PDA

View Full Version : Poor P51 handling is the bigger issue



XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:14 AM
Oleg,

I'm not as concerned about the P51's speed being too slow as I am about the aircraft handling. It is very poor and feels more like what the Thunderbolt should be.

Thank you for your time.



"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:14 AM
Oleg,

I'm not as concerned about the P51's speed being too slow as I am about the aircraft handling. It is very poor and feels more like what the Thunderbolt should be.

Thank you for your time.



"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:16 AM
handles better than a 190. It outturns it by a little, and a its a little worse than the 109. Seems spot on to me. I love flying it, best feeling allied plane imho


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:22 AM
The P-51 was not a dogfighter...Its great atribute was its long range...It is not a nimble fighter, not much if at all, more maneuverable than the messerschmitt.

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-105-over-rabaul.jpg

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:35 AM
I dunno..... the P-51 has really good elevator authority at high speed (soooo many blackouts these last few days lol). It's roll rate is poor... but I have not really heard the P-51 being refered to as an exceptional roller.

Perhaps you need to be a bit more specific with what exactly is wrong with the Mustang's handling /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:38 AM
mike_espo wrote:
- The P-51 was not a dogfighter...Its great atribute
- was its long range...It is not a nimble fighter, not
- much if at all, more maneuverable than the
- messerschmitt.


I always thought you could dog fight in the P-51. Can you lead me to any data or pilot story's that say that the P-51 wasn't used to dog fight.

If you where creating a plane to escort bombers wouldn't you desine it to atleast turn with the enemy planes?

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:41 AM
Sorry friend, but my oppinion is the inverse. I think that the P-51 is having an incredible peformance both at power and maneveurability... What do you really want? Do you want to see the P-51 more fast than the P-47? (well, the P-51 is faster than the "Jug" only at low altitudes due to it's better aerodynamics)...

That's my oppinion, and i'm not a "Luftwhinner"...

http://sites.uol.com.br/disco_virtual/cmte_carvalho/compartilhada/Forgotten_Battles/Assinatura_IV.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:46 AM
I didn't mean to say it was not a great fighter....but it was not as nimble as say the Yaks or the Japanese fighters. It was not more maneuverable than the 109. I read a book by a veteran who flew both the spitfire and the mustang. He said the spit was more maneuverable but the mustang could dive better and roll better due to its wings with regard to the spits eliptical wings..not too good to roll with. Again, its great atribute was its range. At this stage of the war, the pilots of the Luftwaffe were not that great and the fact that it could escort the bombers all the way and back was enough.

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-105-over-rabaul.jpg

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:47 AM
S!

I think that you are confusing high-alt air combat with dogfighting. Those bombers weren't real slow, so the fighters had to stay clean to keep up with and engage them. If any fighter did a couple of tight turns, they'd lose speed and be miles behind the bombers in no time.

The LW used 109s to attack the P51 escorts to lure them into energy-losing turns, so the Sturmbock 190s could slice and dice the bombers in isolation. The P51's value was that it could outpace the 109s and disrupt the 190s, even after hours of air time. But this has little to do with nimble turn-fighting - it's a different ball game at 7000m and above.

Have fun!
IV/JG7_4Shades

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 02:50 AM
Good Point Shades. My point exactly. I don't want people to think that the mustang was a wonder plane. It had great range and great performance not incredible perfomance.

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-105-over-rabaul.jpg

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:11 AM
The issue is that even in a moderate to high speed dive, just barely pulling the stick back results in a vicisious snap roll. It does it even in relatively gentle high speed turns.

Yeah, the real thing that these characterisitics when the fuselage tank was full. But this happens regardless of fuel quantity.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:19 AM
Spot on, FourShades.

At high altitudes, the air is thin. It brings out a funny environment where the planes fly really great when going straight, but really crapy when turning.

The air is too thin to accomodate maneuvering as if you were on deck, doing a vertical loop at high altitudes, you will notice, is very more difficult than doing one at low altitudes. Even a few maneuvers quickly drain your E-status.

On the other hand, the air is thin, and even a shallow dive accelerates your plane like a dream.

But also on the third hand(??), at high alts, the engine output is severely effected. As a general rule of thumb, at altitudes over 25,000ft, assuming a 2000hp engine, it will lose about 1/3rd power and produce something like 1000~1200hp.

...

So, what does one need for a high-alt fighter?

1) Importance of maneuverability becomes low
2) A plane which can take advantage of thin air to create great speeds, even with a shallow dive
3) A plane equipped with a sufficient engine for high-alt performance
4) A plane which can maneuver at high speeds

Well, that sums it up - P-47 and the P-51.


-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:19 AM
''I'm not as concerned about the P51's speed being too slow as I am about the aircraft handling. It is very poor and feels more like what the Thunderbolt should be.''

I'd be interested to know at what altitude exactly?

500 m?

2000 m?


the Mustang wasnt that good under 5000m. it wasnt meant for that anyway. it may be a lil unstable under 5000m, but GREAT, since it was this way!

and btw, its not VERY POOR, its so so.

if you offer me to choose a plane to dogfight under 5000 m, the Mustang wouldnt be my first choice, nor my second...nor my third...you see what I mean /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Keep in mind that what made the Mustang such a great plane wasnt his perfomances as a low altitude dogfighter, which is the most common type of fighting in FB!!!


