PDA

View Full Version : Is the p51 underpowered?



Daniel39363
08-23-2009, 01:06 PM
I thought the p51 was one of the greatest aircraft of the time, but in il2 it seems to be mediocre. It is outperformed by the bf109, when during the war the bf109 was considered "easy meat" by a lot of p51 pilots. Is the plane really underpowered or does it just take a lot of skill to use effectively.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 01:15 PM
The Bf-109 was not "easy meat".

People exaggerated back then too, you know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I personaly think the P-51 is not a very good plane, real-life and in-game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

VW-IceFire
08-23-2009, 01:18 PM
"Greatest aircraft of all time" sounds like the teachings of the History Channel...

The P-51 Mustang was an excellent aircraft and by all accounts a top contender in WWII. It is not, however, a super fighter. It requires the skill of an experienced pilot (something the USAAF had no shortage of by the time the Mustang became available)...when in those hands then its a superb machine.

In terms of raw power the Mustang doesn't have it...1650hp is similar to the Spitfire IX (nearly the same engine). The Mustang manages to be 30mph (ish) faster than the Spitfire IX with its superb aerodynamics so it really rewards a pilot who is smooth and confident rather than yanking and banking around the skies.

We constantly get these topics (year after year)...and IL-2 isn't the only game this topic comes up in. Aces High amongst many others see these same comments. Its largely because when you model the Mustang...its just a plane and what makes it a legend is the pilots that were able to get the most out if it.

R_Target
08-23-2009, 01:18 PM
P-51 is one of the greatest aircraft of all time. But so was the Bf-109.

X32Wright
08-23-2009, 01:19 PM
You just dont know how to fly her. It is easy to get to 320mph with the proper manifold pressure and rpm (prop pitch controlled) settings plus trim. She doesnt like to fly slow and doesn't like low altitude and turns. She is slow to accelerate unlike the FW and 109s but would leave the 109 and FW if you have built up enough speed and have enough alt.

Here is a discussion of HOW to fly the Mustang by a real pilot who has flown her:

http://deltachevron.com/forums...wtopic.php?f=3&t=236 (http://deltachevron.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=236)

The Mustang was made to enagage and disengage at will and the luftwaffe was actually forbidden from engaging Mustangs.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 01:26 PM
"Greatest aircraft of all time" sounds like the teachings of the History Channel...


Yep...

History channel is full of it.

They said that the F6F was far more superior then teh F4F, whitch its is but not by much.

They also said that the A6M could accelerate verticly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BTW, I'm starting to think before I post, so far I'v denied like 50 posts today. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Daniel39363
08-23-2009, 01:42 PM
but the history channel is always right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Daniel39363:
but the history channel is always right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No its not!

The histroy channel has about 60% accuracy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AndyJWest
08-23-2009, 01:49 PM
Ouch! If ever there was a topic to start a flame war, this has got to be it. Stand back and watch the Fireworks...

To try to get in early, before this all kicks off, here's my thoughts.

(A) The P-51 was certainly a great aircraft, but I'd think that any WWII P-51 jockey who thought of bf 109s as 'easy meat' was pushing his luck. In skilled hands the late-model 109s were capable of putting up a good fight against P-51s. The problem for the Luftwaffe in late WWII was not lack of good aircraft designs, but lack of fuel, and lack of good pilots (along with incompetent leadership).

(B) To say that the P-51 in IL-2 is outperformed by the Bf 109 is questionable anyway. The two aircraft are very different, designed for different purposes. The P-51 was a long-range escort fighter used for escorting high-altitude bombing raids. Of necessity, to achieve the range required it had to be heavier, which in turn means that other compromises have to be made in contrast to a short-range interceptor like the 109. With the P-51, the compromise was largely in terms of having a higher wing loading, to keep airframe size down and maximise speed, accepting that there would be a consequent loss of manouverability. All data seems to suggest that the real-life 109 could outturn the P-51 in most circumstances. IL-2 replicates this. There are many other aspects to performance though, where the P-51 may excel.

(C) It should be remembered that during WWII, when P-51s fought Bf 109s, it was often while carrying out high-altitude bombing escorts. The P-51 is widely acknowledged to perform at its best at high altitude, whereas most IL-2 combat, online or offline, seems to be carried out nearer the deck.

(D) IL-2 combat also differs from the real-world too in that turning 'furball' dogfights dominate, where a nimble plane like the 109 is at an advantage over aircraft that are superior in other ways.

(E) And finally, in skilled hands, the in-game P-51 can be deadly. It is not an easy aircraft to get the best out of, and if you are used to flying say a Spitfire or a Bf 109, you have to relearn a lot, and think more tactically. You have to exploit the planes' advantages, and avoid getting into turning fights where possible.

I wouldn't say that I'm in any way a skilled P-51 pilot, but I can just about handle one well enough to begin to exploit its characteristics, and it is worth sticking with through the initial frustrations. No doubt there are some P-51 aces out there who will be able to give more guidance on exactly how to get the best of this beautiful bird.

Wildnoob
08-23-2009, 01:49 PM
yeah, but I gonna disagreed about the Mustang not be so good at lower level, gonna use the same words as Bud Anderson in a documentary for the sim:

"it was a tremendous airplane, good at high altitude good at low altitude"

actually at lower level it can gain more speed faster, using it to try avoid BF-109's with it, I personally have sucess doing this, but the FW-190 is on every bite close to it, so thefore face a A series at low and medium level and a D9 at any level is all up to the pilot skill, absurdly competitive figthers, so would say wat is wrote in the Mustang pilot's notes in the aicraft guied apply mainly for face the FW-109A:

"The Mustang is best used at high altitudes. bellow 20,000 feet its superiority over the enemy deteriorates and finally complet disappears as it approches the ground"

but against the D9, ah, in every centimeter of level is up to the pilot skill.

Daniel39363 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif she's my favorite allied ride on the sim, and I'm a absurdly n00b and the Mustang give's me a wide range of oportunits to destroy enemy aicraft, learn it's basics, it's not the power, it's the sustained turning that I risk to say you are doing, search in the topics, later gonna post some of them to you, and you gonna see that you have in your hands one of the finest figthers of the sim and of course, WWII. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bearcat99
08-23-2009, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
"Greatest aircraft of all time" sounds like the teachings of the History Channel...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
That is not what the man said.


Originally posted by Daniel39363:
I thought the p51 was one of the greatest aircraft of the time, but........

(....and it most certainly was... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif )

See how people can read what they want to read and start a bunch of nonsense...... ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif



Now getting to the original post... Yes.. it takes some skill to fly the plane as modelled in this sim to it's full potential.. and actually that applies to any plane in this sim. Including the 109. It is a part of the sim's charm.. If you are not using trim & prop pitch then you are not flying the plane to it's full potential. Not only that against just about any plane in this sim piloted by good stick.. any other plane is more often than not "easy meat"

See this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3691094616?r=5901025616#5901025616)


Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
History channel is full of it.
They said that the F6F was far more superior then teh F4F, whitch its is but not by much.
They also said that the A6M could accelerate verticly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
BTW, I'm starting to think before I post, so far I'v denied like 50 posts today. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

In real life the difference between the F-6 & the F-4F saved a lot of lives.. so IMO it was superior enough.. at least according to the pilots who flew it.

THC makes thier mistakes.. but bear in mind that a lot of what we see on there are quotes by the pilots who flew the aircraft.. and I have yet to hear one Mustang pilot say "Then we saw the 109s... and I got nervous because.... " Which is not to say that the 109 was not a great aircraft... it was indeed, also one of the greatest aircraft of all time.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

megalopsuche
08-23-2009, 02:11 PM
Here we go again. Same whine, different flight sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

R_Target
08-23-2009, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
They said that the F6F was far more superior then teh F4F, whitch its is but not by much.

In this case, they were probably right. F6F is far superior to the Wildcat. But if you meant the IL2 versions, then yes, I agree.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
They said that the F6F was far more superior then teh F4F, whitch its is but not by much.

In this case, they were probably right. F6F is far superior to the Wildcat. But if you meant the IL2 versions, then yes, I agree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I wouldnt say "far"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

robtek1957
08-23-2009, 02:22 PM
I haven´t found whining here, where did you megalopsuche?

VW-IceFire
08-23-2009, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
"Greatest aircraft of all time" sounds like the teachings of the History Channel...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
That is not what the man said.


Originally posted by Daniel39363:
I thought the p51 was one of the greatest aircraft of the time, but........

See how people can read what they want to read and start a bunch of nonsense...... ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The whole "greatest" thing is by itself an issue...its non-specific and its typical of what we see when referring to the Mustang. I read it fine...my interpretation on the other hand may be me becoming jaded.

The rest of what I said I wouldn't consider nonsense and so far this thread has been largely productive.

@Daniel39363: To make myself more productive in this thread...here's a few quick pointers that usually help no matter what plane but particularly for the Mustang:

- When partaking in short missions use only 25% fuel (this will last a long time in a Mustang).
- The Mustangs guns are more effective when the convergence range is closer in than the default. If your convergence is 500 meters...try 250 meters.
- Learn the trim controls and get used to constantly trimming the elevator and rudder trims to get the plane flying with the minimum stick input required.
- Look up the information in the Readme's and on this forum on how to use the gyroscopic gunsight found in the P-51D-20. This will make your shooting potentially much more accurate and effective.
- Practice...load up the QMB and keep flying the Mustang against whatever targets you want. Eventually the plane will make sense to you and you'll know what to expect of it.

megalopsuche
08-23-2009, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by robtek1957:
I haven´t found whining here, where did you megalopsuche?

Did he give any objective data for why he thinks the P-51 is underpowered? Did he compare tested in game performance with historical test data? Nothing of the sort. Instead he threw out an unreferenced anecdote with the implication that he ought to have greater success when he flies the P-51 in the game. Call it a veiled whine if you like, but it's a whine nonetheless.

The funny thing is that I'm yet to see an online flight sim with ww2 aircraft where you don't have people crying about the P-51D, how it ought to be flying circles around the competition, how the 6xM2 armament had to have been better than this, etc.

KG26_Alpha
08-23-2009, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Daniel39363:
I thought the p51 was one of the greatest aircraft of the time, but in il2 it seems to be mediocre. It is outperformed by the bf109, when during the war the bf109 was considered "easy meat" by a lot of p51 pilots. Is the plane really underpowered or does it just take a lot of skill to use effectively.

On a different angle.
I would have thought the Me 262 was the greatest aircraft of its time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
On a different angle I would have thought the Me 262 was the greatest aircraft in its time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It probably is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

X32Wright
08-23-2009, 03:03 PM
Capt. Eric Brown seems to think so and he has flown every type of WWII aircraft there is including the Komet (Me-163). But I think he would say Spitfire or Mustang if he had to pick one to fly during wartime.

stalkervision
08-23-2009, 03:09 PM
One of the factors in unfair assesments of the 109 and mustang was that late model 109's were overloaded with heavy armaments to take down the B-17's easier sad to say. The Luftwaffe even tried to form "heavy" and "light" gruppen which didn't work because the american's were much superior in numbers. Most often they overloaded the "light gruppen" defense.

then you have the fact the poor 190 couldn't compete in high altitude fights because it had no high altitude supercharging.

X32Wright
08-23-2009, 03:20 PM
This is why the 'Hoehenjaeger' versions of the FW were developed along with the Ta-152C.

megalopsuche
08-23-2009, 03:25 PM
At 25K ft and above, there's no doubt to me that the P-51 was superior to both the 190 and 109. Get below 20k ft and things are murkier.

Keep in mind that before the hordes of P-51s showed up, the P47 had already broken the best resistance the Luftwaffe had to offer, without the huge numbers advantage, and against better pilots. Even then, to say that the P-51D pilots had an easy time of it would be a gross overstatement.

I've been reading "To Win the Winter Sky," and one of the more surprising statistics I came across for American fighter pilots in the ETO for 1944 was that for their first 17 missions, the odds were 5.4% that they wouldn't return from a sortie. Sometimes they bailed safely or had to ditch, but run that 5.4% 17 times and you start not to feel so confident about your chances. After the first 17 sorties, the odds of mishap drop dramatically to about 1.5%, iirc.

Sillius_Sodus
08-23-2009, 03:57 PM
10 pages... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
IBTL

Waldo.Pepper
08-23-2009, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Here is a discussion of HOW to fly the Mustang by a real pilot who has flown her:

http://deltachevron.com/forums...wtopic.php?f=3&t=236 (http://deltachevron.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=236)

The Mustang was made to engage and disengage at will and the Luftwaffe was actually forbidden from engaging Mustangs.

X32Wright is correct this is a must read. Especially the first page of the 4 page thread.

Mucho thanks Wright.

Bearcat99
08-23-2009, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
You just dont know how to fly her. It is easy to get to 320mph with the proper manifold pressure and rpm (prop pitch controlled) settings plus trim. She doesnt like to fly slow and doesn't like low altitude and turns. She is slow to accelerate unlike the FW and 109s but would leave the 109 and FW if you have built up enough speed and have enough alt.

Here is a discussion of HOW to fly the Mustang by a real pilot who has flown her:

http://deltachevron.com/forums...wtopic.php?f=3&t=236 (http://deltachevron.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=236)

The Mustang was made to enagage and disengage at will and the luftwaffe was actually forbidden from engaging Mustangs.

That is good.... !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Since this subject seems to come up every few weeks it seems like.. I have made a post on the front page taking all of the P-51 tips... including this great stuff from thr DC forums, which is probably the best because it is based on actual experience with a real P-51 & the 46 P-51. My reasons for locking that post of mine are in the post.

Bremspropeller
08-23-2009, 04:29 PM
luftwaffe was actually forbidden from engaging Mustangs.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif Nobody told them.

JZG_Thiem
08-23-2009, 04:36 PM
Go to War-Clouds_WF and you will see that indeed that P51 is superior to any 109 if flown correctly.

R_Target
08-23-2009, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
I wouldnt say "far"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

OK, so don't. Those that flew both, and flew against both, disagree with you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
08-23-2009, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">luftwaffe was actually forbidden from engaging Mustangs.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif Nobody told them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only in earlier 109's without Methanol boost.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stalkervision
08-23-2009, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
10 pages... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
IBTL

ya i was going to say this to but I thought it would just be too darn obvious. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 05:38 PM
The P-51 is inferior to the P-47 and the F4U in some ways...

It was also inferior to the P-38 in some ways...

Now I'm not trying to start a fight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



But, it is not terrible.

Its an average plane.

stalkervision
08-23-2009, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
The P-51 is inferior to the P-47 and the F4U in some ways...

It was also inferior to the P-38 in some ways...

Now I'm not trying to start a fight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



But, it is not terrible.

Its an average plane.

get him everyone! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 06:31 PM
http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/SILVERFISH1992/Areyousure.jpg

AndyJWest
08-23-2009, 06:33 PM
Owlet is right -

The P-51 is inferior to the P-47 and the F4U in some ways... You can drop them both from a greater hight without breaking them.

It was also inferior to the P-38 in some ways... It's not as good for starting an argument.

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 06:34 PM
By the P-38 I ment climb and turn.

AndyJWest
08-23-2009, 06:38 PM
Now you are trying to start an argument....

The_Stealth_Owl
08-23-2009, 06:40 PM
Sorry, my bad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Ok, fine, forget about the P-38, now its in between the P-51 vs F4U vs P-47.

