of all it can fly extreme distances too.

Its the combination of factors that makes it a great fighter...its not purely because of its fighter vs fighter combat capability.

Kettenhunde
07-04-2009, 11:25 PM
What I was always impressed about the Mustang was that it manages to get such extreme performance with only 1600ish horsepower.

Low drag design. Consequently a very slick airplane that requires excellent speed management skills from it's pilot.


Spitfire IX have essentially the same power (and engine) on tap and yet it took the 2000hp Griffon engine and a badly behaved Spitfire (takeoff ground loops and so forth) to achieve the same performance

Personally, I would rather have the higher drag / power than the lower power / very slick airplane.

It requires a lot more of the pilots attention when your maneuvering with a very slick airplane. The design that relies on power is easier to control and fly precisely. Generally speaking, the higher power aircraft will also be able to sustain a higher load factor

All the best,

Crumpp

Matz0r
07-06-2009, 08:37 AM
When the P-51 first appeared in IL2, the controls were not as "itchy" as they are now. Controls were very smooth and you had to really pull the stick to break the wings unlike the current version. Then something changed in a patch and suddenly it was a nervous wing shredding snap stall machine.

DKoor
07-06-2009, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
When the P-51 first appeared in IL2, the controls were not as "itchy" as they are now. Controls were very smooth and you had to really pull the stick to break the wings unlike the current version. Then something changed in a patch and suddenly it was a nervous wing shredding snap stall machine.
I clearly remember first time I loaded up the dreaded v4.00 (so called pre-BoB FM) that was "leaked out"... it was like a whole another simulation compared to what we had before.
Planes were extremely unstable in comparison with the earlier game version... it couldn't be compared really.

And it got only worse... in v4.02 P-51 was unflyable plane for me, forums were littered with "wobble" whine and things were pretty grim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
4.03 didn't fixed much, but v4.04 brought up nice relatively stable FM, could be the best FM's overall in IL-2 versions.

To my best knowledge that is what we have now too...

Comparing that with stock Forgotten Battles only from P-51's point of view is a bit... incomplete.

Gammelpreusse
07-06-2009, 09:12 AM
As long you can live with a runway kill, I do not see a problem flying the P51. Actually, I love that plane and take it out for rides quite often. The 51 is on of those planes where you can actually "feel" how good it preserves energy. And the 50ies do they work. No, no instant gratitude guns, but usually one pass is enough to get you the kill even if the bogey manages to get home.

There are planes that are fun to fly, others are more work then fun. The P51 certainly belongs to the first category, unlike the 190As, for example, where you have to pay 100 percent attention all the time if you want to keep your advantages.

This certainy requires some routine in the aircraft. But that is true for every airplane in this sim.

idonno
07-06-2009, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
Then something changed in a patch and suddenly it was a nervous wing shredding snap stall machine.

Shredding wings???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I've never torn the wings off of a P-51, and I've never seen anybody else do it.

idonno
07-06-2009, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Less than full fuel?!

You're all a bunch of girly-men! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In-game, the Mustang at 25-50% fuel... has more endurance than you usually need on or off line, unless you really, really want to be spending 3-5 hours on a single flight (and that, my friend, is a BUNCH of circles on any map available).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yesterday I went up with a full fuel load on the Okinawa 1945 server. I played around with a mob of Ki-61's until they started running low on fuel and dove out to their base below, then had a couple of fights with a Ki-84, and on the way home my Mustang became a glider two hours and eight minutes after engine start.

That is the first time I can remember using up all of my fuel in a 51, but 1+ hour long sorties are not at all unusual for me.

Last week, on the same server, I flew a B-25 with a full load of fuel. I got a fuel leak over the target and on the way home ran out of gas on final approach. Dang glad I took all that go-juice! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
07-06-2009, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
Then something changed in a patch and suddenly it was a nervous wing shredding snap stall machine.

Shredding wings???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I've never torn the wings off of a P-51, and I've never seen anybody else do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It happens all the time in realisitic servers where the planes are flown at high speeds and to their limits.