DOWN WITH MUSTANG WHINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif




__________________

THIS is the graph:

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/Luftcaca.jpg


__________________



Message Edited on 11/13/0302:20AM by GunterAeroburst

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:22 AM
I don't understand why people have the conception that the "P-51 wasn't a low altitude plane."

The P-51D was JUST FINE down low. It performed better down low than the P-51A, which was considered a superlative fighter "down low."

What the P-51 wasn't was a slow speed fighter. Keep the speed high and it should do well at any altitude.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 03:27 AM
''The P-51D was JUST FINE''

yep, you said it...it was FINE down there

not POOR

not GREAT

it was FINE

and currently...it is...fine

so whats wrong? maybe its a wee bit slower than it should be, like 10/15 kmph...is it that much of a big issue? I still think its great to fly the Mustang as it is, and I would be disappointed to read such posts as: ''OLEG what have you done to my beloved uber invicible Mustang'' or ''Mr Maddox you have destroyed the game cuz the Mustang is 10 kmph too slow!!!!!!!!!!!!!''

Blah

__________________

THIS is the graph:

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/Luftcaca.jpg


Message Edited on 11/13/0302:28AM by GunterAeroburst

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:02 AM
NegativeGee wrote:
- I dunno..... the P-51 has really good elevator
- authority at high speed (soooo many blackouts these
- last few days lol). It's roll rate is poor... but I
- have not really heard the P-51 being refered to as
- an exceptional roller.
-
- Perhaps you need to be a bit more specific with what
- exactly is wrong with the Mustang's handling

Hello NegativeGee,

I'm not sure what you mean by it's roll rate being poor as I don't have the 1.2 Beta installed on my computer. Only because I'm on 56k and downloading a total of 91MB's isn't worth it. I'll wait for the final version. Oop's,getting off track here. The Mustang had a good roll rate at high speed's. But had poor roll rate at slow speed's. I hearing alot of good thing's about the Mustang eccept it's a little slow. But you right,he need's to more clear as to what's wrong. =S=

P.S. Just my $0.02.

Semper Fi!! Carry On!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Squirral aka Wolf_Fangs

<marquee>Wolf Pak Squadron</marquee>

<center>http://www.sanfords.net/DarK_Wolfs_free_demonic_graphics/wolf15.gif </center>

<center>The King Is Coming! Do You Feel The Fear?</center>

Message Edited on 11/12/0311:03PM by Squirral

ZG77_Nagual
11-13-2003, 05:21 AM
'51 was not a stellar roller - good high speed elev, very good e retention and good roll at high speeds. Good rudder. Seems pretty good right now.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:35 AM
OK, look, the P-51 was not exactly a dream plane, but not really a brick down on the deck. Thats not to say it should not be able to hold it's own, but the 190 and 109 should ***BARELY*** be able to get an edge on it. Up high it is a different story, the Mustang can simply run down most fighters [Clean 109G-10, K-4, 190D-9, Ta-152 not included] but the 109 seems to climb better. For LW pilots at high alt the only escapes are to:

A) Make it bleed speed and don't F*** up
B) Dive for the deck and the nearest Werbelwing/Ostwind
C) Hit your "emergency brakes"
"Emergency brakes" were used on FW-190's by JG-26 to escape allied fighters when in 190's. Basacally they would spin out of controll and loose altitude rapidly, and regain near the deck.

If I were gonna fight at low altitude, I would have to go with a Bf-109.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:10 AM
mike_espo wrote:
- I didn't mean to say it was not a great
- fighter....but it was not as nimble as say the Yaks
- or the Japanese fighters. It was not more
- maneuverable than the 109. I read a book by a
- veteran who flew both the spitfire and the mustang.
- He said the spit was more maneuverable but the
- mustang could dive better and roll better due to its
- wings with regard to the spits eliptical wings..not
- too good to roll with. Again, its great atribute was
- its range. At this stage of the war, the pilots of
- the Luftwaffe were not that great and the fact that
- it could escort the bombers all the way and back was
- enough.
-
Reading books like Bud Anderson's "To Fly and Fight" I get the distinct impression that the Mustang could outdogfight both the 109Gs and the 190A and Ds. Mr. Anderson made a particular point about the fact that those in Western Front in Europe had to do more than just BnZ because the planes were more similar than those in the Pacific where BnZ was the norm for the Allies. He even flew an old Spifire and commented that that made him feel even better about his P_51. There was however at least one incident where a 190 might have been able to outdive his P_51B (the canopy starting coming apart), but both planes were apparently at redline, and he was under orders to not stray too far from bombers at the time. He wrote several incidents where he beat a 109 in a turning twisting dogfight, where the 109 consistently stalled just before his P-51, just enough to get advantage.

Bottom line is I question the validity of your statement that the P-51 is not a good dogfighter since in capable hands it gave 109s and 190 more than they could handle in that area. Remember - it was, after all, designed by a German!

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:29 AM
Im thinking that vicious snap roll when pulling out of a dive happens because the elevator deflects much easier than it should. You can easily pull out of a 800kph+ dive. This is exactly the same problem with the 190 now, too much elevator authority at high speeds.