X32Wright
08-23-2009, 06:43 PM
Im glad you guys found the tips by Miss Strega to be helpful. I hated the mustang myself because I 'just dont feel' her speed and subtle nuances. It turns out I just HAD no clue flying that plane and I wasn't flying her properly either. After Strega showed me her secrets I was able to enjoy it now and properly fly the mustang.

main thing I can suggest is to keep her ALWAYS FAST and NEVER slow...She kind of misbehaves when slow. This means above 380kph or 240mph.

megalopsuche
08-23-2009, 06:49 PM
I like to fly the Mustang at all speeds. I will even stall fight on the deck in the 51. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

AndyJWest
08-23-2009, 06:54 PM
I can do the stalling bit... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Skycat_2
08-23-2009, 06:57 PM
I personally believe that most of the hype surrounding the P-51--and why it greatly overshadows the P-47 and other U.S. fighters in popular culture--comes from its postwar availability to civilians as military surplus. The Mustang became the sportscar of the skies, so to speak. And keep in mind that today's racer versions are modified to have nearly double the horsepower that they did when they came off the production line during the war.

I'm not saying it was actually a bad plane or even is an overrated plane. In the context of its time it was faster than the P-40 it essentially replaced and it could escort bombers much further than any previous fighter. And as the quality of the Luftwaffe's defense was fast crumbling in the last year of the war, Mustangs were increasingly used to strike aerodromes, ships, trains and other ground targets in Germany and Central Europe. I'd argue that the P-51 arrived to the war at just the right time to establish its reputation as the premiere all purpose fighter, regardless of its true strengths and weaknesses when compared to other era fighters in a one-on-one matchup.

AndyJWest
08-23-2009, 07:03 PM
After writing earlier about trying to learn to get the most out of the P-51, I decided to try one on a furball server. Took of fine, climbed to 2500m (high for this server!), nothing but a barrage balloon up there, so I popped that and went back down to ZnB on the suckers below. Found a Ki-84 climbing slowly, so pounced. He saw me coming of course, and just managed to avoid my first pass. I came back, still with real E advantage, but he managed to evade again, and suckered me into turning with him - bad mistake. Cannons. Bang. Big splash. Exit P-51.

Next time, I flew a Spitfire...

X32Wright
08-23-2009, 07:07 PM
You can try this in the game actually if the mustang is a good plane or not. With a pilot of the same skills preferably those knowing how to 'energy fight' at 5K and above, the Mustang would be less than 100% throttle and even less Prop Pitch settings and be able to outrun a G-10 or G-6/AS or even a K-4 C3 IF the mustang stays horizontal and keeps her speed at all times. The only time the 109 will win is if the Mustang climbs and loses energy or dives with the 109 close to it. How do I know this? because I am a 109 flyer who learned to fly the Mustang.

A mustang with proper manifold pressure and rpm setting can outrun the 109 with the MW50 boost.

Thekid321
08-23-2009, 07:08 PM
Im kinda like that too megalopsuche. I know thats not how your "supposed" to fly it. But I do alright. Same kinda thing with this as the jug and lightning. You just have to get used to it.

Viper2005_
08-23-2009, 11:02 PM
The P-51 is fast.

The P-51 has a long range.

These two factors are crucial. Firstly, Speed is Life. Secondly, you can't fight unless you can get to the enemy.

The P-51 is an extremely deadly aeroplane, but it has to be flown correctly.

You cannot merely point your lift vector at the bandit and pull.

Instead you must anticipate where your target will be, and position yourself appropriately.

In exchange for this, you gain the ability to disengage at will from the vast majority of the opposition.

Other aeroplanes are undoubtedly better at killing stuff than the P-51, so why was the P-51 so popular?

Simple.

Speed is life.

Big guns are great, but Speed is Life.

High sustained turn rate is great, but Speed is Life.

It is far better to turn and run away from an inferior position than to die a "hero". The chances are that you'll do better next time, and of course if your aeroplane has a speed advantage then the other won't be able to run away from you when the time comes...

I think that the P-51 has a good reputation because its pilots were generally able to live to fight another day thanks to its speed, and spread the good word upon their return. Altogether superior to "wooden cross or iron cross".

X32Wright
08-24-2009, 12:05 AM
Goering once asked 'how do we win the air war?' the answer came 'Give us P-51's'

Sakai was once asked what plane he would have liked to have flown in WWII. The answer was 'P-51 Mustang'.

RPMcMurphy
08-24-2009, 12:43 AM
Oh good gawd, mustang mustang mustang.
Yeah; It is a b-e-a-utiful plane.
Other than that, whats the big dealio?
Not much better than any other WW2 war bird.
(Bong or Hartman would be glad to opine I'd bet)

Thing is: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif If I was a Mustang mechanic in WW2, you'd probly find me trying to hump the dang thang in the middle of the night.
Ain't she sweet.

deepo_HP
08-24-2009, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Goering once asked 'how do we win the air war?' the answer came 'Give us P-51's' when did goering ask and who answered that?

so far i only know the often quoted spitfire-comment of galland to goering, then goering's order not to engage mustangs - sometimes interpreted as to avoid the fight, but more like the order to stay on target and concentrate on destroying bombers (although i haven't found a direct quote yet) - and then goering's notion of a lost war, when mustangs were frequently seen over berlin (at least some evidence, that the man was capable of drawing some basic conclusions).

why and whatfore would mustangs have been wished by the luftwaffe?

Friendly_flyer
08-24-2009, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Oh good gawd, mustang mustang mustang.
Yeah; It is a b-e-a-utiful plane.


Come on now, McMurphy, it looks like a pregnant guppy with that big belly radiator and lack of proper paint.

It's a nice enough plane to fly, shame about the guns though.

RPMcMurphy
08-24-2009, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:

Come on now, McMurphy, it looks like a pregnant guppy with that big belly radiator and lack of proper paint.

It's a nice enough plane to fly, shame about the guns though.
It looks like a pregant guppy on the ground, but that thang is meant to be airborne.
I admit they could have flattened out that scoop a little on the bottom to make it look not-so fat bellied; those dang aeronautical engineers. Yeah, shame about the guns alright too. But she's still a peach.

BillSwagger
08-24-2009, 01:50 AM
My experience with this sim is that there are good representations of some aircraft that put more detail into the modeling of the plane, where other aircraft lack the same level of detail.
So the fact that the P-51 needs all the extra finesse that goes with flying it could be attributed to the fact that more details were considered when making its flight model.

Unfortunately, we don't see the same level of detail across the board, as i'm sure many other aircraft required constant trimming to be effective at top speeds.

109s are modeled to fly fast, and i can get more speed out of a 109 with out all the popper finesse that's required of the P-51. Some 109 models can, however, blow an engine if flown improperly even with the automated prop pitch. Why the 109 has this modeled into their boost system can also be attributed to the level of detail.
Historically, any boost system posed a similar threat to the engine, including planes such as the Spitfire and Yak. However, these planes don't have this level of detail modeled to the same to degree as the 109.

All debates set aside, the fact remains that some planes just require more of the pilot to fly properly.
So there is somewhat of a discrepancy if you can fly one plane more easily than the other, even though historically both planes might have been more closely matched, because of factors not modeled in the game.

deepo_HP
08-24-2009, 02:13 AM
hi billswagger,

the 'boost' system of the 109s (i guess, you mean the 'mw-50'-equippped types here... or the few with gm-1 system) could in fact cause damage and was a very different one than the spitfire's more boostlike 'boost'.
other than that i wouldn't know of engine-blowings in 109s except than by overheat and (as you already said) rpm-limits.

the 109 didn't offer a trim other than pitch, rest was preadjusted, i think. so of course it achieves the speed without trimming other than pitch. contrary to the p-51, of course.

probably some planes are slightly more detailed than others (but i have no real clue), however i wouldn't say, this difference can be easily noticed within the main types.
for 'boost' and engine-modeling i can't see a difference in detail between yak, spit and 109. doesn't mean, there isn't any, but the 'boost' has been different in those.

i also find the differences in handling not principally different from historical (where i have to rely in many things on what i read and get linked to here).

which planes exactly would you think were a close match in real, and here are not because of different levels of details in the model?
spit and 109, mustang and 109? (i find yaks a nervous, but sweet thing here, not really fitting any of those)

Gammelpreusse
08-24-2009, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
My experience with this sim is that there are good representations of some aircraft that put more detail into the modeling of the plane, where other aircraft lack the same level of detail.
So the fact that the P-51 needs all the extra finesse that goes with flying it could be attributed to the fact that more details were considered when making its flight model.

Unfortunately, we don't see the same level of detail across the board, as i'm sure many other aircraft required constant trimming to be effective at top speeds.

109s are modeled to fly fast, and i can get more speed out of a 109 with out all the popper finesse that's required of the P-51. Some 109 models can, however, blow an engine if flown improperly even with the automated prop pitch. Why the 109 has this modeled into their boost system can also be attributed to the level of detail.
Historically, any boost system posed a similar threat to the engine, including planes such as the Spitfire and Yak. However, these planes don't have this level of detail modeled to the same to degree as the 109.

All debates set aside, the fact remains that some planes just require more of the pilot to fly properly.
So there is somewhat of a discrepancy if you can fly one plane more easily than the other, even though historically both planes might have been more closely matched, because of factors not modeled in the game.

You always have to consider in what ways different planes achieve their performance. The P51, for a plane of its size, was indeed rather underpowered compared to other fighters of its time. Nevertheless it's highly effective design made up for that. On the downside this results in a plane that has to be flown carefully, energy has to be used strategically.

The later marks 109s are quite a bit smaller, however pretty brutal in the horse power department. This means you have a lot more reserves especally when maneuvering and regaining energy in general. Thus mistakes are easier compensated for then, for example, in a 51.

I've been wondering for quite some time how the 51 would have performed with a 2000+HP engine. Probably a monster.

BillSwagger
08-24-2009, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
which planes exactly would you think were a close match in real, and here are not because of different levels of details in the model?
spit and 109, mustang and 109? (i find yaks a nervous, but sweet thing here, not really fitting any of those)

I can't really say what the real match ups were like, that would be like trying to argue the P-51 is underpowered.
Its less about real vs unreal, and more about consistency. Some planes have the added detail, while others don't. Which is why i say "All debates set aside, the fact remains that some planes just require more of the pilot to fly properly."

In game, the late 109 is a little faster and by giving the P-51 the burden of trimming to achieve top speeds and acceleration, while the other can reach top speeds and hold them with no added finesse, then it can give the perception that the P-51 is underpowered. The 109 is/was a faster plane but i don't see why it wouldn't require the same finesse to get to its top speeds.
Yes, it has more HP, and can get to a higher top speed, but I'm trying avoid the drag vs power vs weight discussion as i see the issue is more about consistency in the plane modeling.

To add to this, the 109s will blow their engines if you use (i forget which variants) the boost at too low of an altitude. The 109K can also lose its engine with out the use of boost, just simply using 110 percent throttle on take off, for example, but it doesn't happen every time.
Yaks and Spits had different boosts, but neither were so reliable as to not have the same likely hood of failure as the 109s. In fact, over boosting an engine was to be avoided in Spitfires unless it was an emergency, where obviously better to lose the engine than the pilot.

So these inconsistencies can cause reason for long debates about aircraft performance when i just think that possibly some just have more detailed models than others.
This probably has a lot to do with the history and structure of the game where a lot of planes weren't modeled side by side but added in later patches/versions of the game.
It would be great to see a patch that added more detail to the sim modeling, but i have a feeling that we wont see something like that for many reasons.

GH_Klingstroem
08-24-2009, 04:47 AM
Oh just to add one small thing...

NEVER NEVER EVER pull harder onthe stick than u have to! Every extra G that you pull create drag! Drag is something u want to keep as low as possible in all planes but is crucial in the p51! If u go headon with a guy (why anyone ever would do that is beyond me but anyway) there is no rush to make a 180 as soon as possible by pulling hard. Keep an eye on the guy and pull the turn as gently as possible. Always have the mind to pull as little G as possible. Its called being E conservative!! Very very important! When u BnZ, there is no need to almost black out when u pull out, do it as soft as possible and try to stay ZERO G if possible when going over the top. Just keep an eye on the guy u just attacked. If he is pulling his nose up on u, just pull gently so his bullets miss.

Basically, always be gentle with the stick!
Its like telling a girl how to handle your own.... uhm... over and out... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
08-24-2009, 07:41 AM
Yeah I'm on the "as gentle as possible" bandwagon too... because as you mature with this game, you realize that EVERYTHING is in energy.
It isn't limited to P-51, but all aircraft.
With some aircraft like this it is obligatory, with others like Spitfire it isn't but you can't be a successful flier in any ride if you do not obey it.

OK I exaggerated it a bit... something is in gunnery too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But energy and speed just rules.

DrHerb
08-24-2009, 11:21 AM
Jeff Ethell said there are three rules to flying the P-51.

Rule no. 1 - Dont go too slow
Rule no. 2 - Dont go too slow
Rule no. 3 - Dont go too slow

MD_Titus
08-24-2009, 12:08 PM
the p-51 had a huge range, and that's what made it special.

if anything killed the luftwaffe it was the p-38, p47 and spitfires used earlier in the campaign.

JtD
08-24-2009, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by MD_Titus:

if anything killed the luftwaffe it was the p-38, p47 and spitfires used earlier in the campaign.

Yes, Yakovlevs, Lavochkins and in fact the entire eastern front are just a myth.

MD_Titus
08-24-2009, 12:59 PM
well seeing as it's western front and the p-51 in question i didn't get strictly accurate.

horseback
08-24-2009, 03:08 PM
My experience with this sim is that there are good representations of some aircraft that put more detail into the modeling of the plane, where other aircraft lack the same level of detail.

So the fact that the P-51 needs all the extra finesse that goes with flying it could be attributed to the fact that more details were considered when making its flight model.

Unfortunately, we don't see the same level of detail across the board, as i'm sure many other aircraft required constant trimming to be effective at top speeds.

109s are modeled to fly fast, and i can get more speed out of a 109 with out all the popper finesse that's required of the P-51. Have to largely agree with Bill here. The Mustang’s FM is far twitchier than the P-40’s in this game, which Oleg & Co. have extensive Soviet era records of (unlike the Merlin Mustang). This is significant because the Mustang was almost invariably compared to the P-40 in terms of the trim demand of the earlier design. P-40s (all P-40s, from the Tomahawk to the P-40N) demanded a lot of trim all the time; America’s Hundred Thousand has a section about trimming for each wartime US fighter, and the comments on the P-40 in this regard are sometimes excoriating and supported by many quotes from wartime pilots who flew it. One pilot’s statement stands out in my mind: he said that the P-40 required a trim adjustment for speed changes of as little as ten miles per hour. The section made it clear that if the pilot did not keep up with his trim adjustments, stick forces in combat could quickly become unmanageable.

The description of the P-51’s trimming was far more complementary, and several of the quotes contrasted it directly with the P-40. It was generally considered the easiest to fly of all late model US fighters in WWII with the possible exception of the Hellcat; several mention its light control forces at almost all speeds. Compared to other high performance fighters of its era, it was considered to be easy to master and generally forgiving (compared to modern aircraft of similar performance today, maybe not so much).

These conclusions were confirmed for me when I read the late Jeff Ethell’s articles about flying both the P-40 and the P-51 (in both the Allison and Merlin powered versions). As I recall, the P-51A article contrasted the Mustang directly with the P-40E and the P-51D he had flown, and the P-40’s trim was treated as its second greatest drawback, right after its ground handling. He seemed to think that the P-51A was easier to trim than the Merlin pony, but both were considered several steps ahead of the P-40.

In real life, the Mustang was (and is, if you want to talk to current warbird pilots with time in both types) much more refined and less demanding to fly than the P-40. That is reasonable because the Mustang was targeted at the P-40’s perceived faults when it was designed. Being designed four or five years after the base design P-36 was laid out gave North American a better grasp of the principles involved.