Not so much on arcade servers where most people are tnbing at lower speeds.

Mustang shedding a wing is common.

idonno
07-06-2009, 11:42 AM
The only time I've ever been on an arcade server was under an assumed name, and then only to talk to someone flying there in candy land. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I've spent just ridiculous amounts of hours on Spits vs 109's over the years and I've never seen it that I can recall.

I just hopped into a Stang in QMB. I dove it to 500 and pulled the stick all the way back. When I came out of the black out, everything was still there. I did manage to shed a wing when I did the same thing at somewhere between 525 and 550, but with that kind of speed the airplane was about to shake itself apart and on the verge of losing a wing even without yanking the stick around.

Certainly you can get any airplane fast enough to lose a wing when you yank it around, but it looks to me like some people just need to come to grips with the term Maximum Structural Airspeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DKoor
07-06-2009, 12:06 PM
I think we can agree that P-51 lose its wings too easily, but the reason for that is not perhaps softy DM but some kind of uncontrolled peak inputs from our controllers...
This track shows just that... I lost a wing before I actually thought of using elevator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Mind you, this doesn't happen that way in other planes, but it should... all or nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

http://www.esnips.com/doc/1639...02/p51d_wingsnap_408 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/16391792-4d53-4fd1-ba78-2773ec79ac02/p51d_wingsnap_408)

TinyTim
07-06-2009, 12:07 PM
Sheding wins is much easier to [i]see[i] on an arcade server. Plus, people are averagely pulling more gs on arcade compared to realistic servers.

idonno
07-06-2009, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I think we can agree that P-51 lose its wings too easily...

I think the whole point of my posts was that we can't agree on that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is strange, I watched the track, and then I tried several times to lose a wing in the same manner. I got it into a descending right hand spiral, then at about 400 indicated I yanked it back and to the left. Nothing. both wings still attached. Then I kept the speed up around 400 and threw the stick left and right and back and forth, and kicked the rudder, and all that happened was I blacked out a lot. Did I get the version of IL2 with the extra strong P-51?

Trefle
07-06-2009, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:

That's exactly what I meant - but there's one more part....

The software Il2Compare - if you don't have it, google it - you'll find it (if not let me know and I'll find a link). Imho Il2 compare is one of the best utilities to have with Il2 as it plots one aircraft performance versus another - TAS, Climb rate versus altitude, turn rate at 1000m and energy retention.

The graphs in Il2Compare were made by directly reading 4.07 *.sfs files (aircraft performance files). This program incorporates all game functions into it's performace graphs. For a 190, since there is no rudder trim - max performance provided is without small rudder input which would allow trim, while Mustang performance includes rudder trim.

To achieve then the exact performance depicted - one must be "in 4 axis trim" in the Mustang - but not in the 190 (since it has none).

Wildnoob - no apologies necessary, friend. I just wanted to make sure you understood what I was saying, and I wanted to understand you.

It's hard on forums sometimes....

S~ildnoob - no apologies necessary, friend. I just wanted to make sure you understood what I was saying, and I wanted to understand you.

It's hard on forums sometimes....

S~
Gunny[

Gunny

Hello Gunslinger ,

You are probably right , but then Klingstroem who made the very good P-51 tips thread would disagree cause he stated in his thread (and i've experienced this as well ) that it is possible to outdive or outrun Doras when they do not keep their ball centered , they do not manage to maintain energy as long as a Mustang fully trimmed . (they bleed energy quicker if their rudder ball is not centered )

I have the Il-2 compare software and indeed you are right that 190 performances do not include rudder trim , however that is because there's no rudder trim for 190 and Il-2 compare describes the performances the AI can achieve with each plane , and the AI is always perfectly trimmed on all axis in all aircrafts, whether the rudder trim is manageable or not.