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:36 AM
ucanfly wrote:
Remember - it
- was, after all, designed by a German!
-
-
Wow! p-51 was designed by a german. Did'
nt know that!!!

http://www.fargoairmuseum.org/zero-105-over-rabaul.jpg

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:44 AM
"The issue is that even in a moderate to high speed dive, just barely pulling the stick back results in a vicisious snap roll. It does it even in relatively gentle high speed turns."

this sounds like the classic problem that people have with FW190s. the answer they are given is it isn't the FM it's your joystick input settings. I think this is mostly the correct answer.

What you are complaining about is excessive elevator authority. It isn't even so much a problem with the AoA going too high (though that is often part of it) as much as the rate at which the AoA is changing.

Normally when I fly the 190D I trim the nose down 12 steps. After a day of fighting P51s I changed to 18 steps because I was having problems at the high speeds I was fighting at.

When I did some speed tests with the P51 I noticed right away that you have to trim the nose way way down to get level flight, more so than on any other plane I know of.

So before you complain about the FM change your joystick input settings (0 2 6 14 26 42 at the beginning or so) and make sure the plane is trimmed reasonably (I would start by trimming nose down 24 steps, may need to adjust based on altitude).

In a real plane part of being easy to fly is having light controls, but when such a plane gets modelled in this game it gets obnoxious. IRL it is easier to apply very little force, and vary that force by a small amount, but in the game it is difficult to impossible to get precise and subtle control over the stickforce.

"He wrote several incidents
- where he beat a 109 in a turning twisting dogfight,
- where the 109 consistently stalled just before his
- P-51, just enough to get advantage"

When I see something like this I tend to think that the plane that stalled first was going slower, rather than it had a higher stall speed.

As far as stalling goes, there should be test data that shows where it stalls in terms of speed, altitude and G load. afaict all planes in this game drop a wing when they stall, the faster you are going the faster the wing drops, go fast enough and you will snap roll the plane. The exact parameters may be different from plane to plane, but overall that is what happens.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:47 AM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- '51 was not a stellar roller - good high speed elev,
- very good e retention and good roll at high speeds.
- Good rudder. Seems pretty good right now.

It does have good elev responce... i agree.

Very good E retention? not in RC01... id say it is ok.

Good roll rate at high speed?... not that i can see.

Seems pretty good?... of course you will say that. your in a German squad.


Oh and what patch are you using? lol

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 07:01 AM
Salute

I am reading a lot of comments from people who say the P-51 was not a good roller.

Where exactly did you get that information?

Perhaps you could post it?????

My information, from detailed NACA tests, show the P-51 to be a better than average roller, and in fact, better than a FW190 at high speeds.

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/42.gif


In addition, as far as the P-51's turnrate:

To use a portion of another post I made:

The P-51's airframe had every spare space filled with fuel tanks. One of the last elements added prior to the Merlin version beng standardized was an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot's seat. This tank when filled caused a dramatic shift in the aircraft's centre of gravity, such that if a pilot pulled a turn over 3G's with the tank full, the possibility of airframe damage was considerable. For that reason, the tank was only filled on long range missions. And orders were specifically penned by the 8th Air Force Commanders that the fuel in the tank was to be burned off before any other fuel, before even fuel in drop tanks. Once the fuel in the tank was below 45 gallons, the aircraft's centre of gravity returned to normal. Most pilots emptied this tank completely first then started on their drop tanks. That meant that the Mustang went into combat with the behind seat tank empty. In essence it meant the aircraft's maximum combat weight was actually 510 lbs, (85 gallons) less than the 10,208 lb fully loaded figure. Ie. maximum combat weight was actually 9698 lbs. Which meant that wingloading was actually 41.6 lbs per Sq/ft.

How does that compare with the 190D9 or 109K4?

The 190D9 which has a weight of 9480 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 48.1 lbs per Sq/ft.

Weight of K4 was 7400 lbs on a wing area of 172 Sq/ft for a wing loading of 43 lbs per Sq/ft.

So one of the key elements in the paradigm of how well an aircraft turns, is in a P-51's favour.

At lower fuel loads, the advantage moves even more in the P-51's favour due to the fact that the P-51 carries so much more fuel, and therefore loses much more weight as it has been burned off.

The P-51 also has combat flaps, which can be deployed at up to 425 mph. Neither the K4 or D9's flaps can be deployed much over 200 mph.

The P-51's elevator was extremely responsive at high speeds. This could be dangerous when the aircraft was fully loaded with fuel, and the behind the seat tank was full, but when it was empty, there was no disadvantage.

All of this clearly suggests that the P-51 should easily outturn either a K4 or a D9 at speeds over 300 mph.

Yes, in a low speed stallfight, the 109's and 190D9 might have an advantage. (not the A8's which had no advantage in powerloading) But outside of that speedrange, the P-51 should be superior.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 07:57 AM
Hi Buzzsaw,

Nice graph there. A problem we all suffer from is trying determine the objective from the subjective. When people say it's not a good roller, well what does that mean?