The game depicts the opposite, with the P-40s’ FMs being more stable & less demanding of trim adjustment. It is the Mustang that demands constant trim adjustment and yes, the nose will start to drop or rise with as little as a 10 mph change in airspeed.

As for the 109, I’ve been ‘flying’ it in this game and the original since I first got the original Il-2 Sturmovik running on my old 900Mhz Celeron eMachine, and while its FM doesn’t seem to have changed that much to me, most descriptions of it once it gets into the air, are generally complimentary.

Ground handling, takeoff and landing characteristics of most aircraft in the sim are pretty benign, so the 109 and the P-40 get off pretty lightly on their worst traits. The 109 has become more difficult to control at higher speeds over the years though, which reflects the wartime record.

Oleg has treated the early war US fighters that the Soviets got in great numbers fairly uh, shall we say, charitably? One sometimes gets the impression that he felt the need to balance that out somehow with the late war US fighters.

cheers

horseback

na85
08-24-2009, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

Oleg has treated the early war US fighters that the Soviets got in great numbers fairly uh, shall we say, charitably?

I wouldn't call the P-39's modeling "charitable"

Daniel39363
08-24-2009, 03:36 PM
Some of you have given very great replies for which I am thankful, others are flaming about this potentially becoming a flame war. I do enjoy history, but I am not an expert on every single aspect of every plane, and because this is a forum and not something more serious like a college essay, I did not do a ton of research before I posted. I was simply stating what I was thinking in hope that somebody could clarify and help me a little bit, I was in no way complaining or flaming. If you don't like the post, don't respond. Thanks again for the great answers from wildnoob, bearcat and icefire and horseback, and thanks for responding everybody else.

La7_brook
08-24-2009, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
[QUOTE]




Ground handling, takeoff and landing The 109 has become more difficult to control at higher speeds over the years though, which reflects the wartime record.

horseback

What "are you nuts"!! the P11 handles better at 400 kph then 109 do . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif Please Quote sorce for your maddness

horseback
08-24-2009, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
[QUOTE]
Ground handling, takeoff and landing The 109 has become more difficult to control at higher speeds over the years though, which reflects the wartime record.

horseback

What "are you nuts"!! the P11 handles better at 400 kph then 109 do . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif Please Quote sorce for your maddness </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Please provide a reliable proof of your reading comprehension.

The correct quote is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"Ground handling, takeoff and landing characteristics of most aircraft in the sim are pretty benign, so the 109 and the P-40 get off pretty lightly on their worst traits."</span> This means that all aircraft in the sim are modelled much more leniently than the real things in this particular regard, compared to how they are modelled once they are in the air. The 109 throughout its service life was a problem child taxiing ('ground handling'), and taking off and landing. In the game, it is no harder than the vast majority of fighters in the game, and frankly easier to land than the 190 or the Yak.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The 109 has become more difficult to control at higher speeds over the years though, which reflects the wartime record.</span> The 109 in the original game, and for most of the years I've been playing it, is a very easy aircraft to fly and fight in, particularly the F-4 and G-2 versions (which are still very competitive against most 42-43 era fighters).

Only in the last few patches have I noticed that the later, heavier models tend to get sluggish in their response to the control inputs at higher speeds, and that never bothered me nearly as much as the fact that I can't hit the broad side of a barn with that friggin' 30mm cannon unless I'm sitting inside the hayloft.

From my reading of pilot accounts on both sides this (the handling, not my atrocious marksmanship) would seem to be accurate. Almost everyone agrees that the 109's handling deteriorated as the succeeding models got heavier; most suggest that after the F-4, things started going downhill.

I believe that it was not just a matter of power to weight ratios, but a matter of how much weight, power/torque and speed that airframe could handle.

If you need a source, try to find any book NOT written by Martin Caiden about the 109 or the top LW experten that doesn't have pictures that you can color in yourself.

cheers

horseback

horseback
08-24-2009, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

Oleg has treated the early war US fighters that the Soviets got in great numbers fairly uh, shall we say, charitably?

I wouldn't call the P-39's modeling "charitable" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I would; if Oleg's statements about the ai planes being capable of no more performance than the same aircraft type's flyable versions is true, then someone with talent should be able to take the time necessary to master the little beast and fly it to 99% of what the ai routinely do with it. I do know that if I've just spent a week or so flying an offline campaign in it, the Mustang suddenly seems a lot easier to fly.

The Airacobra does come closer to the America's Hundred Thousand description of it than the P-40 does, and it seems a lot faster to me, although all that trimming can be off-putting. It can (and should) out turn the 109 most of the time, and below 12,000 ft be an absolute terror in the right hands. You just have to learn to stay ahead of the trim and adjust the prop pitch for the best performance.

It's not as hard to fly as the Yak in my opinion, but the pilot's 'stock' field of view is awful, especially against ai with no compunctions about hiding behind your canopy framing. Without 6DOF, you do have a handicap there, but the USAAF's and the LW's opinion of the real thing was that it wasn't that much of a threat air to air.

Oleg's 'Cobra FMs seem to me to come a lot closer to the Soviet view.

cheers

horseback

Bearcat99
08-24-2009, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The Mustang’s FM is far twitchier than the P-40’s in this game, which Oleg & Co. have extensive Soviet era records of (unlike the Merlin Mustang). This is significant because the Mustang was almost invariably compared to the P-40 in terms of the trim demand of the earlier design. P-40s (all P-40s, from the Tomahawk to the P-40N) demanded a lot of trim all the time; America’s Hundred Thousand has a section about trimming for each wartime US fighter, and the comments on the P-40 in this regard are sometimes excoriating and supported by many quotes from wartime pilots who flew it. One pilot’s statement stands out in my mind: he said that the P-40 required a trim adjustment for speed changes of as little as ten miles per hour. The section made it clear that if the pilot did not keep up with his trim adjustments, stick forces in combat could quickly become unmanageable.

The description of the P-51’s trimming was far more complementary, and several of the quotes contrasted it directly with the P-40. It was generally considered the easiest to fly of all late model US fighters in WWII with the possible exception of the Hellcat; several mention its light control forces at almost all speeds. Compared to other high performance fighters of its era, it was considered to be easy to master and generally forgiving (compared to modern aircraft of similar performance today, maybe not so much).

These conclusions were confirmed for me when I read the late Jeff Ethell’s articles about flying both the P-40 and the P-51 (in both the Allison and Merlin powered versions). As I recall, the P-51A article contrasted the Mustang directly with the P-40E and the P-51D he had flown, and the P-40’s trim was treated as its second greatest drawback, right after its ground handling. He seemed to think that the P-51A was easier to trim than the Merlin pony, but both were considered several steps ahead of the P-40.

In real life, the Mustang was (and is, if you want to talk to current warbird pilots with time in both types) much more refined and less demanding to fly than the P-40. That is reasonable because the Mustang was targeted at the P-40’s perceived faults when it was designed. Being designed four or five years after the base design P-36 was laid out gave North American a better grasp of the principles involved.

The game depicts the opposite, with the P-40s’ FMs being more stable & less demanding of trim adjustment. It is the Mustang that demands constant trim adjustment and yes, the nose will start to drop or rise with as little as a 10 mph change in airspeed.

As for the 109, I’ve been ‘flying’ it in this game and the original since I first got the original Il-2 Sturmovik running on my old 900Mhz Celeron eMachine, and while its FM doesn’t seem to have changed that much to me, most descriptions of it once it gets into the air, are generally complimentary.

Ground handling, takeoff and landing characteristics of most aircraft in the sim are pretty benign, so the 109 and the P-40 get off pretty lightly on their worst traits. The 109 has become more difficult to control at higher speeds over the years though, which reflects the wartime record.

Oleg has treated the early war US fighters that the Soviets got in great numbers fairly uh, shall we say, charitably? One sometimes gets the impression that he felt the need to balance that out somehow with the late war US fighters.

Great post HB.. and I agree wth it 100% So many Tuskegee pilots were killed in the P-40 because of it's poor handling.. and they didn't go on the KIA list... I always felt that f you took the speed of the Mustang and put the stability of the P-40 on it you would have a better representation of what the Mustang was IRL as far as handling goes.. Run a reasonable mid level (as far as alt, con ditions and with say.... '43 opponents.. )QM with a Mustang.. any Mustang.. and the same QM with a P-40... E or M.. and you will do better with the P-40..

na85
08-24-2009, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

Oleg's 'Cobra FMs seem to me to come a lot closer to the Soviet view.

But the Soviets made the best of the Cobra and some of their top aces flew it. So clearly it COULD be used effectively IRL. Seems to me that the aircraft's strengths and the USAAF's doctrines were at odds, hence its poor reputation (rather than it being a complete dog).

HellToupee
08-24-2009, 10:03 PM
P51s got a twitchy fm ingame because thats what people whined for. People complained and complained it wasn't responsive enough until it was changed.

Its not a problem tho for those who don't have a hamfist.

BigKahuna_GS
08-24-2009, 11:49 PM
Is the P-51 underpowered?

Answer-Yes

Anybody remember "Purple Passion", 150grade fuel, overboosting ?

Deja Vu. After all this time the same arguments-just another day.

Late war US/Brit fighters are not represented well or at all in this flight sim for whatever reason ie; No Spit14, Tempest 11.lb boost, Real P47M, P47N, F4U-4, P38 running on 150grade fuel (almost 2000hp) and RAF Mustang Mark IV (P51-D)running on 150grade fuel at 81" boost.
That would be about 200hp increase, 1650hp + 200hp = 1850hp.


150 Grade Fuel
http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../150-grade-fuel.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html)

P51 Encounter Reports with speed and power settings.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperform.../combat-reports.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html)

Mustang Mark III Specs- exceeds 400mph at sea level
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustang-fig4.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/rae1501-fig8.jpg

Climb Rate
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/fx858-fig4.jpg



__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
"Ice-In terms of raw power the Mustang doesn't have it...1650hp is similar to the Spitfire IX (nearly the same engine). The Mustang manages to be 30mph (ish) faster than the Spitfire IX with its superb aerodynamics so it really rewards a pilot who is smooth and confident rather than yanking and banking around the skies."
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


See above.



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________
Gammel-"I've been wondering for quite some time how the 51 would have performed with a 2000+HP engine. Probably a monster."
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


That would be the P51-H

Nice Post Horseback---agree 100%.


-

Friendly_flyer
08-25-2009, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
P51s got a twitchy fm ingame because thats what people whined for. People complained and complained it wasn't responsive enough until it was changed.

Yep, I remember that whinefest as well. It was after Oleg bowed to the hordes that the Mustang started to shed wings. The Mustang as it came out seemed rather accurate to me. It wasn't much of a turner, but it was fast, and it was goo at high altitudes where the Spitfire (the plane it is most convenient to compare it to) would just waffle about. I suppose its a case of "be careful what you ask for".

HetzerII
08-25-2009, 01:56 AM
I also still remember the times people whine about the accuracy of the .50 and demanded less dispersion. Oleg told them that they will not be able to handleit. Now they have less dispersion... sniper rifles on wings and whining continues cause they miss most of the times... great ;-)

Manu-6S
08-25-2009, 02:13 AM
Only in the last few patches have I noticed that the later, heavier models tend to get sluggish in their response to the control inputs at higher speeds, and that never bothered me nearly as much as the fact that I can't hit the broad side of a barn with that friggin' 30mm cannon unless I'm sitting inside the hayloft.

From my reading of pilot accounts on both sides this (the handling, not my atrocious marksmanship) would seem to be accurate. Almost everyone agrees that the 109's handling deteriorated as the succeeding models got heavier; most suggest that after the F-4, things started going downhill.

The controls were heavy at very high speed (not at cruise speed like for the K4) but the sluggish controls in IL2 are totally another thing. Pilots could still fight using 2 hands on the stick. In Il2 you can't.

So late 109 are still not modelled in the "right way"... think also at the difference between G2 and G6 regarding manovrability (so many differences between these two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , probably the g6s sucked by accounts because they never fled with a clean airframe)...



In real life, the Mustang was (and is, if you want to talk to current warbird pilots with time in both types) much more refined and less demanding to fly than the P-40. That is reasonable because the Mustang was targeted at the P-40’s perceived faults when it was designed. Being designed four or five years after the base design P-36 was laid out gave North American a better grasp of the principles involved.

The game depicts the opposite, with the P-40s’ FMs being more stable & less demanding of trim adjustment. It is the Mustang that demands constant trim adjustment and yes, the nose will start to drop or rise with as little as a 10 mph change in airspeed.


Anyway all here are claiming that the P51's FM sucks comparing to the P40's one... in reality I find it very good (one of the best) according to accounts and it's one of my favourite plane (as realistic FM).. the problem infact is not the P51 but the P40 itself... It's modelled in the way also the P39 is modelled... and it explains it all.

SYS64738
08-25-2009, 04:07 AM
P-51 seems to be quite superior fighter. I managed to drop only two in last campaign flying Ki-84. It is possible only with good height advantage.

Von_Rat
08-25-2009, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
P51s got a twitchy fm ingame because thats what people whined for. People complained and complained it wasn't responsive enough until it was changed.

Its not a problem tho for those who don't have a hamfist.

they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim. the need for constant triming ingame should have nothing at all to do with the elevators ingame response level.

you don't even have to touch the elevator and you can still easily get way out of trim in a p51.

deepo_HP
08-25-2009, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Some planes have the added detail, while others don't. Which is why i say "All debates set aside, the fact remains that some planes just require more of the pilot to fly properly."

hi billswagger,

yes, that's exactly what you already said in your before post.
my question was at the end of my reply, related to different 'boost' sytems and different trim-possibilities for p-51, 109, spit and yak.

so sure, some planes need 'more of the pilot' to bfly properly, but still i don't see, where you get your different 'detail' added from.

Manu-6S
08-25-2009, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
P51s got a twitchy fm ingame because thats what people whined for. People complained and complained it wasn't responsive enough until it was changed.

Its not a problem tho for those who don't have a hamfist.

they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim.

you can have one without the other you know, many ingame planes do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC P51 had real problems with speed variations.. so it need to be constantly re-trimmed (and this is why I like its FM...)

Von_Rat
08-25-2009, 08:19 AM
real problems?

it all depends on what source your look at.

then it comes down to how you interpet that source.

i agree that its quite possiable that the p51 is not overly in need of trimming. its possiable the other planes are to forgiving.

AndyJWest
08-25-2009, 08:26 AM
Another factor to remember with the P-51 was the way the CG shifted as fuel was used - they were only marginally stable with a full aft tank, from what I've read. I don't think IL-2 models GC change, does it?

horseback
08-25-2009, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
P51s got a twitchy fm ingame because thats what people whined for. People complained and complained it wasn't responsive enough until it was changed.

Its not a problem tho for those who don't have a hamfist.

they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim.

you can have one without the other you know, many ingame planes do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC P51 had real problems with speed variations.. so it need to be constantly re-trimmed (and this is why I like its FM...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry, Manu. More difficult does not mean more realistic. Bearcat and I have not merely read books on the subject; we’ve both talked to men who actually flew the P-40, P-47 and P-51 in combat (hell, in a couple of cases, I was dating their daughters) and I at least have also talked to men who fly restored P-40E/Ks and the P-51B/Ds today. They all say the same things and their testimony is clear: P-40s were demanding fighters that required the pilot’s full attention all the time and trim absolutely had to be kept up with in any aerobatic or combat maneuver, or the thing would kill you with or without the enemy’s assistance.