If you take practical example , you will notice that with a 190 , you will be faster and keep your speed longer if you keep your ball centered manually than if you just ignore it , it's just that in a 190 , the ball centers automatically around approx 500kph , they are trimmed by default for speed and if your rudder is not perfectly centered you don't lose as much speed as in a P-51 badly trimmed , in a 109 the difference is slightly more obvious than in a 190 . i had read that in real life , 109 pilots had a leg with more muscles than the other because of that (i think real life 190 had automated system )

In game , as we agree on , the P-51 is very sensitive to trim and requires special attention to rudder trimming in order to reach its peak performances , a P-51 badly trimmed will struggle to reach its top speed , whereas in a 109 or 190 , i agree with you that one can almost ignore that rudder ball quite often although it helps for accelerating a tad better at low speed, ability to maintain high speed in dives a bit longer and ability to conserve energy slightly better during turns

The reason as you said if that you won't be far off your best performance in a 190 if the ball is not centered , but where i disagree is that i believe if you want to keep your best speeds and compete with a well trimmed Mustang while flying a 109 for instance , you have to manually center the ball if you want that extra bit of energy , acceleration or ability to maintan a certain speed a few seconds longer IMHO , i see rudder trim as a good thing rather than a handicap , at first it seems like it increases your workload , but when you get used to it , actually it's simpler for me to trim it instinctively and get into the fight smoothly (for instance with a P40 or Hellcat who also have rudder trim ) with a more stable gunplatform and without having to worry about correcting manually the rudder ball during manoeuvers .

Just my opinion of course , and basically i fully agree with you that P-51 Mustang requires more attention and concentration to get the best out of it cause of it's higher sensitivity to trim and inputs and the way it affects its performances

horseback
07-06-2009, 04:32 PM
RE: trimming in the game vs real life application.

In real life, you can (usually) feel if you're climbing or dropping altitude, and not just because of the inner ear; having the full 180 degrees or so of peripheral vision helps a lot. Your brain processes a lot of information on the subconscious level, and humans are very visually oriented critters. A pilot trimming an aircraft does it not only on the basis of how much stick force he feels, but on the clues he gets from his eyes ears and backside. With experience, he can stay ahead of the curve by adding trim slightly before it is needed.

In game trim is artificially complicated by the delay in its effect once it is input. The virtual pilot gets very little in the way of 'seat of the pants'/inner ear input (said at the very real risk of crude jokes), particularly if he does not use an FFB stick. He has no peripheral vision to speak of. There is precious little to see of the horizon outside the cockpit much of the time. He is largely dependent upon the instrument panel instead, and some instrument panels give you more accurate information than others.

Real life pilots have stated many times on these boards that it is easier to trim a real airplane than the ones in the game (particularly the ones that need a LOT of trim adjustment).

The German needle and ball, particularly on the 109, seem to me to be pretty accurate, the Russian ones seem slow to react, but they never seem too far off. The Mustang's needle and ball reminds me of a squirrel that's had too much caffeine--it's just all over the place at the slightest provocation, and takes a couple of seconds or more to settle (quivering) into place.

Fly it through some kind of obstacle course while switching back and forth from in-cockpit view to Wonder Woman view and compare the 'ball' on the instrument panel and the 'vector ball' in WWV, and you'll quickly see what I mean. The vector ball and the instrument panel ball are much more likely to violently disagree when you're rolling and maneuvering a Mustang than most other aircraft in the sim that I've tried.

The in-game Mustang fails to give you an accurate picture of your trim; it demands that you spend a lot of time practicing so that you can stay ahead of the curve without paying excessive attention to the 'ball'. You have to 'know' what it's going to need in terms of trim a lot more than you would with most other 'major' fighter types.

Because it is protrayed as a trim hog, needing adjustment for as little as a 10kph change in speed, it is very easy to get behind the curve. It seems to me that the 'value' or effect of a single button tap varies with speed as well.

It's a shame because the real life Mustang was considered a very easy aircraft for a trained pilot to learn to exploit to the fullest (in the rarified context of high performance prop fighters). Among the Allied air forces, only the Spitfire and Hellcat had remotely similar reputations.

cheers

horseback

Frequent_Flyer
07-06-2009, 07:28 PM
I have read a great deal about the 15th and the 21rst FG.- The Sun Setters. VII fighter Command's flew VLR roughly 7.5 hours per mission in a Mustang. No complaints about constantly needed to adjust the controls, quite the opposite.