Your graph shows that the 190 roll rate far exceeds many other aircraft in the most common IL2/FB engagement speeds, but that the P-51 pips at just at the high speed end, with the spit coming close at the low speed end. But do we use the P-51 in FB in the same way it was often used in WWII - no.

I reckon 95% (there, quantified!) of the flame wars we see are from people misunderstanding other people's subjective comments.

All I know about the P-51 is that even if it had an absolutely uber FM I would be able to pilot it in such a way that it performed like a dog and was nothing more than a flying target. Just like I fly a D-9!

Have fun!
IV/JG7_4Shades

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 08:24 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I don't understand why people have the conception
- that the "P-51 wasn't a low altitude plane."
-
- The P-51D was JUST FINE down low. It performed
- better down low than the P-51A, which was considered
- a superlative fighter "down low."
-
- What the P-51 wasn't was a slow speed fighter. Keep
- the speed high and it should do well at any
- altitude.

Absolutely true.

GR142-Pipper

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 09:13 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:

Again this sad attempt to misinform Buzzsaw? You were corrected many times, yet you put the same misinformation, again and again.

Turn rate depends on both wingloading and powerloading in the same measure, in fact they are multiplied with each other when computing the turn rates.



- In addition, as far as the P-51's turnrate:
-
- To use a portion of another post I made:
-
- The P-51's airframe had every spare space filled
- with fuel tanks. One of the last elements added
- prior to the Merlin version beng standardized was an
- 85 gallon tank behind the pilot's seat. This tank
- when filled caused a dramatic shift in the
- aircraft's centre of gravity, such that if a pilot
- pulled a turn over 3G's with the tank full, the
- possibility of airframe damage was considerable.
- For that reason, the tank was only filled on long
- range missions. And orders were specifically penned
- by the 8th Air Force Commanders that the fuel in the
- tank was to be burned off before any other fuel,
- before even fuel in drop tanks. Once the fuel in
- the tank was below 45 gallons, the aircraft's centre
- of gravity returned to normal. Most pilots emptied
- this tank completely first then started on their
- drop tanks. That meant that the Mustang went into
- combat with the behind seat tank empty. In essence
- it meant the aircraft's maximum combat weight was
- actually 510 lbs, (85 gallons) less than the 10,208
- lb fully loaded figure. Ie. maximum combat weight
- was actually 9698 lbs. Which meant that wingloading
- was actually 41.6 lbs per Sq/ft.

The data you use is incorrect. The fuselage fuel tank carried only 65 US gallons, so the wingloading with the fuselage tank empty is (10200 - 6*65)/233 = 42.1 lb/sqft


- How does that compare with the 190D9 or 109K4?
-
- The 190D9 which has a weight of 9480 lbs on a wing
- area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 48.1 lbs per
- Sq/ft.
-
- Weight of K4 was 7400 lbs on a wing area of 172
- Sq/ft for a wing loading of 43 lbs per Sq/ft.
-
- So one of the key elements in the paradigm of how
- well an aircraft turns, is in a P-51's favour.

This is completely incorrect, you absolutely have to bring the powerloadings in the comparison:

powerloadings:
Mustang: 9810/1720 = 5.74 lb/HP
K4: 7400/1973 = 3.75 lb/HP
Dora: 9480/2220 = 4.27 lb/HP

Now let's review the difference in wing loading and powerloading compared to K4 and Dora:

P-51D compared to K4:
- wing loading smaller (better) with 2.09%
- powerloading bigger (worser) with 53.07%

P-51D compared to Dora:
- wing loading smaller (better) with 12.47%
- powerloading bigger (worser) with 34.43%

Now it should be pretty much clear what plane should turn better (and those values were calculated without the fuselage tank for Mustang)



- At lower fuel loads, the advantage moves even more
- in the P-51's favour due to the fact that the P-51
- carries so much more fuel, and therefore loses much
- more weight as it has been burned off.

With the fuselage tank empty Mustang has aprox the same internal fuel capacity with A8 (only 10 US gall more). This is little difference, especially when you make the case of the Mustang with the fuselage tank empty.



- The P-51 also has combat flaps, which can be
- deployed at up to 425 mph.

Manual says 400mph. Are you trying to "round" the real values, Buzzsaw?


- Neither the K4 or D9's
- flaps can be deployed much over 200 mph.

Source for this?



- The P-51's elevator was extremely responsive at high
- speeds. This could be dangerous when the aircraft
- was fully loaded with fuel, and the behind the seat
- tank was full, but when it was empty, there was no
- disadvantage.
-
- All of this clearly suggests that the P-51 should
- easily outturn either a K4 or a D9 at speeds over
- 300 mph.

Actually all of this prove exactly the opposite. P-51 had about the same wing loading, but much worse powerloading.



- Yes, in a low speed stallfight, the 109's and 190D9
- might have an advantage. (not the A8's which had no
- advantage in powerloading)

Again incorect. A8 powerloading 9452/2022 = 4.67 lb/HP much better than Mustang on the same fuel load: 5.74 lb/HP

Mustang compared to A8:
- wing loading smaller (better) with 12.4%
- powerloading bigger (worser) with 22.91%

A8 and 51D with the fuselage empty should have the same turn time: 23-24 sec for a 360 deg sustained turn

Dora and early Antons should have the same turn time with P-51B: 22 sec

Also those planes should have very similar handling, they were evenly matched. Only Dora (with MW-50) had a much better climb rate.