The Mustang on the other hand was not as good at knife fighting, but it had much better vertical performance, and it was a lot more trustworthy. It wouldn’t stall without warning, the stick or rudder forces didn’t go from 10 to 50kg in a matter of seconds, and you didn’t have to trim all the time unless you were trying to fly it right at the razor’s edge (and most of the time, you rarely had to take it to that extreme, even in combat).

It certainly didn’t require an elevator trim adjustment for every 10 -15kph of speed increase or loss at cruising flight speeds.

Like EVERY fighter of the day, it would shake and bounce around when you took it into the extremes of its flight envelope, and you had to be mindful of your rudder when you were in a high speed dive. Aircraft designed for a speed no greater than 0.8 Mach are always going to porpoise when they get close to that realm; the Mustang was one of the first to reach those speeds with any regularity and because a lot of the guys who drove Mustangs had been driving Jugs before, they compared them directly, and not necessarily at the same speeds. Because it was lighter and smaller than a P-47, it was a bit less stable at the extreme high speeds, but the Mustang in turn was considerably bigger and heavier than the 109s or 190s it was pursuing, and correspondingly more stable than they were.

Most people compare Mustangs to Thunderbolts for dive and ruggedness and to the Spitfire for maneuverability; neither is a valid comparison, because the Mustang is largely a compromise between those aircraft’s qualities. It had better range, was faster, more agile and better climbing than the P-47 in most regimes and had better speed, vastly better range and dive acceleration than the fighter versions of the Spitfire (plus it was more rugged). Most Allied fighter pilots would also have rated it as more heavily armed than the Spit as well, but that’s an argument for another thread.

If the Mustang’s FM is remotely accurate (and I do not concede that for one minute), then almost every other late war fighter FM in the game is ridiculously simplified. Period.

cheers

horseback

horseback
08-25-2009, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
P51s got a twitchy fm ingame because thats what people whined for. People complained and complained it wasn't responsive enough until it was changed.

Its not a problem tho for those who don't have a hamfist.

they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim.

you can have one without the other you know, many ingame planes do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC P51 had real problems with speed variations.. so it need to be constantly re-trimmed (and this is why I like its FM...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

horseback
08-25-2009, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
IIRC P51 had real problems with speed variations.. so it need to be constantly re-trimmed (and this is why I like its FM...) Sorry, Manu. More difficult does not mean more realistic. Bearcat and I have not merely read books on the subject; we’ve both talked to men who actually flew the P-40, P-47 and P-51 in combat (hell, in a couple of cases, I was dating their daughters) and I at least have also talked to men who fly restored P-40E/Ks and the P-51B/Ds today. They all say the same things and their testimony is clear: P-40s were demanding fighters that required the pilot’s full attention all the time and trim absolutely had to be kept up with in any aerobatic or combat maneuver, or the thing would kill you with or without the enemy’s assistance. The Mustang on the other hand was not as good at knife fighting, but it had much better vertical performance, and it was a lot more trustworthy. It wouldn’t stall without warning, the stick or rudder forces didn’t go from 10 to 50kg in a matter of seconds, and you didn’t have to trim all the time unless you were trying to fly it right at the razor’s edge (and most of the time, you rarely had to take it to that extreme, even in combat).

It certainly didn’t require an elevator trim adjustment for every 10 -15kph of speed increase or loss at cruising flight speeds.

Like EVERY fighter of the day, it would shake and bounce around when you took it into the extremes of its flight envelope, and you had to be mindful of your rudder when you were in a high speed dive. Aircraft designed for a speed no greater than 0.8 Mach are always going to porpoise when they reach that realm; the Mustang was one of the first to reach those speeds with any regularity and because a lot of the guys who drove Mustangs had been driving Jugs before and compared them directly. Because it was lighter and smaller than a P-47, it was a bit less stable at the extreme high speeds, but the Mustang in turn was considerably bigger and heavier than the 109s or 190s it was pursuing, and correspondingly more stable than they were.

Most people compare Mustangs to Thunderbolts for dive and ruggedness and to the Spitfire for maneuverability; neither is a valid comparison, because the Mustang is largely a compromise between those aircraft’s qualities. It had better range, was faster, more agile and better climbing than the P-47 in most regimes and had better speed, vastly better range and dive acceleration than the fighter versions of the Spitfire (plus it was more rugged). Most Allied fighter pilots would also have rated it as more heavily armed than the Spit as well, but that’s an argument for another thread.

If the Mustang’s FM is remotely accurate (and I do not concede that for one minute), then almost every other late war fighter FM in the game is ridiculously simplified. Period.

cheers

horseback

horseback
08-25-2009, 12:31 PM
IIRC P51 had real problems with speed variations.. so it need to be constantly re-trimmed (and this is why I like its FM...) Sorry, Manu. More difficult does not mean more realistic. Bearcat and I have not merely read books on the subject; we’ve both talked to men who actually flew the P-40, P-47 and P-51 in combat (hell, in a couple of cases, I was dating their daughters) and I at least have also talked to men who fly restored P-40E/Ks and the P-51B/Ds today. They all say the same things and their testimony is clear: P-40s were demanding fighters that required the pilot’s full attention all the time and trim absolutely had to be kept up with in any aerobatic or combat maneuver, or the thing would kill you with or without the enemy’s assistance. The Mustang on the other hand was not as good at knife fighting, but it had much better vertical performance, and it was a lot more trustworthy. It wouldn’t stall without warning, the stick or rudder forces didn’t go from 10 to 50kg in a matter of seconds, and you didn’t have to trim all the time unless you were trying to fly it right at the razor’s edge (and most of the time, you rarely had to take it to that extreme, even in combat).

It certainly didn’t require an elevator trim adjustment for every 10 -15kph of speed increase or loss at cruising flight speeds.

Like EVERY fighter of the day, it would shake and bounce around when you took it into the extremes of its flight envelope, and you had to be mindful of your rudder when you were in a high speed dive. Aircraft designed for a speed no greater than 0.8 Mach are always going to porpoise when they reach that realm; the Mustang was one of the first to reach those speeds with any regularity and because a lot of the guys who drove Mustangs had been driving Jugs before and compared them directly. Because it was lighter and smaller than a P-47, it was a bit less stable at the extreme high speeds, but the Mustang in turn was considerably bigger and heavier than the 109s or 190s it was pursuing, and correspondingly more stable than they were.

Most people compare Mustangs to Thunderbolts for dive and ruggedness and to the Spitfire for maneuverability; neither is a valid comparison, because the Mustang is largely a compromise between those aircraft’s qualities. It had better range, was faster, more agile and better climbing than the P-47 in most regimes and had better speed, vastly better range and dive acceleration than the fighter versions of the Spitfire (plus it was more rugged). Most Allied fighter pilots would also have rated it as more heavily armed than the Spit as well, but that’s an argument for another thread.

If the Mustang’s FM is remotely accurate (and I do not concede that for one minute), then almost every other late war fighter FM in the game is ridiculously simplified. Period.

cheers

horseback

deepo_HP
08-25-2009, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
... trim absolutely had to be kept up with in any aerobatic or combat maneuver, or the thing would kill you with or without the enemy’s assistance.
[...]
If the Mustang’s FM is remotely accurate (and I do not concede that for one minute), then almost every other late war fighter FM in the game is ridiculously simplified. Period.

hi horseback,

being killed for not trimming an aircraft correctly in a combat manoeuvre sounds pretty mean. since the pilots whom you talked to and dated their daughters all lived, they might have not known all circumstances.

i am not sure, what exactly is the point of (not) 'simplified' fm here. regarding trimming:
for rudder-trim, many other planes are much more sensitive, like j2m and brewsters.
for elevator-trim, the main difference which i experience is the amount of 'button-hits' needed to trim - which goes for other american planes as well. p-47 and p-51 need some 28-31 hits for sea-level flight at max speed, 190d some 24, p-38 27 (not sure), 109 17-19, spit the same, p-40 about 9...
being off-trim is, imo, expressed in more or less the same percentage of hits, and doesn't result in any different, general flight-behaviour, ie the mustang won't go any more wild, if off by 6 hits, than the 190d does when off by 4 hits.

if this (more range in trim) is your point by claiming 'other late war fighters fm is ridiculously simplified. period.', i would like to ask, if you have any more data for supporting that point.
i have no clue, how many turns on the wheel were necessary, or possible, for the various fighters, but for saying 'ridiculously... period.' some other evidence might be necessary than claiming 'the mustang was considerably bigger and heavier... and correspondingly more stable', which doesn't seem a rightful conclusion to me.

X32Wright
08-25-2009, 02:07 PM
HOW many IDENTICAL posts does it take to get your point across?

AndyJWest
08-25-2009, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
HOW many IDENTICAL posts does it take to get your point across?

Not his fault, see
this topic (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2601013236/m/2211054487)

Work is in hand to sort this all out...

La7_brook
08-25-2009, 02:22 PM
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 La7_brook:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:
[QUOTE]
Ground handling, takeoff and landing The 109 has become more difficult to control at higher speeds over the years though, which reflects the wartime record.

horseback



If you need a source, try to find any book NOT written by Martin Caiden about the 109 or the top LW experten that doesn't have pictures that you can color in yourself.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE> You Must mean books that were writen in england and US by the Aces that never flew in them ?

Bearcat99
08-25-2009, 03:11 PM
For the record...

1-If you old timers recall there were more complaints from Luftwhiners back then... with the fist patched Mustang... ie before FB was even released.. than anyone else.

2-I am not complaining about the Mustang's FM... just making a point. I try not to gripe too much about things like that in this sim, because it is what it is and I won't stop flying it so IMo it is better to work with what I have... than to try to compare it too much to real life examples that don't match up... or beef too muc about them.. but I do believe that from all accounts the Mustang was a better gun platform overallthan the P-40... in this sim it isn't.

horseback
08-25-2009, 03:19 PM
If you need a source, try to find any book NOT written by Martin Caiden about the 109 or the top LW experten that doesn't have pictures that you can color in yourself.

You Must mean books that were writen in england and US by the Aces that never flew in them ? I need to start limiting my sentences to a single clause. Still, I thank you for using the whole quote this time.

Sorry, the reference to Caiden is sort of an in-joke around here. He was a better writer than he was an aviation historian—see references to Fork-Tailed Devil for examples. Whatever he was writing about was always the best thing since sliced bread.

What I meant is that most serious books on the subject do refer to the undisputed fact that most of the Bf-109s lost during WWII were actually trashed during taxiing, landing, and takeoff in whatever language they were written in. It was considered the Achilles’ heel of the type.

Besides, discriminating against people who cannot roll their Rs is probably a violation of a half-dozen UN resolutions and may be politically incorrect.

Galland refers to the 109's takeoff and landing issues several times in his autobiography and his authorized bio, and as I recall, Gunther Rall, among other German experten, has commented about it as well. I have quite a few books originally published in German or French that tell me the same things.

The articles about flying the surviving 109s that I have read have emphasized how tricky it is to get into or out of the air, and one said something to the effect that the fuel shortages of the late war probably saved a few hundred lives because then the 109s were pushed on or off the field instead of taxiing! Certainly it was recognized that the FW 190 was a lot easier for inexperienced pilots to be successful in.

Most Axis fighter pilots got no opportunities to fly the Allied types even postwar. They had no other point of reference and they simply played the cards they were dealt without whining about it. I’ve gotten the usual quotes from Finnish fighter pilots who thought it was no big deal, but I suspect that they were probably too thrilled by the advantages of a retractable landing gear and an airspeed over 350kph to care about little things like crashing on takeoff and landings.

Besides, it makes you look manlier to blow off minor concerns like being killed by a sudden change in wind direction or one of your wheels hitting a slick spot on the field.

Look at the issue seriously. Casualty lists don't lie. The 109 was generally a fine fighter once airborne, but getting it there and getting back down was more hazardous than it was for most of its WWII contemporaries.

cheers

horseback

yuuppers
08-25-2009, 03:53 PM
The 109 was a very docile plane when landing, that is until the wheels touched the ground then all heck could break loose. About 4% of all 109s produced were lost in 'accidents'. (accidents being landing and take off accidents)

I remember reading a report someone had put together, iirc on JG26, comparing 'accidents' stats of the 109 and 190. Surprise, the 190 had sightly more 'accidents'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

What would be of interest is comparing the number of 'accidents' of other fighter planes like the P-51.

Manu-6S
08-25-2009, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
For the record...

1-If you old timers recall there were more complaints from Luftwhiners back then... with the fist patched Mustang... ie before FB was even released.. than anyone else.

2-I am not complaining about the Mustang's FM... just making a point. I try not to gripe too much about things like that in this sim, because it is what it is and I won't stop flying it so IMo it is better to work with what I have... than to try to compare it too much to real life examples that don't match up... or beef too muc about them.. but I do believe that from all accounts the Mustang was a better gun platform overallthan the P-40... in this sim it isn't.

Of course my friend, I would only focus that IMO the IL2's Mustang seems more similar to the real one than the IL2's P40 to its counterpart.

So the P40 is more arcadish, and real accounts cannot be verified because the P51 will always be more difficult to fly.

AndyJWest
08-25-2009, 04:06 PM
Horseback writes:


...What I meant is that most serious books on the subject do refer to the undisputed fact that most of the Bf-109s lost during WWII were actually trashed during taxiing, landing, and takeoff in whatever language they were written in. It was considered the Achilles’ heel of the type.


I'd suggest that this is hardly 'undisputed fact', and refer to a source that while coming from Finland, does actually seem to take the issue seriously (and for those interested in the 109, is well worth reading in full:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/fe...cles/109myths/#myths (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#myths)


Various myths
...
"109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

"11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote)
"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim)
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.
...


Unless there is hard evidence one way or another, I'd say that is very much still in question.

Manu-6S
08-25-2009, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you need a source, try to find any book NOT written by Martin Caiden about the 109 or the top LW experten that doesn't have pictures that you can color in yourself.

You Must mean books that were writen in england and US by the Aces that never flew in them ? I need to start limiting my sentences to a single clause. Still, I thank you for using the whole quote this time.

Sorry, the reference to Caiden is sort of an in-joke around here. He was a better writer than he was an aviation historian—see references to Fork-Tailed Devil for examples. Whatever he was writing about was always the best thing since sliced bread.

What I meant is that most serious books on the subject do refer to the undisputed fact that most of the Bf-109s lost during WWII were actually trashed during taxiing, landing, and takeoff in whatever language they were written in. It was considered the Achilles’ heel of the type.

Besides, discriminating against people who cannot roll their Rs is probably a violation of a half-dozen UN resolutions and may be politically incorrect.

Galland refers to the 109's takeoff and landing issues several times in his autobiography and his authorized bio, and as I recall, Gunther Rall, among other German experten, has commented about it as well. I have quite a few books originally published in German or French that tell me the same things.

The articles about flying the surviving 109s that I have read have emphasized how tricky it is to get into or out of the air, and one said something to the effect that the fuel shortages of the late war probably saved a few hundred lives because then the 109s were pushed on or off the field instead of taxiing! Certainly it was recognized that the FW 190 was a lot easier for inexperienced pilots to be successful in.

Most Axis fighter pilots got no opportunities to fly the Allied types even postwar. They had no other point of reference and they simply played the cards they were dealt without whining about it. I’ve gotten the usual quotes from Finnish fighter pilots who thought it was no big deal, but I suspect that they were probably too thrilled by the advantages of a retractable landing gear and an airspeed over 350kph to care about little things like crashing on takeoff and landings.

Besides, it makes you look manlier to blow off minor concerns like being killed by a sudden change in wind direction or one of your wheels hitting a slick spot on the field.