If anyone is interested The long Campaign- John Lampert and Very Long Range Mustang Units of the Pacific War-Carl Molesworth.

Try this website also,

http://506thfightergroup.org/index1.asp

VW-IceFire
07-06-2009, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I think we can agree that P-51 lose its wings too easily...

I think the whole point of my posts was that we can't agree on that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is strange, I watched the track, and then I tried several times to lose a wing in the same manner. I got it into a descending right hand spiral, then at about 400 indicated I yanked it back and to the left. Nothing. both wings still attached. Then I kept the speed up around 400 and threw the stick left and right and back and forth, and kicked the rudder, and all that happened was I blacked out a lot. Did I get the version of IL2 with the extra strong P-51? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Speeds higher than the ones you're likely going. The thing is that people are often not in close control of their speeds. Mustang and 109 pilots have this in common for exactly opposite reasons. Mustang pilots have to worry because their controls are so sensitive that it can exceed the structure of the airframe and tear it apart. 109 pilots worry because at that speed they will never be able to manoeuvrer at all.

Planes that can also rip their wings off in tight turns with some frequency:

- Tempest
- YP-80
- MiG-9

All of those have very good rudders at speed.

idonno
07-06-2009, 08:15 PM
In his track he tore his wing off at just under 400 mph. Try as I might, I could not do the same.

horseback
07-06-2009, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by idonno:
Less than full fuel?!

You're all a bunch of girly-men! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In-game, the Mustang at 25-50% fuel... has more endurance than you usually need on or off line, unless you really, really want to be spending 3-5 hours on a single flight (and that, my friend, is a BUNCH of circles on any map available).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yesterday I went up with a full fuel load on the Okinawa 1945 server. I played around with a mob of Ki-61's until they started running low on fuel and dove out to their base below, then had a couple of fights with a Ki-84, and on the way home my Mustang became a glider two hours and eight minutes after engine start.

That is the first time I can remember using up all of my fuel in a 51, but 1+ hour long sorties are not at all unusual for me.

Last week, on the same server, I flew a B-25 with a full load of fuel. I got a fuel leak over the target and on the way home ran out of gas on final approach. Dang glad I took all that go-juice! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I would have expected a Mustang with a full fuel load to last a lot longer than that; I regularly do 70-90 minute missions in my Yak-1b or La-5FN campaigns. They carried --what? --464 liters vs the P-51D's 1,018 liters' internal load.

I would expect that the P-51 got at least as good a mileage as the Russian birds, so I have to wonder if fuel consumption may not be modeled on the basis of how much fuel is supposedly carried by a given aircraft, but on some arbitrary standard that has the primary function of penalizing the guys who carry a lot of fuel.

You're not getting the appropriate bang for your fuel weight buck, my friend.

And just between you, me, and the lamp post, a little ring of hair around the nipples is NOT disproportionately manly...

cheers

horseback

idonno
07-06-2009, 11:27 PM
You have to realize that I spent a great deal of those two hours at Military Power and in WEP, burning well over 100 gallons an hour. In fact, in WEP, the fuel burn is over 200 gph.

Trefle
07-06-2009, 11:43 PM
I made a test tonight :
Went QMB Okinawa map with P-51B with 50% fuel .

Flew below 300m , most of the time at sea level with 100-95% throttle , 100% prop pitch , rad open , 3000-31000rpm

I lasted 57.13 minutes before running out of fuel . If the Pony is flown at higher altitudes , we should be able to fly about an hour with 50% fuel

So Idonno flying 2 hours and 8 minutes is consistent with what i just tested . I'm surprised too and would have thought we could fly at least 3 hours with 100% fuel in a Mustang , if not more

Maybe that's only possible ingame if you fly economical cruise with 50% prop pitch 50% throttle

EDIT: now i made some other tests on the same map and also below 300m (and with no overheat ) to have an element of comparison .