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

Message Edited on 11/13/0304:57AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:38 AM
GR142_Astro wrote:
- Oleg,
-
- I'm not as concerned about the P51's speed being too
- slow as I am about the aircraft handling. It is very
- poor and feels more like what the Thunderbolt should
- be.
-
- Thank you for your time.
-
-
-
- "We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

The above statement is coming from someone who systematically flies below 2km, and does the same w/ the P-51. It's not suprising that the P-51 handles poorly when you use it, because you use it wrong.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:41 AM
mike_espo wrote:
- ucanfly wrote:
- Remember - it
-- was, after all, designed by a German!
--
--
- Wow! p-51 was designed by a german. Did'
- nt know that!!!
-

German emigree Edgar Schmued , born in Germany, thought up the laminar flow wing. Became a US citizen and worked for North American. A book called "Mustang Designer" by Ray Wagner about his contribution. May be a good read. (available at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc.).






Message Edited on 11/13/0309:42AM by ucanfly

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:06 AM
GunterAeroburst wrote:
- ''I'm not as concerned about the P51's speed being
- too slow as I am about the aircraft handling. It is
- very poor and feels more like what the Thunderbolt
- should be.''
-
- I'd be interested to know at what altitude exactly?
-
- 500 m?
-
- 2000 m?
-
-
- the Mustang wasnt that good under 5000m.

The RAF used the Alison engined Mustang I and IA
almost exclusively at low level, although more as
a ground attack and recon aircraft than an air
superiority fighter. They used it low as the I and IA
weren't very fast at high altitude, but the air combat
performance was respectable at those low altitudes.

In terms of design, the P47 was designed as a high
altitude plane. The P51 was designed initially as
a P40 replacement for the British. The P40 in its
turn was a design for an interceptor (same specification
to which the P38 and P39 were designed). Whether this
means that the P51 was designed as a high altitude plane
is another matter.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:09 AM
Fillmore wrote:
- Normally when I fly the 190D I trim the nose down 12
- steps. After a day of fighting P51s I changed to 18
- steps because I was having problems at the high
- speeds I was fighting at.

Perhaps the trim issue also affects the maximum
speeds observed?

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:12 AM
Hmm intresting rollrate chart . As indicated its only for

10000 ft = about 3049 m the other alts are not documented .

Also as you refer to the FW we dont know about wing surface condition so we see it as perfect here and model is for roll (at least for A series) only in that case relevant when wing guns were removed for test or ammunition removed as it is given we claim its fully loaded and armed. Was the p51 fully loaded and armed ? A link to the Full NACA report would help .

And chart says the p51 should roll the same at speeds about 359 mph Indicated Airspeed = about 578 km/h
round about 658+30=688 km/h True Airspeed.

It should roll 92 degrees per second at 3049 m at 688 km/h .

92 degrees per second => 1 360 degrees roll = about 4 seconds

Testing Method.

Crimea Map

3000 m 100 % Fuel Radiator closed .110 % version 1.2 rc01
at around 688 km/h
p51 Standard
1 Roll (cause more results in too much altitude loss) .

I used time slowdown 1/4 x to review roll track and take the time then divide / 4 .

Repeated several times average value (had no stop watch present so i took next full second) (tested with rudder and without ) 17 s / 4 = 4,25 => 84+ degrees .


Test for FWs 190 A4 Standard 100 % Fuel at given Speed

10s /4 = > 144 degrees

As we dont know Plane Configs here its hard to decide if FW is too fast or not. Another Chart from other Source is needed . Also if interpolations in grahps are used as i have seen on other NACA Charts it may not give an accurate view for Interpolated sections .

Plz post own tests .

Regards,
Hyperion

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:12 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- I am reading a lot of comments from people who say
- the P-51 was not a good roller.

Below about 300mph it is pretty average. It's above
300 it becomes an excellent roller, when most other
planes become mediocre in absolute terms. If people
are TnBing too much and are slow (say 250mph) then
it won't appear to be a particularly good roller.
Mind you, one of my favourite planes, the Tempest V,
is a disastrously poor roller at any speed!

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:16 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- The issue is that even in a moderate to high speed
- dive, just barely pulling the stick back results in
- a vicisious snap roll. It does it even in
- relatively gentle high speed turns.
-
- Yeah, the real thing that these characterisitics
- when the fuselage tank was full. But this happens
- regardless of fuel quantity.

Odd, I find the P-51 pretty damn tricky to get into that sort of situation, even with 100% fuel. My first thought when trying it out for a few hours is that it handles very well and can be pushed quite far - but not if you overdo it with the stick input. Stick sensitivities?

IMHO, the P-51 is just great - a very capable plane. You just can't throw it around too much all of the time. I think some people have got it into their heads that it's a jack-of-all-trades manouver fighter, which is a mistake on their part. It turns well, climbs well, is very fast and has good firepower. But some planes can do some things better than it, some worse.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:24 AM
I really don't understand why ppl got problems while flying the Stang. On ETO maps it turns tighter than any 190, even at treetop level. It's superior to any 109, except on low speed turns - as it should be. Keep the Pony fast, so it's your friend, try to turn against Jap.a/c your're lost - easy that.