Look at the issue seriously. Casualty lists don't lie. The 109 was generally a fine fighter once airborne, but getting it there and getting back down was more hazardous than it was for most of its WWII contemporaries.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's funny that many Luftwaffe pilots seem to have problem landing in their new 109s (Steinhilper, Grislawski and other), passing from a Dora to an Emil (more power and of course, more weight): they always ended with a damaged plane (usually a new one!!!)

I'm sure that the real 109 landing was more tricky than ingame. And of course the narrow carriage was a issue. But I also thing that all the ingame planes are a little easy.

I think that everything can be caused by a no so good simulation of the weight/gravity system in IL2. I tested RoF diving accelleration and I is faster that IL2's one... if you close the throttle you really feel the plane becaming a stone in the air and landings are not easy (think also about the wind).

The stalls, the lift, IL2 seems a lot more permissive on the plane and I can tell you that I feel it more arcade that before. The P51 imo is the the far most realistic plane (speaking about FM).

During the final of a landing in a 109 you can glide so long when in reality the plane would probably stall faster. And we all have learned how land it.

Anyway I think also that comparing incident stats is not fair: there are more variables, pilots' training, conditions of the airfield, weather...

Lets pray for SoW to be more realistic in every aspect that could be simulated.

Kettenhunde
08-25-2009, 04:43 PM
Unless there is hard evidence one way or another

Look up JG26 accident statistics as previously mentioned in this thread.

This is a subject that has been discussed to death and I am amazed the same people still seem to want to cover it.

The ultimate answer to your questions is found in getting a pilots license and a conventional gear endorsement. When you get some experience you will see it was the pilots and not the airplanes.

Anytime you put low experienced pilots in high performance aircraft the accident rate will rise.

Of course not everyone chooses to see such fault in themselves.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kurfurst__
08-25-2009, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
What I meant is that most serious books on the subject do refer to the undisputed fact that most of the Bf-109s lost during WWII were actually trashed during taxiing, landing, and takeoff in whatever language they were written in. It was considered the Achilles’ heel of the type.

Certainly it was more temperamental than many other - but it seems to me you are exaggrevating. Back when Olivier still posted on this board (or any other, he very rarely does that anymore unfortunately), he posted this.


Originally posted by butch2k

FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26 000 cases...

An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a landing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged. It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.

When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.

This stuff is detailled in either the medical corps documents relative to a/c accidents or the Quartermaster listing for damaged a/c.

But others commented on this already - I think HoHun with his love for statistics did such a database compilation of JG 26 losses, and there was not much between the FW and the Me in terms of ground accidents; what German reports emphasize is that the Fw airframe is more rugged, even a bad, semi-crash landing there was chance that the airframe remained useable, in the case of the 109, it was often heading for the scrapyard or for the factory.


Originally posted by horseback:
Galland refers to the 109's takeoff and landing issues several times in his autobiography and his authorized bio, and as I recall, Gunther Rall, among other German experten, has commented about it as well. I have quite a few books originally published in German or French that tell me the same things.

I suppose you have not read Les Pumas Rouge (sp?), published in French? Quite a few interesting thoughts about it, briefly: it never liked to be treated like your 'buddy' on take off. Every take off required utmost attention, like the first one, but with this simple rule followed was no problem.


Most Axis fighter pilots got no opportunities to fly the Allied types even postwar.

Strike 'Axis', and you got it correct. Hmm, Allied flying experience of Axis types during the war, let me see... like flight tests done on some six flyable Bf 109s: one E-3, one other E, probably E-7, one semi-functioning F-2 (crashed into dive during to some unidentified malfunctioning), one shoddy G-2/trop from the desert, a G-6/trop from Sicily tested in the US, and the one G-6/U2 that mislanded in Manston in mid-44 (crashed later).

Flown by perhaps a dozen Allied fighter pilots, most of them working in instutes and places. So, what's your point? WW2 Pilots had very, very little information on enemy fighters. Most of it was 'squadron wisdom', derieved from brief engagements, or circulations of tactical suggestions based on evaluations in test centres in the hinterland, using whatever that fell behind the lines and could still fly.


Look at the issue seriously. Casualty lists don't lie. The 109 was generally a fine fighter once airborne, but getting it there and getting back down was more hazardous than it was for most of its WWII contemporaries.

Got any figures?

AndyJWest
08-25-2009, 05:38 PM
Kettenhunde/Crumpp:

I don't suppose you have a reference to where we can locate these JG 26 accident statistics? This thread now cites them twice without giving us any idea where to find them...

I have to disagree with what you write here:


The ultimate answer to your questions is found in getting a pilots license and a conventional gear endorsement. When you get some experience you will see it was the pilots and not the airplanes.

What is under debate re. the Bf 109 is how many were lost due to takeoff and landing accidents, which is a question of historical fact. The flying abilities of the historian is neither here nor there.

Come to think of it, it would be great to see historical controversies settled this way... I'd want a front-seat view for debates over the English Civil War, settled by musket fire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Edit ---

Post previous to mine seems to have answered first question while I was writing it...

Bearcat99
08-25-2009, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
For the record...
1-If you old timers recall there were more complaints from Luftwhiners back then... with the fist patched Mustang... ie before FB was even released.. than anyone else.
2-I am not complaining about the Mustang's FM... just making a point. I try not to gripe too much about things like that in this sim, because it is what it is and I won't stop flying it so IMo it is better to work with what I have... than to try to compare it too much to real life examples that don't match up... or beef too muc about them.. but I do believe that from all accounts the Mustang was a better gun platform overallthan the P-40... in this sim it isn't.

Of course my friend, I would only focus that IMO the IL2's Mustang seems more similar to the real one than the IL2's P40 to its counterpart.

So the P40 is more arcadish, and real accounts cannot be verified because the P51 will always be more difficult to fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you do have a point... although I prefer the term forgiving over arcadish... I dunno... It's like.... arcadish:IL2.. the words ... just dont fit in my head together.. LOL.. (Though.. yes it can be flown arcadish... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif )


Originally posted by Manu-6S:
It's funny that many Luftwaffe pilots seem to have problem landing in their new 109s (Steinhilper, Grislawski and other), passing from a Dora to an Emil (more power and of course, more weight): they always ended with a damaged plane (usually a new one!!!)

I'm sure that the real 109 landing was more tricky than ingame. And of course the narrow carriage was a issue. But I also thing that all the ingame planes are a little easy.


I agree... I think there was a mod out that increased the torque to it's full potential.. It didnt let you take tourque away... but it let you add it if you wanted a more realistic experience.. to the point where you could actually flip your plane if you weren't careful & throttled up too fast... I'd like to have that feature standard..

Kettenhunde
08-25-2009, 08:30 PM
This thread now cites them twice without giving us any idea where to find them...


Use the search function on the forum. I have plenty of faith in your ability to use it.

I am not really interested in covering the same ground with the same people who still insist on the same things.

As I said:


pilots license and a conventional gear endorsement. When you get some experience you will see it was the pilots and not the airplanes.



where you could actually flip your plane if you weren't careful & throttled up too fast...

That is silly Bearcat. You can't do that in an airplane.

You can torque roll the aircraft in the air but you cannot overcome the stability of the landing gear on the ground. Despite the fact you find rumors and stories from those without experience to the contrary.

Most high compression engines such as that found in WWII Fighters require ground checks at or near full power.

The Spitfire Mk IX POH:

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/8347/groundrunup.jpg (http://img502.imageshack.us/i/groundrunup.jpg/)



The stalls, the lift, IL2 seems a lot more permissive on the plane


It is harder than you think to stall an airplane under power.

Airplanes also hold their speed very well in turns and it is not very hard to turn at a consant precise speed. These games that bleed off large amounts of speed with any turn are simple fantasy.

All the best,

Crumpp

yuuppers
08-25-2009, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> where you could actually flip your plane if you weren't careful & throttled up too fast...

That is silly Bearcat. You can't do that in an airplane.

You can torque roll the aircraft in the air but you cannot overcome the stability of the landing gear on the ground. Despite the fact you find rumors and stories from those without experience to the contrary.

Most high compression engines such as that found in WWII Fighters require ground checks at or near full power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did Bearcat specify where this torque took place? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Btw, when Bearcat said flip he is saying torque roll. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

If you played the game, you would know that if you apply throttle too fast on the ground you can almost make the wingtip hit the ground.

I don't have the mod Bearcat mentioned but in the air, torque is not really noticeable if the throttle is advanced too quickly.

RPMcMurphy
08-25-2009, 11:52 PM
I do 99.9% of my IL2 flying in the PTO flying an F4U from a carrier.
But after all this P-51 discussion I decided to go to the Crimea map and go against some Germans. I notice that German pilots tend to climb high and BnZ while Japanes stay low and fight on the deck. A different mindset is in order for German fighters.

I set the Enemy as one (AI) FW-190A8 1944 ace with 55% fuel with a Bf109G-14 1944 ace with 55% fuel on his wing both at 500M and head-on.
The first plane I used was a Spitfire MK IX 25Lbs 1944. I smoked the 109 after the first pass as I imelmaned and after some chasing I got the 190 and he spiraled in. That Spit is a hot bird.
The next plane I flew was a P-51D-20NA 1944.
I was able to once again dodge thier initial head on attack and as I went into a slow gentle imelman I was able to smoke the Bf109 in a beatuiful deflection shot, he eneded up crashing somewhere, but the FW190 was a challenge as I had to chase him up to about twelve thousand feet and my engine kept over heating, so I had to power down to keep it at normal temp. I would power down on my dives while chasing that 190 to keep my engine cool. But I was still able to climb high enough with alot of patience and gentle, very gentle, movements of the stick high enough to overcome the 190 and eventually out shoot him. I got on his tail and he seemed to panic and he dove down and away to avoid me jigging like crazy. But I squeezed the trigger and after about a million squueze-and-misses I saw some flashes and he augered into the ground and exploded.
The next plane I tried was the P47D, 1944.
On the first pass they hit my engine and knocked it out. On the next try I collided with the Bf109 and lost a wing. The 3rd try I made it passed thier headon attack and pulled up to altitude and spotted them below me. I dove in and targeted the 109 as he was banking up and to the left. To my complete suprize he exploded as I fired. I flew down at about 650 KPH and then climbed back up while trying to find the 190. I jousted with him a couple of times and then I was able to dive on him and get him smoking. Its amzing how much punishment he could take. But I finally got that 190 to burn-in. That jug bleeds off energy faster than most I think, but I like that plane still. What a killer beast.
The next plane I tried was the P38L, Late 1944.
I took thier head-on attack once more and lost a wing and bailed. On the next try I made it passed them and I climbed as high as I could and turned to find them both stupidly below me and banking to the left. I went after the one in the rear. I dove and built up speed as I zereod in on him I sqeezed and missed big time. I forgot that my guns would be firing from the center and somehow that screwed-up my deflection shot, I was expecting the shots to be coming from the sides like wing mounted guns, but oh well, no excuse; I should have known that. After anothe rlong slow gentle split-S I spotted a plane on the horizon and gambling I went strait for him. I didnt know which way he was going; toward or away. I put thos two enegines to max and went at it. To make a long stort short; I killed both enemy planes, and then I went to a nearby airfield and landed.

I don't know what the big hoo-haw is about the Mustang however though, other that it overheats pretty fast. I seems to be a good fighter to me. I like the Mustang. It kicks some butt. It seems to me that ALL the planes that I flew tonight are very baddarse as long as you use alot of TLC and be very gentle on the controls. Just gotta remember that any movement of the controls exacts a punishment which is bleeding of energy and speed. Trim em up and fly em right and just about any plane can perform well. I think I will keep on checking the planes in this sim. On this little test however, I sure did like that Jug. Aint she a big bad mutha.

Manu-6S
08-26-2009, 03:31 AM
@McMurphy: you should never use AI to compare strategies and tactics. They suck in it so they must cheat to stay out of trouble http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Anyway kudos for your aim... many here still can't flame a 190 with the Brownings.

@Bearcat99: LOL! I love the word arcadish...
To me, speaking about FM, we have => FSX < IL2 < RoF

I've still to try Condor...

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 05:22 AM
If you played the game, you would know that if you apply throttle too fast on the ground you can almost make the wingtip hit the ground.

Which is not the same as "flipping the plane on its back" as I understand someone "fixed" it as Bearcat explained nor will you come close to “hitting a wingtip on the ground” during a run up either.

Someone has things confused when it comes to flying a conventional gear aircraft.

Torque equals arm times force. Your maximum torque is at full throttle. You could never do a ground check at full throttle if the airplane would tip onto a wingtip from torque.

You would also know that torque rolls are only possible below the stall point where the controls lose effectiveness. Entry speed is high as the aircraft must be vertical to induce one.

Here is a torque roll with video:


The aircraft climb vertically then at a lo speed it starts rolling beause of the gyroscopic torque. Finally he makes tailslide whide rolling. This figures requires a very powerfull aircart.

http://rafaero.free.fr/voltige4-eng.html

We don't cobb the throttle on a tail dragger for good reasons but torque flipping the airplane on its back or causing our wingtips to hit the ground is not one of them.

All the best,

Crumpp

yuuppers
08-26-2009, 05:46 AM
Where does it say, "flipping the plane on its back"?


where you could actually flip your plane if you weren't careful & throttled up too fast...

Someone has a reading comprehension problem. There is real life and there is game. Someone should learn to differentiate between the two.


You would also know that torque rolls are only possible below the stall point where the controls lose effectiveness.

Sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Maybe you should read up on the F4U and P-51. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Bearcat99
08-26-2009, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> where you could actually flip your plane if you weren't careful & throttled up too fast...

That is silly Bearcat. You can't do that in an airplane.

You can torque roll the aircraft in the air but you cannot overcome the stability of the landing gear on the ground. Despite the fact you find rumors and stories from those without experience to the contrary.

Most high compression engines such as that found in WWII Fighters require ground checks at or near full power. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did Bearcat specify where this torque took place? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Btw, when Bearcat said flip he is saying torque roll. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

If you played the game, you would know that if you apply throttle too fast on the ground you can almost make the wingtip hit the ground.

I don't have the mod Bearcat mentioned but in the air, torque is not really noticeable if the throttle is advanced too quickly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On my way to work.. I will answer this later when get back..

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 06:05 AM
Bearcat says:
to the point where you could actually flip your plane if you weren't careful & throttled up too fast... I'd like to have that feature standard..

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...591025487#1591025487 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3081078387?r=1591025487#1591025487)


Where does it say, "flipping the plane on its back"?


It says it above, Milo.


Someone has a reading comprehension problem.

I won't quibble with you. Flip means "to turn over" in English.


Maybe you should read up on the F4U and P-51.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 06:14 AM
BTW,

It is the trim change not the "torque" that kills warbird pilots on the go around.

Retracting flaps and gear on the airplanes like the P51 induces a sharp nose up pitching moment and the pilot is set up for stall spin accident.

All the best,

Crumpp

DrHerb
08-26-2009, 07:44 AM
Sourced from this website...

http://www.migman.com/ref/pilots/Henriques/P51.htm

I quote..
"Dudley Henriques on flying the P-51 Mustang

The P-51D, which I flew, was a very straightforward airplane in every way. By that I mean it wasn't difficult to fly or hard to handle, as long as you remembered a few basic things.

First and foremost, you never forgot for a minute that it could bite hard if you got careless.

There are lots of airplanes that will let you have another chance if you get ham-handed. The -51, in certain areas of her envelope, wasn't one of them. I remember telling everyone I ever checked out in the Mustang to take it up high, lower the gear and flaps, then back it off to about 15 inches with the prop up to 3 grand....slow it down easy to about 130 mph...then SLAM in 61 inches fast....