Bf109G2 100% fuel , 100% throttle , rad open , pitch auto , 2700rpm
I lasted 52.20 minutes

Fw-190A5 100% fuel , 100% throttle (no wep) , rad open , pitch auto , 2350rpm
I lasted 64.47 minutes

P-38J 50% fuel , 100% throttle , 100% pitch , rad open , 2950rpm
I lasted 47.26 minutes

P-47D27 50% fuel , 95% throttle , 100% pitch , rad open , 2700rpm
I lasted 58.36 minutes

P-51 D20NA 50% fuel , 95% throttle ,100%pitch , rad open , 3100rpm
I lasted 53.23 minutes

idonno
07-07-2009, 01:47 AM
If we flew the Mustang at maximum endurance power settings and at the right altitude, we could get nearly 6 hours out of a 100% fuel load.

The guys flying real-life long range sorties were not cruising around at the high RPM's and MP's with which we normally operate.

Trefle
07-07-2009, 02:14 AM
You are right Idonno , but i still think something is perhaps wrong .

How come i can fly longer with a P-47 than with a P-51 with both 50% fuel at sea level ? seems strange , Mustang was supposed to have the better range . Maybe in economical mode though

Also , i think it's strange that the 109 has almost half the range of the Mustang , i could last 52 minutes with the 109G2 with 100% throttle all along . In real life Mustang was supposed to have at least 3 times the 109 range , although again , maybe only if it cruises at economical mode and at high altitude , but still , it seems Mustang's fuel consumption is too high in game

Bremspropeller
07-07-2009, 02:34 AM
In his track he tore his wing off at just under 400 mph. Try as I might, I could not do the same.

Different joystick-settings? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JZG_Thiem
07-07-2009, 06:15 AM
In Game (according to UDP-Graph:

fuel consumption @99% throttle:

109G2: 5kg/min
P51: 5,5kg/min
P47_27_L: 8,3kg/min

Fuel load (100%)

109G2: 300kg
P51: 690kg
P47_27_L: 1000kg

Matches pretty much Trefles test for all three planes.

Kettenhunde
07-07-2009, 07:23 AM
In real life Mustang was supposed to have at least 3 times the 109 range

The Mustang did have much better endurance at the appropriate cruise power settings.

At maximum continuous however all of these airplanes guzzle gas like it is free.


idonno says:

The guys flying real-life long range sorties were not cruising around at the high RPM's and MP's with which we normally operate.


All the best,

Crumpp

Bearcat99
07-07-2009, 07:43 AM
The Mustang as modeled in this sim will indeed loose it's wings if you are going over @500 or so, give or take and you make sudden or pronounced changes in pitch in particular and that depending on the angle of the dive.... If you are diving at 450 and you come out of the dive shallowly you will not loose your wings.. I have not lost my wings in a Mustang without the aid of a cannon round in a long long time and I have pulled out of 90 degree dives @ 450 yet there are others in my squad who do it at least once a week. You just have to pay attention to your speed, your trim, and how much force you are using.

As far as having to constantly fiddle with trim settings... Most accounts I have read.. in particularly Bud Anderson, Chuck Yeager, Bud Fortier & some of the Airmen I have spoken to like Leo Gray & Roscoe Brown.. have all said that trimming was something you had to do constantly in a Mustang especially if you were trying to fly in formation or changing altitude.

As far as fuel consumption goes... 8 hour missions were not un common.. but bear in mind that these planes had drop tanks, usually when the pilot got home he was usually almost on fumes, and unlike in this sim , in the Mustang anyway, there were additional engine settings that helped to maximize engine efficiency.. Here all we have is basically throttle, radiator & pitch in the Mustang.

FatCat_99
07-07-2009, 07:51 AM
I would suggest setting planes at something like 300 kmh and than check their fuel consumption, that will give better picture than using same throttle setting for all planes.