The Pony became the most belove a/c on ETO maps, it's simply a really good a/c./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://mypage.bluewin.ch/a-z/kimura-hei/84sig.jpg


EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 11:46 AM
I havent flown the real P51 in WWII configuration (Like some of you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ), but in this sim it is a dream to fly. (And I never really liked the plane.) The people that are complaining must not be flying it correctly. It's not an I-16 or a Yak.. It's an energy fighter. It has nice crisp handling at high speeds, is a good climber, has excellent visibility, punishing guns, and absolutely super high speed stability.

It's not a moon rocket, and you cant yank and crank the stick while flying it, but it has very good energy retention and outclasses late German aircraft in a lot of respects. It is a hand full to fight against for sure, even in the hands of an average pilot.

I really dont know what some of you want... It seems to fly very closely to a lot of things I have read on the plane, or at least as close as you could get in a computer simulation (IMHO). I think Oleg did a great job with it, much to my chagrin. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif (I was really hoping that it would be a dog... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehler.jpg




http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehler.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 12:29 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- I really don't understand why ppl got problems while
- flying the Stang.


no ?

it is a typical human behavior , kimura
that sort of behavoir :
" die kirschen in nachbars garten......"
oder
" mein vater hat das sch&#246;nste und schnellste auto und den l&#228;ngsten pimmel sowieso /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




RED_Boandl
Freischaffender S¶ldner , GmbH
Firmenslogan: Wir erledigen auch Ihre Feinde für eine Handvoll Dollar
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:hUIm0b-goKMC:www.wanadoo-edition.com/jeux/premiere/gfx/premiere/pink.jpg

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

Message Edited on 11/13/0311:30AM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:19 PM
They were used to turnfighters and are surprised, that their "tactics" won't work in a b&z fighter /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif .

A Mustang pilot has always the chance to escape from an enemy. He only has to use the supersonic divespeed, which is given to the Mustang in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

You have to learn to think as a FW pilot. Either start the fight with an energy advantage or dive away and wait for help before entering the fight again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif .



-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 11/13/0302:16PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:37 PM
The P-51 is right on target, you are just a whiner who doesn't do research! Ha! The P-51 handled like an A$$ on a bad day at low altitude. It was stubborn, and wouldn't roll or do anything as well as it did at high alt. At any altitude, the engine was vulnerable and one cannon hit could destroy it.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>It's your fault... <center>
Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW
http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-Boosher%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:47 PM
Atzebrueck wrote:

He only has to use the supersonic
- divespeed, which is given to the Mustang in FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .


Not tried that yet. How's the sonic boom modelled? Is it too loud, too quiet or just about right? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:04 PM
I recall in Cube's post on turn performance at simhq Oleg noted that wing/airfoil shape was of considerable importance in turn performance, and that Buzzsaws P51 post noted that the P51s laminar flow wing was not well suited to high AoA conditions.

I don't think trimming the plane has any effect on top speed unless it is such that you are fighting to keep it level and bleeding energy in the process. The reason I trimmed my nose down another 6 steps when fighting against P51s was that I found myself blacking out alot and needed better fine control of the elevator so that I could keep it near the blackout without blacking out.

This is also a common situation when trying to pull lead in a turn, particularly a shallow turn. If you find that even a slight pull on the joystick results in the plane jerking and pulling too much lead it means you need to adjust the trim and/or joystick input settings.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 04:23 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
-
- GR142_Astro wrote:
-- Oleg,
--
-- I'm not as concerned about the P51's speed being too
-- slow as I am about the aircraft handling. It is very
-- poor and feels more like what the Thunderbolt should
-- be.
--
-- Thank you for your time.
--
--
--
-- "We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."
-
- The above statement is coming from someone who
- systematically flies below 2km, and does the same w/
- the P-51. It's not suprising that the P-51 handles
- poorly when you use it, because you use it wrong.
-
-

Excactly, I think it is a matter of expectations. If you mainly flew the yak3 before(like Astro) you'll be disappointed in the P51. If you're switching from another E fighter like the 109 or 190(particularly the D9 like me) you'll be pretty happy. Maybe putting a P51 skin on a yak3 was a bad habit. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

DangerForward

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:33 PM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- The P-51 is right on target, you are just a whiner
- who doesn't do research! Ha! The P-51 handled like
- an A$$ on a bad day at low altitude. It was
- stubborn, and wouldn't roll or do anything as well
- as it did at high alt. At any altitude, the engine
- was vulnerable and one cannon hit could destroy it.

Your right, to a point Boosher. As is the P-51 can be a handfull. She is a fast plane, turnes very nice at speed.

She is not a TnB plane. but she turned good at speed. Example, she turns nice even on the deck at 400kmh TAS or higher. At 300kmh TAS on the deck you better hope today is your lucky day.