The resulting torque roll might have helped save a few lives on full power go-arounds. None of my guys ever torqued one in anyway."

From what this tells me, is that the close to 12 foot diameter prop in a '51 will torque roll you easily if you try to muscle the plane around the sky, especially if your flying it slow and dirty. I recall a video I had of Jeff Ethell checkflying a P-51 and he clearly states, "anytime you do a power or pitch change, you have to re-trim the airplane." You should have seen him do a go around, his hands were EVERYWHERE trying to keep it down the centerline.

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 09:06 AM
In this issue of AOPA Pilot, there is an article about the Stallion 51 Corporation,


"For years, we've all heard how "torque" kills pilots in this airplane when power is mashed to the stop on a go-around

To learn about this behavior, we climbed to altitude, extended the gear and added full flaps, then pushed the power to 51 inches, as if in a go-around. Next, Lauderback had me take my hands off the stick and pull the flaps up. The nose pitched up dramatically. I then retraced the gear, and the nose pitched up even more, nearly to vertical. Had I tried that down close to the ground, I would have had a handful of untrimmed rearing horse to contend with. ...

Configuration changes and hefty trim requiresments are the killers here - not torque - a reminder that high performance airplanes like the Mustang are flown by procedure, not by gosh and by golly."

http://tafkac.org/science/plane_torque.html

The airplane has to be in the air and well below stalling speed so that the ailerons are not longer effective for torque to be an issue.

That is how it works. Torque does not have enough force to overcome the control surfaces or the stability of the landing gear.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 09:08 AM
he clearly states, "anytime you do a power or pitch change, you have to re-trim the airplane."


You should have seen him do a go around, his hands were EVERYWHERE trying to keep it down the centerline.

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 09:16 AM
Power changes always require a trim change btw, no matter what airplane you fly.

X32Wright
08-26-2009, 09:27 AM
RPMcMurphy:
"I don't know what the big hoo-haw is about the Mustang however though, other that it overheats pretty fast."

One sign of flying the Mustangs with the wrong CEM is when you overheat in one. The mustang should never be flown with 100% throttle and 100% Prop pitch, you are just asking for an overheat and wasting engine power. Try to manage the intake manifold pressure between 50"Hg-61"Hg and rpm at 2700-3000rpm and she would be fast enough to be able to climb and cruise at 320mph. When to fly at 50" and when to fly at 61"Hg or 50"Hg depends on your intial speed and alt. You do have to pull back to 40"Hg to 'change gear' to get more out of the Mustang once she stabilizes at say 320 or 350mph.

As Miss Strega said, "The way the 'Stang was designed was radically different from previous aircraft. The pilot selects the power setting and prop RPM, and the controls took care of the rest."

Bearcat99
08-26-2009, 06:54 PM
OK Ket.. perhaps I stated what I am talking about wrong.. I am talking about a ground loop.. period.

Torque as modeled in this sim doesn't allow that. You may veer off to one side if you are not trimmed.. but the torque has little effect. You might nose over if yo throttle up to fast.. but aground loop is not possible. I have seen pictures from WWII of p[lanes crashed on the ground due to ground looping... so ok.. it want a complete 180 flip... but the torque caused one wing to dip lower than the other.. and in some cases caused the plane to cartwheel..

na85
08-26-2009, 06:56 PM
Didn't oleg cut the torque value from 1/2 to it's current value of 1/4 because so many people complained?

stalkervision
08-26-2009, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Didn't oleg cut the torque value from 1/2 to it's current value of 1/4 because so many people complained?


You think SOW will be "torqued up" ? Anyone know?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Wildnoob
08-26-2009, 07:22 PM
about the trim stuff in WWII figthers, at least in IL2, I was flying now with a Ki-43 model 1 escoting bombers and gonna have to say, I get pretty much impressive with it's non much necessity to trim.

entered in high speed turns, dives with the enemy and could perfectly maintein the gunsigth on the target without have to make any change in most times. and by many times I put my hands out of the stick and the plane didn't fall, it stay stable, absolutely very easy to fly.

ok, it's a nimble underpowerd aircraft, but absudly easy to fly, it is almost like fly with a automatic trim adjuster, it beats many, would risk that most figthers of the sim.

Daiichidoku
08-26-2009, 07:34 PM
wheres M.Gunz?

last time i suggested the game undermodels torque in single engine types, he asked if i was a fighter pilot....

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 07:50 PM
I am talking about a ground loop.. period.

Ahh! Completely different phenomena, Bearcat.

Ground looping is something ANY tail dragger is vulnerable too. Dance on the rudder is the first thing new pilots should be doing. Later you will learn to feel the airplane and apply rudder as needed. You fly a tail dragger from tie down to tie down

The left turning tendencies of a tail dragger are caused by:

1. Torque - not a major force but present
2. P-factor - asymmetrical loading of the propeller disc present but not a major force
3. Gyroscopic procession - present but again not a major force
4. Spiral slipstream - The major influence on the airplanes left turning tendencies.

All of these forces combine to produce a left turning tendency that requires smooth throttle work and control input to counteract on takeoff roll and landing. The transition period between the tire ground control and the aerodynamic controls becoming effective is when these forces are most noticeable. Cobbing the power is not going to cause the airplane to act any differently; it will cause things to happen much faster than most of us pilots can keep up. That is when we run into things or ground loop.

The side loads on the airplane increase as the departure angle from the direction of travel increases. Left unchecked the side force will overcome the stability of the gear and you will tip the wing damaging it on the ground.

Adding power is the best answer to arresting the swerve and unloading the gear. If your going slow enough, aileron into the swerve helps along with rudder. If you are fast, opposite aileron helps.

What happens to the aircraft is a function of speed, not torque.

10 knots - The plane can swap ends in the blink of an eye.

20 knots - You can tip a wing

30 knots - You can break the gear.

I hope this helps you to understand things a little better in what your game should be doing!

All the best,

Crumpp

Bearcat99
08-26-2009, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Didn't oleg cut the torque value from 1/2 to it's current value of 1/4 because so many people complained?

Yes I think so... The mods enabled fokls to unlock that feature.. you couldn't lower the torque beyond the stock setting... but you could raise it to more realistic levels.

na85
08-26-2009, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
Didn't oleg cut the torque value from 1/2 to it's current value of 1/4 because so many people complained?


You think SOW will be "torqued up" ? Anyone know?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I kinda hope they make it as realistic as possible in terms of aerodynamics, and let the sissies disable or lessen things like engine torque and gyro effects.

As far as silly things like "random equipment failures" or pilot fatigue or whatever.... no thanks.

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 09:00 PM
engine torque

Just to be clear for everyone. When you gun the throttle on an airplane and you see the right wingtip drop, the major force is spiral slipstream, not torque.

In a right hand turning propeller, the left wing simply has a much larger mass of air impacting it compared to the right wing. It is not torque you are seeing but rather the propeller effects.

The spiral slip stream strikes the left side of the verticle stabilizer as well as the rudder pushing it to the right causing the left turning tendency.

All the best,

Crumpp

WTE_Galway
08-26-2009, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> engine torque

Just to be clear for everyone. When you gun the throttle on an airplane and you see the right wingtip drop, the major force is spiral slipstream, not torque.

In a right hand turning propeller, the left wing simply has a much larger mass of air impacting it compared to the right wing. It is not torque you are seeing but rather the propeller effects.

The spiral slip stream strikes the left side of the verticle stabilizer as well as the rudder pushing it to the right causing the left turning tendency.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also the minimal amount of actual torque effect is not going to DIRECTLY cause a turn whilst you are still on the ground, the small effect it will have is going to be due to secondary factors like one wheel digging in to the runway harder than the other.

DrHerb
08-26-2009, 09:54 PM
As far as silly things like "random equipment failures" or pilot fatigue or whatever.... no thanks.

I dont know, for total immersion, short of actually dying while playing this sim/game/whatever you call it, Id like to have the option of what you stated available.

na85
08-26-2009, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> engine torque

Just to be clear for everyone. When you gun the throttle on an airplane and you see the right wingtip drop, the major force is spiral slipstream, not torque.

In a right hand turning propeller, the left wing simply has a much larger mass of air impacting it compared to the right wing. It is not torque you are seeing but rather the propeller effects.

The spiral slip stream strikes the left side of the verticle stabilizer as well as the rudder pushing it to the right causing the left turning tendency.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that was directed at me, I was referring to the times in the air where if you shove the throttle forward the aircraft tries to roll to one side... same as engine roll in a car.

The long term effect is the spiral slipstream, but the immediate response to the engine revving up fast is a response to the tengine torque.

Kettenhunde
08-26-2009, 10:16 PM
If that was directed at me,

It was not directed at you.


I was referring to the times in the air where if you shove the throttle forward the aircraft tries to roll to one side..

In the air at very low speeds were the controls are no longer effective, torque can roll the aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

na85
08-26-2009, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

In the air at very low speeds were the controls are no longer effective, torque can roll the aircraft.

Even at high speeds and idle throttle, if you punch it forward real quick the aircraft rolls a small amount (in-game, anyways)

TooCooL34
08-26-2009, 11:42 PM
In-game P-51 performance is more than good.
Most of 109 and 190 is no match for it.
The problem is .50 cal power and its calculation online which doesn't get you History channel explosion.
Most people do not prefer 'delayed kill' and so do I.

RPMcMurphy
08-27-2009, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> engine torque



The spiral slip stream strikes the left side of the verticle stabilizer as well as the rudder pushing it to the right causing the left turning tendency.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I found that out the embarrassing way the very first time I took off in a Cessna 172. After cranking up the throttle you need to put in some rudder to keep it straight down the runway. After a couple more take offs the instructor said "good job" instead of laughing at me.

Manu-6S
08-27-2009, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
I found that out the embarrassing way the very first time I took off in a Cessna 172. After cranking up the throttle you need to put in some rudder to keep it straight down the runway. After a couple more take offs the instructor said "good job" instead of laughing at me.

I would only to know why in Il2 this thing seems relative to the weight of the airplane.

You know, 109 and Spit have no problem, but try taking off in a full loaded 190 or tempest. Only then you really need to use your rudder.

Xiolablu3
08-27-2009, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by TooCooL34:
In-game P-51 performance is more than good.
Most of 109 and 190 is no match for it.
.

A well flown 109 is defintitely a match once the speeds come down. And the 190 only has to get a flash burst in (of his massive armament) to cripple the P51.

Manu-6S
08-27-2009, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TooCooL34:
In-game P-51 performance is more than good.
Most of 109 and 190 is no match for it.
.

A well flown 109 is defintitely a match once the speeds come down. And the 190 only has to get a flash burst in (of his massive armament) to cripple the P51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the P51's pilot know how to fight and has patience then yes, "Most of 109 and 190 is no match for it."

Vs 109 => Stay fast
Vs 190 => Don't give him any chance to fire.

In a P51 you should be afraid of Doras (at medium alt) and Ta152Hs (at high alt).

The rest is dead meat.

horseback
08-27-2009, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">he clearly states, "anytime you do a power or pitch change, you have to re-trim the airplane."


You should have seen him do a go around, his hands were EVERYWHERE trying to keep it down the centerline.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>...and I have no objections to the Mustang’s FM if the trim demand was limited to situations where you were actually making power, pitch and major changes in speed. By the way, if his hands were EVERYWHERE on a go around, it doesn’t sound to me like many of the changes he was making were in trim; those controls are all situated beside his left thigh.

My objection is to the constant unrealistic (as defined by the pilot quotes I have consistently referred to) need to re-trim for minor speed variations. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had the nose start gradually pulling up or dropping after a few minutes of level flight at near constant speed (and no change in PP, elevator trim or radiator settings). Dropping the nose slightly (just keeping level with an AI flight leader for instance) results in a speed increase of 5-10mph and that calls for a dash of nose down elevator trim before the nose starts rising on you. Of course, a second later, once you level off, the nose starts dropping…

This is not consistent with real-life descriptions of the cruising characteristics of the Mustang, and this is the major part of the game FM which makes the Mustang so hard to master, and limits its guns’ effectiveness even beyond the other US fighters’. The microsecond you accelerate or decelerate the trim is off and you are immediately fighting your stick. The trim delay only exacerbates the situation.

This does appear to reflect Oleg’s oft quoted conviction that US fighters got ‘worser’ as the later heavier fighters appeared in the West. It would seem that he believes that only Semyon Lavotchkin had the ability to improve the performance of a fighter design without sacrificing all handling qualities. The idea that the Mustang was a trim hog compared to all the other up-engined, ever more heavily loaded late war fighters like the Spitfire MK IXc, the Me-109K, or the P-47D-27 is contrary to every contemporary report or evaluation of the period.

For every description of these fighters as ‘delightful’, ‘stable’, or having ‘superb handling qualities’, there is one of the Merlin P-51 comparing them directly and noting either the Mustang’s superiority or similarity. When RAF veterans confirm those appraisals postwar, I have to think that it wasn't all propaganda. The Mustang was considered an easy fighter to fly, by the standards of the time; the in game Mustang is one of the hardest to fly with any kind of precision.

Pretending that well, the Mustang has a more accurate flight model than the P-40 (or most other aircraft in the sim), and you should be grateful for that, is unrealistic if you are going to turn around and use the results of competition between an ‘accurate’ advanced (over)complex FM and that of a fighter with an overoptimistic ‘best guess’ simplified FM, and then use that to advance your arguments for the historical superiority of the latter aircraft is probably just a bit hypocritical.

cheers

horseback

muffinstomp
08-27-2009, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:

Come on now, McMurphy, it looks like a pregnant guppy with that big belly radiator and lack of proper paint.

It's a nice enough plane to fly, shame about the guns though.
It looks like a pregant guppy on the ground, but that thang is meant to be airborne.
I admit they could have flattened out that scoop a little on the bottom to make it look not-so fat bellied; those dang aeronautical engineers. Yeah, shame about the guns alright too. But she's still a peach. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


...yeah that dang German engineer creating the P-51 Monstang!

Col.BBQ
08-27-2009, 02:31 PM
Sorry horseback but if you think the La-7 is a better plane then maybe the P-51 isn't for you. I personally think all the Las have terrible handling capabilities, they're all so d*** heavy compared to the light controls of a P-51 or any late war allied warplanes.

horseback
08-27-2009, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Col.BBQ:
Sorry horseback but if you think the La-7 is a better plane then maybe the P-51 isn't for you. I personally think all the Las have terrible handling capabilities, they're all so d*** heavy compared to the light controls of a P-51 or any late war allied warplanes. I didn't say that the La-7 is a better plane; what I said, or more correctly, implied, was that the LaGG-3/La-5/7 series didn't have their handling qualities degradeas the design was upgraded. On the contrary, they are modeled to have improved from the in-line to radial versions, and as the fit, finish and streamlining modifications were applied.

Compared to the P-51, though, their trim is far more consistent and predictable, and these aircraft gain speed at least as quickly. My issue isn't heavy controls but erratic trim requirements. That may be the direct fallout of the notorious elevator authority adjustment, but it has handicapped the FM a great deal (and I use a set of very low sensitivity curves for my control inputs).

cheers

horseback

BillSwagger
08-27-2009, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Pretending that well, the Mustang has a more accurate flight model than the P-40 (or most other aircraft in the sim), and you should be grateful for that, is unrealistic if you are going to turn around and use the results of competition between an ‘accurate’ advanced (over)complex FM and that of a fighter with an overoptimistic ‘best guess’ simplified FM, and then use that to advance your arguments for the historical superiority of the latter aircraft is probably just a bit hypocritical.


agreed, which is why i mentioned the fact that it might be more detailed, not necessarily less accurate, but you seem to have uncovered that it might be.
You really can't use the sim to make accurate real life comparisons between aircraft.
Whether real or unreal, there are planes that have certain aspects modeled while other aircraft might carry an advantage because these aspects weren't modeled for the aircraft.
I really don't think it matters as much in game, cause some planes, even with their modeling advantages are still easy targets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It would be good to have some consistency in the FMs.