IIRC P-51 have more HP than G2, it wouldn't be surprising if it use more fuel at full power than G2.

idonno
07-07-2009, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In his track he tore his wing off at just under 400 mph. Try as I might, I could not do the same.

Different joystick-settings? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of my sliders are at 100, and I even tried running them up to 200 using IL2-JoyControl.

Trefle
07-07-2009, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by FatCat_99:
I would suggest setting planes at something like 300 kmh and than check their fuel consumption, that will give better picture than using same throttle setting for all planes.

IIRC P-51 have more HP than G2, it wouldn't be surprising if it use more fuel at full power than G2.

Hi mate , ok i followed your advices and made a new test but this time on the Crimea map . It was long and the Pony sensitivity to inputs is like my cat about to be thrown in the water , so i had to adjust throttle or trim often to maintain the correct speed and altitude


Ok here are the conditions of the test :

Altitude : ~8000 meters/~26400 feet , never went below 7900m nor above 8200 meters

Speed : ~300 km/h IAS / ~190 mph IAS , between 290 km/h and 320 km/h (IAS)


- Messerschmitt 109 G2 , 100% Fuel , 2225-2250rpm (55% throttle/auto ) , radiator Closed
- North American P-51B , 50% Fuel , 2250-2300rpm (between 45%-55% throttle/50% pitch ) , radiator Closed

Results :
- I could fly 116 minutes with the 109G2
- I could fly 147 minutes with the Mustang

If i have the necessary patience in the next days , i'll try the P-47 in the same conditions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

idonno
07-07-2009, 03:20 PM
Trefle,

You should get this; Offline Autopilot. (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=cs&u=http://lesnihu.wz.cz/autopilot/autopilot.html&ei=s7pTSt_fGZOEtweZ6JSbCA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAutopilot_v23_LesniHU.zip%26hl%3Den)

Trefle
07-07-2009, 03:30 PM
Thank you Idonno , didn't know about this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

muffinstomp
07-07-2009, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:

To achieve then the exact performance depicted - one must be "in 4 axis trim" in the Mustang - but not in the 190 (since it has none).

Gunny

Not about being keen on disputing, still:

Flying any Il2 A/C without rudder input/proper trim will get you nowhere next to the performance figures il2 Compare delivers. You'll be crouching behind by 15 mph at least.

A well known ace at hand for them pesky AI Ratas in early war scenarios. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Greets,
muffinstomp

Trefle
07-07-2009, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
In Game (according to UDP-Graph:

fuel consumption @99% throttle:

109G2: 5kg/min
P51: 5,5kg/min
P47_27_L: 8,3kg/min

Fuel load (100%)

109G2: 300kg
P51: 690kg
P47_27_L: 1000kg

Matches pretty much Trefles test for all three planes.

Thanks for confirmation Thiem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Originally posted by Bearcat99:
As far as having to constantly fiddle with trim settings... Most accounts I have read.. in particularly Bud Anderson, Chuck Yeager, Bud Fortier & some of the Airmen I have spoken to like Leo Gray & Roscoe Brown.. have all said that trimming was something you had to do constantly in a Mustang especially if you were trying to fly in formation or changing altitude.

As far as fuel consumption goes... 8 hour missions were not un common.. but bear in mind that these planes had drop tanks, usually when the pilot got home he was usually almost on fumes, and unlike in this sim , in the Mustang anyway, there were additional engine settings that helped to maximize engine efficiency.. Here all we have is basically throttle, radiator & pitch in the Mustang.

Good post mate , for consumption , i just tested 50% fuel at high alt , economical cruise right now , i could fly 2 hours 27 minutes at 26500 feet /~200 mph indicated , so i presume that we should be able to fly between 4.5-5 hours with full tanks , and about an hour more with the drop tanks , although i didn't test it yet .

i don't know if it matches historical specs but as you said , we do not have all the engine management tricks in the sim . What i note , is that Idonno was spot on when he said that at military power the Mustang burns a lot more fuel than at lower power/pitch settings , it consumes almost 3 times less with 50% pitch /50% throttle (than with full boost+wep)