She does seem to be a bit slow, the roll rate is not quit right. She does roll slow at low speed wich is correct. but no worries guy's, she has already been fixed or corrected.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:46 PM
Here's a graph of relative turn performance up to 15,000 ft. (scroll down):

http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

As I have found in-game, the Mustang and Anton are closely matched in turn performance.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg


Message Edited on 11/14/0307:02AM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 06:48 PM
It will never stop; a poor pilot blame'in Oleg (IL2/FB) for a, perceived, poor performing aircraft.

Sorry, the P51 owns even the K4 at Alt and in a slow, even a knife fight, the winner will be he who knows ACM ... PERIOD!


<A HREF="http://jg27.live2fly.com" TARGET=_blank>
http://jg27.live2fly.com/jg27/media/sigs/dv8sig.jpg</A>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 07:01 PM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- Im thinking that vicious snap roll when pulling out
- of a dive happens because the elevator deflects much
- easier than it should. You can easily pull out of a
- 800kph+ dive. This is exactly the same problem with
- the 190 now, too much elevator authority at high
- speeds.
-

Exactly,
Like the Fw 190 the P51D has very good elevator authority at high speeds. I don't say that this is wrong - i don't have any data about that. I only know that both planes should have good elevator authority at high speeds - and they have. As a result of that great elevator authority it is easy to pull to hard out of a dive -> snap role.

About the full fueltank behaviour: I don't think the FB Engine can handle this.


"HyperLobby 4 Ever"

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 07:09 PM
Stefan-R wrote:
-
- lbhskier37 wrote:
-- Im thinking that vicious snap roll when pulling out
-- of a dive happens because the elevator deflects much
-- easier than it should. You can easily pull out of a
-- 800kph+ dive. This is exactly the same problem with
-- the 190 now, too much elevator authority at high
-- speeds.
--
-
- Exactly,
- Like the Fw 190 the P51D has very good elevator
- authority at high speeds. I don't say that this is
- wrong - i don't have any data about that. I only
- know that both planes should have good elevator
- authority at high speeds - and they have. As a
- result of that great elevator authority it is easy
- to pull to hard out of a dive -> snap role.
-
- About the full fueltank behaviour: I don't think the
- FB Engine can handle this.


Umm, i have not yet gone into a snap roll while pulling out of a dive. i usualy black out if i pull up to fast.

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 08:25 PM
i was well chuffed when i pulled outa dive just above deck, but i had blacked out, so i ended up de winging my plane while going stupidly fast across the ground /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
i managed to get some flap down, which may just have saved me/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 10:20 PM
Gentlemen, I am very impressed with these posts except for two:

Huckiebein and WUAF_Hero, you are dismissed because as usual your posts add nothing to the discussion.


Great pros and cons guys, I've read through them all and NO I don't expect the Stang to be a weed fighter but come on, this aircraft was no dog.

Thanks for the largely civil replies and I will take it all into consideration.

S!



"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 03:07 AM
GR142_Astro wrote:
- Gentlemen, I am very impressed with these posts
- except for two:
-
- Huckiebein and WUAF_Hero, you are dismissed because
- as usual your posts add nothing to the discussion.

Did you even read Huckebein's post? It had some good points in it, an illustration of which is the graph I posted.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 07:27 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Did you even read Huckebein's post? It had some
- good points in it, an illustration of which is the
- graph I posted.
-
---AKD

Yes, to me his correction seems also right.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 10:38 AM
Oh i am forced to disagree with you there, comrade Astro. My post was quite pertinent indeed. I was pointing out that you have no idea what you are talking about, which... is infact the question at hand, is it not?

I mean really, do you expect to take a high altittude high speed interceptor, and putz around with it like it's a yak3 (clearly you do). Come now, don't let your ignorance of how to fly, cloud your judgement.



On a side note, I don't think anyone's post got to the bottom of the problem, faster than mine.

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 12:02 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
-
- GR142_Astro wrote:
-- Oleg,
--
-- I'm not as concerned about the P51's speed being too
-- slow as I am about the aircraft handling. It is very
-- poor and feels more like what the Thunderbolt should
-- be.
--
-- Thank you for your time.
--
--
--
-- "We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."
-
- The above statement is coming from someone who
- systematically flies below 2km, and does the same w/
- the P-51. It's not suprising that the P-51 handles
- poorly when you use it, because you use it wrong.
-
-



I agree with Hero. Astro likes to fly the P-51 below 3000m, just like his Yak-3. I have never seen him fly it above 3000. Each time I get near him he either bails out or disconnects from the game, is it because I start with an altitude advantage, is it because he is afraid of me, or is it because he is trying to use low altitude tactics for a high altitude aircraft? I have found the P-51 to be the best BnZ fighter (better than the Me-262 in some respects) in the game from the time we got the cockpit; in a fw190 vs p51 enagagement, with pilots of equal skill and experience, the P-51 would win. It is an excelent fighter, can dive with anything, and has excelent zoom climb and amerment. If you are fighting down low with it your not using the aircraft correctly. This is coming from someone with nearly 2 and a half years experience with the Fw-190 in the IL-2 series.

Cries of "B#######" "BS" and "I'm bored" occour when you shoot Astro down. It is rather entertaining.

As always astro, this thread is another one of your iodiotic topics. Kind of like the constant speed prop thread.

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 01:07 PM
My recent experience with the P-51D in RC_02 have been favourable. I have flown COOP missions against it in the G-6 Late, G-6/AS, G-10 & G-14.

The G-6 was understndable a little challenging without MW-50 but found the P-51 to be no major problem in the other 109's. All engagements made above 5000M most around 7000M.

I found that most of the P-51 pilots I fought against plain and simple did not take advantage of the P-51 Fully. Drag the P-51 into a turnfight with a 109 and he's dead meat - this seems to have been missed by many Pony drivers. The climbrate of the P-51 is also nothing to shout about - so all of the engagements I have entered have been with an altitude advantage. Even with a 500M advantage over a Pony in a G-6 you can work him over /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Personally for a similar energy fight I prefer the A-9. I have found that the Mk-108 can be a little less effective on the Pony than the MG151/20. So even in a 109 I would take the 20mm - You only need to get a few hits to cause damage to the tail assembly and leading MG hits ahead of the cockpit get the Glycol flowing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 03:22 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
- Oh i am forced to disagree with you there, comrade
- Astro. My post was quite pertinent indeed. I was
- pointing out that you have no idea what you are
- talking about, which... is infact the question at
- hand, is it not?
-
- I mean really, do you expect to take a high
- altittude high speed interceptor, and putz around
- with it like it's a yak3 (clearly you do). Come now,
- don't let your ignorance of how to fly, cloud your
- judgement.


Very true, i think that should also aplly's for some of the FW's and BF's as well. im not 100% shure about the BF109 but the P5-1, FW and P-47 did not turn or manuver very well at low speeds. Man, are they wicked planes when you keep your speed fast.



Message Edited on 11/15/0302:30PM by Maple_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 05:02 PM
The P-51 certainly cannot turn with the Yak-3 or La-7, but it can actually turn with the Ki-84 at low speeds, I've actually managed outturning one. The Ki-84 behavs much the same as a Fw 190 does at low speeds, it simply refuses to turn. One has to deflect the elevators almost to their stops to get anything out of it at all. The P-51 on the other hand can maintain a very stable tight turn with very small stick forces.

<center>


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



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


Message Edited on 11/15/0304:03PM by robban75

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 05:13 PM
I find if you have a bit of speed going into the turn and you use your combat flaps you can stick with most fighters long enough to wash some .50 cal bullets across their wings and engine.

I have run into the snap roll thing, but it seems intermittent to me. It doesn't always do it.

Anyone know where that aluminum P-51 skin is from that screen shot?

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
11-15-2003, 07:35 PM
"The Ki-84 behavs much the same as a Fw 190 does at low speeds, it simply refuses to turn. One has to deflect the elevators almost to their stops to get anything out of it at all."

Not true, Rob.

The Ki-84-Ia we have, turns with a Yak-1B, both in instantaneous maneuvers and low-speed prolonged turn fights.


The way I figure, the reason why people think the Ki-84-Ia doesn't turn good at low speeds, is because of about three reasons:


1) The controls are twitchy at low speeds. The elevators are highly responsive at all speeds - almost up to a super-sensitive level, one might say. Even a slightest pull will instantly bring out high deflection authority, and if your current stick setting is suited to planes such as a Bf109, you're gonna feel a lot of frustration because of all that pitch authority.

2) The plane, accelerates like a greased pig. If you don't keep your throttle under control, in a tight-quarters dogfight you have a very high chance of being overshot; simply because every downhill, low AoA, smooth move is going to suddenly push your plane's speed way up.

People are aware of this, and therefore, throttle control becomes a very, very important issue when dogfighting in the Hayate. Dumping E, is as important as saving E in a close-quarters fight - and you're in a plane that wants to breed E like a pregnant rat!

So, it seems to me, that people have a tendency of overcompensating for the accelration - they keep the throttle down during dog fights. Which, of course, drags the speed down. When you're not used to such a sensitive plane, it really can be tedious.

3) People should learn the exact timing to deploy the "Butterflies". These devices are low-drag and efficient flaps which considerably ease down the difficulty of handling, not to mention that it also actually has a positive effect in turn rate and radius, unlike other types of flaps. People used to other planes are pretty much aware that they should not over-use flaps, as it will kill their speed. So, they usually tend to flick a notch of combat flaps, and after about 1/4th of a turn, retract it again. The Butterflies, should be used much more aggressively, than compared to that.

1, 2, and 3, all pretty much require some experience and understanding in combat maneyvering. But when they are used in a combo, the Ki-84-Ia outturns everything except a few old planes such as the Hurricane, Zero, I-16, Brewster, P.11c etc etc.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 08:04 PM
VW-IceFire wrote:

- Anyone know where that aluminum P-51 skin is from
- that screen shot?


i don't know for this one, but the best alu templates i have ever seen are here :

http://www.nnavirex.com/

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
11-15-2003, 08:35 PM
kweassa wrote:
- Not true, Rob.
-
-
- The Ki-84-Ia we have, turns with a Yak-1B, both in
- instantaneous maneuvers and low-speed prolonged turn
- fights.

Yes you're right, but even though the Ki-84 easily outturns the 190 its elevators very much resembles the 190's in the way they feel. A bit on the heavy side. Whereas the P-51 feels very much like the russian birds.

<center>


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



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

</center>