Eow_TK
08-27-2009, 04:23 PM
I found that out the embarrassing way the very first time I took off in a Cessna 172. After cranking up the throttle you need to put in some rudder to keep it straight down the runway. After a couple more take offs the instructor said "good job" instead of laughing at me.

Hehe my dad almost drove off the left side of the runway his first time. (instructor didnt tell him about how much force would push him.) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HellToupee
08-27-2009, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim. the need for constant triming ingame should have nothing at all to do with the elevators ingame response level.

you don't even have to touch the elevator and you can still easily get way out of trim in a p51.

Trim was unchanged, p51 shares the same trimming characteristics ingame as many other aircraft, eg spitfire tempest etc.

RPMcMurphy
08-27-2009, 07:19 PM
Do you guys know if there is some kind of a trim-wheel I can get that'll plug into a USB port? I change trim constantly and I have been using Ctrl plus arrows for years as my trim control. Some kind of a wheel would be nice to have for elevator trim.

AndyJWest
08-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Do you guys know if there is some kind of a trim-wheel I can get that'll plug into a USB port? I change trim constantly and I have been using Ctrl plus arrows for years as my trim control. Some kind of a wheel would be nice to have for elevator trim.
This is goiing a bit off topic, but if I sneak in quick, maybe they won't notice. A slider is probably better than a wheel for trim - you can see where it's set. I believe there is a way of using a mouse wheel for this, if you don't want to fork out for hardware - start a new topic in Community Help and someone may know how, and what other alternatives there are.

R_Target
08-27-2009, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Do you guys know if there is some kind of a trim-wheel I can get that'll plug into a USB port? I change trim constantly and I have been using Ctrl plus arrows for years as my trim control. Some kind of a wheel would be nice to have for elevator trim.

I use the rotaries on an X52 throttle. Works like a champ.

RPMcMurphy
08-27-2009, 08:20 PM
Maybe its time for a new stick. I have been using the same one now for 8 years. Yep thats it.
Thanks. Thats it. Out.

na85
08-27-2009, 08:39 PM
If you fancy a challenge you could get one of those BUOwhatever things from Leo Bodnar and make your own from scratch!

dangerlaef
08-27-2009, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Do you guys know if there is some kind of a trim-wheel I can get that'll plug into a USB port? I change trim constantly and I have been using Ctrl plus arrows for years as my trim control. Some kind of a wheel would be nice to have for elevator trim.

Chances are you already have a USB wheel..
..on you mouse.

That's where I've mapped elevator trim, & it works fine.

Von_Rat
08-27-2009, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim. the need for constant triming ingame should have nothing at all to do with the elevators ingame response level.

you don't even have to touch the elevator and you can still easily get way out of trim in a p51.

Trim was unchanged, p51 shares the same trimming characteristics ingame as many other aircraft, eg spitfire tempest etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no it don't. its trim is more sensitive to speed changes.

TS_Sancho
08-27-2009, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim. the need for constant triming ingame should have nothing at all to do with the elevators ingame response level.

you don't even have to touch the elevator and you can still easily get way out of trim in a p51.

Trim was unchanged, p51 shares the same trimming characteristics ingame as many other aircraft, eg spitfire tempest etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no it don't. its trim is more sensitive to speed changes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. BF109 is a good example, she requires constant elevator trim management and a good lean on the rudder which varies with airspeed.

P51 is no more demanding, actually it trims out smoothly across a broader speed range than some due to the addition of pilot controlled yaw and roll trim.

HellToupee
08-28-2009, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim. the need for constant triming ingame should have nothing at all to do with the elevators ingame response level.

you don't even have to touch the elevator and you can still easily get way out of trim in a p51.

Trim was unchanged, p51 shares the same trimming characteristics ingame as many other aircraft, eg spitfire tempest etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no it don't. its trim is more sensitive to speed changes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it exactly the same.

Viper2005_
08-28-2009, 01:15 AM
Is the p51 underpowered?
It is very rare for a fighter aeroplane not to be improved by additional power. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In game it is very important to remember to close your radiator (AUTO will automatically open the radiator, causing a considerable drag penalty).

Recently, I have tested the Mustang III and found that the radiator position makes no difference to engine cooling, so you might as well leave the radiator closed at all times to minimise drag. I am not 100% sure that this result applies to all variants of the P-51, but early testing is starting to suggest that this may be the case...

Since the P-51 has a very large fuel capacity, it is also important to remember only to take as much fuel as you need for the sortie you plan to fly. The difference between 100% fuel and 25% is like night and day!

Manu-6S
08-28-2009, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Do you guys know if there is some kind of a trim-wheel I can get that'll plug into a USB port? I change trim constantly and I have been using Ctrl plus arrows for years as my trim control. Some kind of a wheel would be nice to have for elevator trim.

I use the rotaries on an X52 throttle. Works like a champ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Watch out! In a P51 you could have problem with the wings if you make a little mistake with that control..

In my x52 I put the trim on the central POV (ailerons and elevators) and the upper left POV (rudder).

So you will have to "click" but in a more controlled way (and of course is a little more realistic regarding the plane's behaviour).

Manu-6S
08-28-2009, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
...and I have no objections to the Mustang’s FM if the trim demand was limited to situations where you were actually making power, pitch and major changes in speed. By the way, if his hands were EVERYWHERE on a go around, it doesn’t sound to me like many of the changes he was making were in trim; those controls are all situated beside his left thigh.

My objection is to the constant unrealistic (as defined by the pilot quotes I have consistently referred to) need to re-trim for minor speed variations. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had the nose start gradually pulling up or dropping after a few minutes of level flight at near constant speed (and no change in PP, elevator trim or radiator settings). Dropping the nose slightly (just keeping level with an AI flight leader for instance) results in a speed increase of 5-10mph and that calls for a dash of nose down elevator trim before the nose starts rising on you. Of course, a second later, once you level off, the nose starts dropping…

This is not consistent with real-life descriptions of the cruising characteristics of the Mustang, and this is the major part of the game FM which makes the Mustang so hard to master, and limits its guns’ effectiveness even beyond the other US fighters’. The microsecond you accelerate or decelerate the trim is off and you are immediately fighting your stick. The trim delay only exacerbates the situation.

This does appear to reflect Oleg’s oft quoted conviction that US fighters got ‘worser’ as the later heavier fighters appeared in the West. It would seem that he believes that only Semyon Lavotchkin had the ability to improve the performance of a fighter design without sacrificing all handling qualities. The idea that the Mustang was a trim hog compared to all the other up-engined, ever more heavily loaded late war fighters like the Spitfire MK IXc, the Me-109K, or the P-47D-27 is contrary to every contemporary report or evaluation of the period.

For every description of these fighters as ‘delightful’, ‘stable’, or having ‘superb handling qualities’, there is one of the Merlin P-51 comparing them directly and noting either the Mustang’s superiority or similarity. When RAF veterans confirm those appraisals postwar, I have to think that it wasn't all propaganda. The Mustang was considered an easy fighter to fly, by the standards of the time; the in game Mustang is one of the hardest to fly with any kind of precision.

Pretending that well, the Mustang has a more accurate flight model than the P-40 (or most other aircraft in the sim), and you should be grateful for that, is unrealistic if you are going to turn around and use the results of competition between an ‘accurate’ advanced (over)complex FM and that of a fighter with an overoptimistic ‘best guess’ simplified FM, and then use that to advance your arguments for the historical superiority of the latter aircraft is probably just a bit hypocritical.

cheers

horseback

Now I think to have your point.

You state that the P51's too much sensible to small speed changes.

I was deceived by the comparison with the P40 and I thought that you wanted the P51 similar to the P40. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think you can be right, but sadly this is not a thing that anybody could verify if not a guy who fled BOTH real and ingame P51.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Manu-6S
08-28-2009, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Recently, I have tested the Mustang III and found that the radiator position makes no difference to engine cooling, so you might as well leave the radiator closed at all times to minimise drag. I am not 100% sure that this result applies to all variants of the P-51, but early testing is starting to suggest that this may be the case...


After trying RoF I lost all my faith in the IL2 overheat system... My hope are for SoW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

joeap
08-28-2009, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

After trying RoF I lost all my faith in the IL2 overheat system... My hope are for SoW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Well I know Rof is a later generation flightsim than Il-2, and has some very good modelling, but is this a correct comparison? I would have thought WWI plane motors were more sensitive to overheating than WWII planes...perhaps?

Manu-6S
08-28-2009, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:

After trying RoF I lost all my faith in the IL2 overheat system... My hope are for SoW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Well I know Rof is a later generation flightsim than Il-2, and has some very good modelling, but is this a correct comparison? I would have thought WWI plane motors were more sensitive to overheating than WWII planes...perhaps? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course is not a good sim comparison (8 years of difference between the releases).

I don't think there can be so much difference between engines issues. With the change of altitude, and speed of course, every engine should be prone to overcooling and pilots should work on radiators... isn't it?

I'm opening a new thread!!!

Viper2005_
08-28-2009, 03:50 AM
Overheating is used in IL2 as a device to prevent the player from flying the whole sortie at 110% +WEP.

IRL there were various factors which prevented people from doing this, and overheating was only one of them.

Actually, in high speed level flight, overheating wasn't a factor for most fighters, since their cooling systems were generally sized by the climb case.

For example, look at these reports:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...tang/p51b-12093.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-12093.html)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...tang/p-51b-6883.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-6883.html)

The automatic system almost entirely closed the radiator in level flight, despite the fact that high power was being used, especially at high altitude.

Obviously since the thermostat was closing the radiator, overheating wouldn't be an issue.

You can see the same trend with the -7 engine fitted to the P-51D:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...tang/p51d-15342.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html)


All tests were flown with oil and coolant flaps automatically controlled by thermostats set to maintain a coolant temperature of 107°C and oil temperature of 70°C. All performance was therefore corrected to flap positions which would maintain these temperatures on a standard day.

Maintaining a constant temperature implies that overheating isn't an issue (IIRC these temperatures are within the POH limits).

In fact, mechanical wear and tear was the main reason for limiting the time spent at high power, because the engine overhaul life was based upon an assumed usage profile.

The overhaul life of engines was set in an attempt to optimise the trade between performance and reliability. This was done statistically.

Putting in some very simplified statistics:

The average engine off the line might fail after 100 hours of operation at WEP, with a standard deviation of say 32 hours.

So, assuming a normal distribution, >99% of engines would manage 3 hours of operation at WEP.

4 hours = 240 minutes.

Say we allow 10 minutes of usage per sortie, this would give 24 sorties of life.

If each sortie is 7 hours long, this would mean that the engine needs overhauling after 168 hours of total life, which is about the correct ballpark for a fighter Merlin.

In high speed level flight, you might get away with using WEP until running out of fuel for several sorties, but the chances are pretty high that the engine would end up failing before reaching the end of its overhaul life. This might well happen during operation at a reduced power setting, possible whilst the aeroplane was being flown by a different pilot. For this reason, some of the flight manuals exhort pilots not to "kill their friends" by abusing their engines.

In a game like IL2 where you get a new aeroplane with a new engine for every sortie, there isn't any particular engineering reason to prevent players from treating their aeroplanes and engines like Reno racers, and so this completely artificial "overheat" concept has been introduced to make everybody "play nice" as it were.

This has several unfortunate consequences.

1) Because overheat in IL2 works on a timer, pilots are encouraged to play the system by simply memorising the overheat time for the aircraft they are flying. They can then chop the throttle and open the radiator just in time to "reset" the timer before engine damage is caused. IRL, exposing the engine to thermal shock like this would be much more likely to cause sudden failure than simply continuing to run at high power.

2) Because overheating in IL2 seems to almost entirely depend upon engine power setting rather than speed (which rams the air through the cooling system), you can sit at idle power on the ground for an indefinite period. IRL, aircraft like Spitfires need to either takeoff or shut down within a few minutes of starting up to avoid overheating.

3) Real WWII piston engines require careful operation, and although overheating is certainly one example of a limit which must be avoided, in reality there were many other factors to consider, such as the relationship between rpm and boost, thermal shock, overcooling (particularly in the case of big radials during descents), cruise mixture setting and so on. Some engines didn't have automatic boost control and so the pilot had to take great care to avoid overboosting at low altitude. If a turbocharger was fitted then it needed careful management to avoid overspeeding, overtemping or thermal shock.

Long range aircraft in particular required a great deal of engine management to get low fuel consumption during the cruise, and going from cruise to combat power was not just a question of firewalling the throttle. The various levers had to be moved in the correct order to avoid engine damage. For example, you have to increase rpm before increasing manifold pressure.

During cruising flight it was also necessary to periodically increase power in order to clean lead from the spark plugs and exhaust valves. Pilots who forgot to do this might lose the engine after a few hours of low power cruise.

4) Unfortunately, the policy of using "Overheat" to push players towards realistic WEP usage as well as to specifically model overheating has been inconsistently applied in IL2. Some aircraft therefore show a realistic lack of overheating problems at high speeds and altitudes (eg the P-47), whilst others such as the P-51 are artificially limited. This is particularly painful in the case of the P-51 because of its automatic radiator, which does little more than act as an automatic airbrake in IL2. The Spitfire has a similar problem, and bizarrely seems most likely to overheat when flying fast, whilst exhibiting none of the problems it should do when flying slowly, especially in the circuit with the landing gear down.

The most annoying feature of this is inconsistency is that it makes it extremely difficult to attempt to get things fixed. On the one hand, most of the aeroplanes in IL2 are modelled with unrealistic overheating behaviour to prevent excessive use of WEP. On the other, a minority appear to have realistic overheating behaviour, which gives them a performance advantage as most people fly as though they'll be getting a new aeroplane and engine for each sortie. Changing the majority to match the minority would be a lot of work, and would result in unrealistic player behaviour. Changing the minority to match the majority would be very unpopular as it would considerably reduce the performance of certain aircraft, and would almost certainly be met with chart-whine which would demonstrate that the change made was unrealistic as overheating was not the factor limiting high power operation in level flight.

Catch-22.

Not that this is more than a theoretical discussion, as AFAIK Team Daidalos aren't anywhere near modifying existing content...

R_Target
08-28-2009, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Watch out! In a P51 you could have problem with the wings if you make a little mistake with that control..

In my x52 I put the trim on the central POV (ailerons and elevators) and the upper left POV (rudder).

So you will have to "click" but in a more controlled way (and of course is a little more realistic regarding the plane's behaviour).

For bat-turners you are probably correct. I should have qualified my answer a little and noted that my elevator trim inputs are at about 50% across the board. The overall range is reduced, but I can still trim for about 0mph-500mph with more accuracy.

FatCat_99
08-28-2009, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Not that this is more than a theoretical discussion, as AFAIK Team Daidalos aren't anywhere near modifying existing content...
Don't bet on that.

FC

Viper2005_
08-28-2009, 04:33 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TooCooL34
08-28-2009, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Do you guys know if there is some kind of a trim-wheel I can get that'll plug into a USB port? I change trim constantly and I have been using Ctrl plus arrows for years as my trim control. Some kind of a wheel would be nice to have for elevator trim.
http://www.futuriastore.com/images/get_product_image.php?id=http://pan.fotovista.com/dev/9/3/00066939/l_00066939.jpg
I use it as an exclusive trim controller.
Form left to right, rudder, aileron, and elevator trim. Quite useful and fun and I can apply right trim for the situation.

Front buttons are for supercharger, mixture and radiator control.

RPMcMurphy
08-28-2009, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by dangerlaef:

Chances are you already have a USB wheel..
..on you mouse.

That's where I've mapped elevator trim, & it works fine.
I thought of that but I use the mouse with my right hand so the idea did'nt sound good. But maybe I will try it anyway. Thanks for all the input on the trim control you-all.

Von_Rat
08-28-2009, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
they whined for a more responsive elevator, not for twitchy trim. the need for constant triming ingame should have nothing at all to do with the elevators ingame response level.

you don't even have to touch the elevator and you can still easily get way out of trim in a p51.

Trim was unchanged, p51 shares the same trimming characteristics ingame as many other aircraft, eg spitfire tempest etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no it don't. its trim is more sensitive to speed changes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. BF109 is a good example, she requires constant elevator trim management and a good lean on the rudder which varies with airspeed.

P51 is no more demanding, actually it trims out smoothly across a broader speed range than some due to the addition of pilot controlled yaw and roll trim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ive found that in the 109 you can pretty much ignore the rudders position with little penalty unless engaged in very hard manuvers or a hi speed chase.

if you try to ignore the rudder trim in a stang the plane will wander all over, even during the most sedate manuvers.

Viper2005_
08-28-2009, 08:43 AM
The P-51 isn't very demanding to fly, in the sense that you can treat it like a Cessna and bore holes in the sky with little regard to the finer points of coordination and trim; provided that you don't grossly mishandle it then it won't bite too hard. It doesn't stall quite as nicely as the Bf-109, but OTOH its elevator doesn't freeze at high speed, so what you lose on the swings you gain on the roundabouts.

Personally I've died more times from diving a 109 into the deck at high speed than from stalling a P-51.

However, when it comes to fighting as opposed to merely flying the aeroplane, the P-51 in IL2 is much more demanding than the Bf-109 for the simple reason that the Bf-109's armament is greatly superior in 2 respects:

1) Brute force. Cannon are better than machine guns.

2) Configuration. Centerline guns are much easier to aim than wing guns. They are inherently less sensitive to both convergence and relative roll angle.

You can easily score lots of hits with wing guns with "spray and pray", but if those hits are concentrated on the target's wingtips because you're off convergence then they will obviously be far less effective than a smaller number of rounds tightly grouped in the target's cockpit...

I think that it's extremely difficult for most people to split their impression of the P-51 in game into "aircraft" and "armament", because this is a combat simulator, and that's the way things are.

But I think that if a P-51A with cannon were to arrive in say 4.10 or 4.11 then a very different picture might emerge.

I suspect that at present a substantial proportion of the perceived handling deficiencies of the aeroplane as modelled are actually directly attributable to its armament.

Let me explain.

People complain about instability, and about the aeroplane feeling "twitchy". They complain about it wobbling, and they complain about it requiring a lot of trimming.

All of these things are symptoms of over-controlling the aeroplane.

Overcontrol, in control systems language, is what happens when people set their "gains" too high. People tend to adopt a high gain control strategy when they are trying to perform a very precise task, such as landing. Student pilots do it on approach all the time.

Carrier landings are a more extreme case, because the landing area is that much smaller, and unsurprisingly they tend to produce more extreme cases of over-control.

What does this have to do with the P-51? Well, if you know that to kill anything with your guns you need to put the pipper in exactly, precisely the right place, with the ball in the middle and your wings in plane with the target, you're very likely to set your control gains "to eleven", especially when the adrenaline starts flowing.

And the natural result of that high gain strategy is overcontrol.

You can try this scientifically by installing the autopilot programme and experimenting with the gains.

Meanwhile, on the flip side of the coin, my 190 is reasonably easy to fly, but perhaps the main reason that I experience it as such is that I am generally quite relaxed about flying it.

I hardly ever look for accurate tracking shots. I just aim to get a deflection snapshot. With lots of ammunition, and accurate ammunition counters, I'm quite content for 99% of my rounds to miss, because that's good enough.

With most of my firepower very close to the centreline I don't care about being in-plane with my target, which cuts a whole load of aggravation out of the equation.

Likewise I don't care so much about yaw, because I don't need to track the target. I can lob rounds on either side without worrying too much, as long as a few go down the middle.

Which isn't to suggest that the P-51 and Fw-190 handle the same. But I don't think the actual difference is as big as it sometimes seems.

You can fly the P-51 like a 190, and it flies nicely enough; you just probably won't kill anything.

Of course, this observation doesn't solve anything...

Kettenhunde
08-28-2009, 09:44 AM
The overhaul life of engines was set in an attempt to optimise the trade between performance and reliability. This was done statistically.

Putting in some very simplified statistics:

The average engine off the line might fail after 100 hours of operation at WEP, with a standard deviation of say 32 hours.

So, assuming a normal distribution, >99% of engines would manage 3 hours of operation at WEP.

4 hours = 240 minutes.

Say we allow 10 minutes of usage per sortie, this would give 24 sorties of life.


One caveat is that WEP is generally not factored into the equation for overall motor TBO.

TBO is generally figured from maximum continuous.

WEP is generally operation of the engine at the margins and as such greatly stresses the engine. It is a special case that requires its own set of maintenance tracking and procedures. It is figured outside of TBO and tracked separately.

Hence the need for inspection and maintenance tracking of the time for any use of WEP:
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4386/p51wep.jpg (http://img530.imageshack.us/i/p51wep.jpg/)


The inspection is "as used" and fails "as needed" each time WEP is used. The inspection must be conducted before the aircraft is cleared to fly again. There will be a limit calculated that puts the motor over the limit for teardown inspection/overhaul calculated in a similar manner to what you describe.

The Merlin in the P-51 Mustang was limited to 5 such periods at WEP before requiring a complete disassembly and teardown inspection for tolerances.

An engine can run once and fail the subsequent inspection requiring overhaul after only a few minutes of operation at the margins.

All the best,

Crumpp

Eow_TK
08-28-2009, 10:51 AM
"2) Because overheating in IL2 seems to almost entirely depend upon engine power setting rather than speed (which rams the air through the cooling system), you can sit at idle power on the ground for an indefinite period. IRL, aircraft like Spitfires need to either takeoff or shut down within a few minutes of starting up to avoid overheating."

I always thought speed did effect the cooling. I know for a fact that above 470 or so kmph the engine will not over heat on the yp-80. Ive never overheated it at high speed anyway even at full power.

Viper2005_
08-28-2009, 10:58 AM
Speed does have an effect, but only for certain aircraft, such as the jets. Which is ironic, because external cooling isn't generally important for jets.

If the model was really just dealing with engine overheating then the prop aircraft would have overheat models more like the jets, but in many cases they wouldn't be able to idle on the ground for more than about 5 minutes without overheating...

JtD
08-28-2009, 10:59 AM
Speed effects the cooling in Il-2. But not to the extend that it should do. Also on prop driven aircraft.

RPMcMurphy
08-28-2009, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dangerlaef:

Chances are you already have a USB wheel..
..on you mouse.

That's where I've mapped elevator trim, & it works fine.
I thought of that but I use the mouse with my right hand so the idea did'nt sound good. But maybe I will try it anyway. Thanks for all the input on the trim control you-all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The control asignment won't recognise the wheel on the mouse when I try to assign it to up or down elevator.

Wildnoob
08-28-2009, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
You can fly the P-51 like a 190, and it flies nicely enough; you just probably won't kill anything.

Of course, this observation doesn't solve anything...

don't agreed here...

in fact agreed with much things you saied, the FW-190's firepower is much more brutal with a few hits, but the P-51's one is also more then enough in my view, especially the later model with the K-14 giroscopic gunsigth.

the problem with the Mustang guns is that most people stay nervours like you'd say and start to fire out of the convergance range because they think the balistic of the .50 cal is very good and they have a lot of ammunition. I considerate this as I factor and gonna say: big mistake!

I don't have much problem using the Mustang guns, except at very low speeds, but normally, especially in high speed firing passes, they are more then enough. some time ago I've set both the wing fuel tanks of a Ki-84 on fire online, and is very frequenty to me badly damage or send down my enemy with it. the key is stay fast and fire inside the convergence range, 200 meters in my case, otherwise you gonna have problems really.

I'm not anyone to say that the .50 cal are wrong or correct modelated, altough if used correctly in game they can be very deadly anyway to me.

Clipper_51
08-28-2009, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Oh just to add one small thing...

NEVER NEVER EVER pull harder onthe stick than u have to! Every extra G that you pull create drag! Drag is something u want to keep as low as possible in all planes but is crucial in the p51! If u go headon with a guy (why anyone ever would do that is beyond me but anyway) there is no rush to make a 180 as soon as possible by pulling hard. Keep an eye on the guy and pull the turn as gently as possible. Always have the mind to pull as little G as possible. Its called being E conservative!! Very very important! When u BnZ, there is no need to almost black out when u pull out, do it as soft as possible and try to stay ZERO G if possible when going over the top. Just keep an eye on the guy u just attacked. If he is pulling his nose up on u, just pull gently so his bullets miss.

Basically, always be gentle with the stick!
Its like telling a girl how to handle your own.... uhm... over and out... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hi Kling! Glad to see you're still flying.

S! Clipper

Viper2005_
08-28-2009, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Oh just to add one small thing...

NEVER NEVER EVER pull harder onthe stick than u have to! Every extra G that you pull create drag! Drag is something u want to keep as low as possible in all planes but is crucial in the p51!

Totally agree. Get fast, stay fast!


Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:If u go headon with a guy (why anyone ever would do that is beyond me but anyway) Why indeed? I've killed a fair few P-51s h2h with my 190 recently, and have never understood why they decide to bet 6x .50 against 4x (or indeed 2x) 20 mm and 2x 13mm. Heads I win, tails you lose etc..

Bearcat99
08-28-2009, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Eow_TK:
"2) Because overheating in IL2 seems to almost entirely depend upon engine power setting rather than speed (which rams the air through the cooling system), you can sit at idle power on the ground for an indefinite period. IRL, aircraft like Spitfires need to either takeoff or shut down within a few minutes of starting up to avoid overheating."

I always thought speed did effect the cooling. I know for a fact that above 470 or so kmph the engine will not over heat on the yp-80. Ive never overheated it at high speed anyway even at full power.

+1...

Kettenhunde
08-29-2009, 05:30 AM
My objection is to the constant unrealistic (as defined by the pilot quotes I have consistently referred to) need to re-trim for minor speed variations.

Hi Horseback,

In real airplanes, trim is for a specific speed and influenced by the stability margin of the design.

Now based on the portion of the curve you are flying in, the amount or even need to trim can change.

In the region of power stability where small changes in power produce large changes in velocity, we will be trimming often.

In the region of speed stability, where it takes a large power change for a small increase in speed, then we will not be trimming as much.

All the best,

Crumpp

horseback
08-31-2009, 09:37 AM
That's pretty much what I thought.

I spent much of Saturday morning transcribing the Trim sections of America's Hundred Thousand, where Dean describes the trimming characteristics of each major US fighter; by the time I finished the AAF fighters, the forum was offline. I didn't put the file in my thumb drive, and I'm at work now, but look for it around 5PM Pacific Daylight Time.

Comparing the Dean descriptions to the aircraft FMs in this game should be rather interesting...

cheers

horseback

horseback
08-31-2009, 06:14 PM
The following paragraphs are taken whole out of America’s Hundred Thousand. These are the complete sections labeled Trimming with nothing left out. Bear in mind that these are all American fighters, and any comparisons the pilots quoted herein are to other American fighters, not the Zero, not the Spitfire, not the Lavotchkin and not the Bf 109. This is just part of the picture the author paints; the sections on Ground Handling, Takeoff & Climb, Dive & Recovery, Maneuvering, Approach & Landing, Stalls & Spins, and the Gun Platform and Weapon performance paint a pretty complete picture of how these aircraft flew from a generally American perspective. Most end to reinforce the picture painted in the Trimming sections.

I simply lack the time and patience to transcribe all these in full, even assuming that it would not violate some copyright rules. I would recommend however, that anyone who wishes to argue the point transcribes at least the full paragraph that he is citing instead of engaging in the usual cherry picking.

One interesting note: The second paragraph in the P-40’s Maneuvering section starts with “…P-40 airplanes were very maneuverable for US Army fighters, some said better than a P-51.”

Trimming Sections from America’s Hundred Thousand:

P-38

The P-38 could be trimmed out to be pleasant to fly, and trimmability was rated good to fair by the majority of pilots in one survey. No adjustment of rudder or elevator trim was required with power or speed changes.

P-39

P-39 trimmability was good. Elevator tab action allowed stick force to be trimmed to zero throughout the speed range. Aileron trim changes with speed or power were negligible to 400 mph IAS. Above that speed, there was an erratic trim force change, possibly caused by aileron fabric bulging. There were directional trim changes in climbing and diving, but they were not extreme.

P-40

A major aspect of flying the P-40 series airplane was handling trim changes from power and speed changes. A veteran AAF pilot stated “The trim changes with speed were more than in other contemporary fighters.” Typical of many single engine propeller fighters, the vertical tail fin was slightly offset to counter propeller slipstream effect at cruising speed. In a dive, as speed increased, more and more left rudder had to be added; slowing down in a climb some right rudder was needed. One pilot said “—a drawback was having to virtually stand on the left rudder pedal to keep the ball centered—it could be a real handful in a loop” (where trim reversed from dive to climb and then back again). Although directional trim tab power was available to zero out pedal force, left rudder trim could not be rolled in fast enough with high dive acceleration. No matter what P-40 version was involved, it was the same: “In the air, the Tomahawk tended to yaw considerably with speed changes”, needing directional trim, and for the P-40E/H87A: “Every power and speed change brings an immediate trim change which the pilot must either counteract or trim out”. The H87 was, if anything, worse than the H81 Tomahawk.

On the P-40E lowering the landing gear made the aircraft slightly nose heavy; there was no appreciable trim change with flap positioning. Dropping a belly tank resulted in minor tail heaviness. The elevator trim system could take care of these effects as well as longitudinal variations due to speed and power changes.

P-47

There were some differences in trimmability between models. “The P-47D-25 trimmed harder than the D-15” but generally longitudinal and lateral trimmability was satisfactory on the P-47, and the tabs were very sensitive. There was very little trim change with gear retraction and initial acceleration; dropping flaps made the airplane slightly nose heavy. Longitudinal trim changes with power and speed changes were small, and elevator tab power was sufficient to trim stick forces to zero at all speeds and all normal center of gravity locations. The aileron trim tab action was sufficiently powerful for all flight conditions, and the rudder tab could trim pedal forces to zero at all speeds above 120 mph IAS in the power on clean condition. But as with other fighters, like the P-40, the rudder trim force change with changing power or speed was objectionably high.

P-51

ALLISON powered Mustangs were particularly notable for lack of required trim changes. Power or flap setting changes gave only small trim variations, and the same was true of gear retraction. The changes in tab settings for climbing and diving were negligible. Tab controls were sensitive and had to be used carefully.

Trimmability was also quite good in MERLIN Mustangs, and tabs were sensitive. In these versions directional trim changed more with speed and power changes. When the rudder trim system was changed and rigged as an anti-balance tab to give opposite boost, a resulting disadvantage was more tab was required to trim the aircraft from a climb into a dive.

cheers

horseback

NuMcA_of_CS
09-01-2009, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Overheating..

[..]

..Catch-22.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif