PDA

View Full Version : Gee, apparently the P51 could turn fight....



Pages : [1] 2

TheBandit_76
09-14-2007, 01:47 PM
Guess the thousands of P51 pilot accounts engaging axis enemies in turning fights are worth listening to after all.......Oleg.

Oh yeah, the almost non-existant stories from P51 pilots saying, "golly, we wouldn't dare try to turn with enemy fighters!"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anti-OlegFanBois unite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9QGUR9acUw&NR=1)

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 01:54 PM
Damn thats some mighty fine proofs you have there!

Could you make a graph and scientific chart based on that video, just how well the P51 could turnfight pls?

Its what we have been missing all along!

GBrutus
09-14-2007, 01:59 PM
Those are mostly Fw190s being shot at. Suggest you learn to ID aircraft better.

Bremspropeller
09-14-2007, 02:01 PM
...not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 02:01 PM
SOme comments from the other side (not saying its true, but its akin to a P51 pilot saying his bird was far superior) :-

Yohei Hinoki, a 12kill ace of IJA:

"It was easy for us to shoot these P-51s down, for their sole defensive manoeuvre was to perform a circular turn. The Ki-100 had a superior turning circle in comparison with the P-51, and we simply cut inside their defensive turns."

Its impossible to get an accurate picture by using pilot quotes and combat reports as the SOLE basis of working these things out.

What we need to use is side-by-side tests of these plane, or by using the factory specs for turns and speeds, then COMBINE these with what the combat reports say, to get a fairly accurate picture of what happened in combat.

For instance, if 90% of the combat reports say that plane A could outturn plane B, then its very likely that it could, and we should disregard the other 10%. ALso we could refer to the factory specs and tests.

However basing your opinon that Plane A could outturn PlaneB on one single video or pilot quote, is pretty dumb, dont you think?.

Noone is saying that the P51 could not turnfight, ANY plane can turnfight if the pilot wants to. Just how well it can turn compared to ther planes, is another matter.

IFly_1968
09-14-2007, 02:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I think that the 51 is fine turning in fights. I even made a track to prove it. 2 51's against 8 Zero's and guess who came out on top.
I would post it again but I got severely bashed and was told I did not know how to fly it. However, if you would like to view the file, PM me and I will give you a link to it. You may be plesently surprised.

Jaws2002
09-14-2007, 02:09 PM
That's a FW-190 being gang banged by a bunch of p-51's. You can clearly see at least two more planes making passes at him.

I'd say the guy put a mighty good show in those conditions.



Ah and I forgot. The P-51 is out turning the 190 in game too, so quit being the same crybaby and leave Oleg out of your rants pls.

MEGILE
09-14-2007, 02:12 PM
Rolled oats are a good source of dietry fibre, complex carbohydrates, protein, antioxidants, and are filling, and are therefore an excellent breakfast cereal.

TheBandit_76
09-14-2007, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by GBrutus:
Those are mostly Fw190s being shot at. Suggest you learn to ID aircraft better.

Not my vid, nor my ID. Suggest you stop stuggesting.

mmmmmKayyyy?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

RamsteinUSA
09-14-2007, 02:25 PM
Revenge for the P51 puposely not fixed will come. This is how. If Oleg does not/refuses to fix the P51 in the last patch 4.09, then this is how he will be busted!

As SOW:BOB expands with more planes and years, the P51 will be added. If Oleg uses the same borked/porked/scred FM as now exists in IL-2 1946 it will show as a nightmare that is totally wrong FM.

If he fixes the P51 and it has the proper FM than SOW:BOB P51 FM will show that he puposely left a bad P51 model in the Il-2 series.

I would suggest he fix it in IL-2 witht he last patch so there wil be no red faced explanation why it's correct in one series and totally wrong in the other. I could not imagine how 1c/Oleg/the team could possibly put the porked FM in SOW:BOB.

This also goes for:

http://www.rrgstudios.com/EN_01_01_News.shtml and Korea aka project Galba. They will be putitng the P51 in there and if they put the porked P51 FM in there they will screw the pooch.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

luftluuver
09-14-2007, 02:47 PM
Yup, the Mustang turn rate was so good it could
http://www.longhornrodeo.com/images/barrel-web.jpg

I believe it was in 'The Long Reach' that it was stated by Mustang pilots not to turn more than 1/2 a turn with German fighters, but to break off and set up the attack again.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
Revenge for the P51 puposely not fixed will come. This is how. If Oleg does not/refuses to fixt eh P51 in the last patch 4.09, then this is how he will be busted!

As SOW:BOB expands with more planes and years, the P51 will be added. If Oleg uses the same borked/porked/scred FM as now exists in IL-2 1946 it will show as a nightmare that is totally wrong FM.

If he fixes the P51 and it has the proper FM than SOW:BOB P51 FM will show that he puposely left a bad P51 model in the Il-2 series.

I would suggest he fix it in IL-2 witht he last patch so there wil be no red faced expalnation why it's correct in one series and totally wrong in the other. I could not imagine how 1c/Oleg/the team could possibly put the porked FM in SOW:BOB.

This also goes for:

http://www.rrgstudios.com/EN_01_01_News.shtml and Korea aka project Galba. They will be putitng the P51 in there and if they put the porked P51 FM in there they will screw the pooch.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Hmmm, this tells us absolutely nothing about what exactly you, surely speaking as a P51 veteran from your absolute statements, think is wrong with the P51 in IL2?!?!

Do I suspect that you have absolutely no time at all in the P51 and are just another whiner with no real knowledge at all about the real plane, apart from what you have seen on the history channel?

Dont get me wrong - I would love a super accurate P51 in the game too, but I am pretty certain that 'your' P51 would not be anything like the real thing. Forgive me if I take Olegs P51 model over yours. I am sure he has done his research, there are enough flyable P51s in the world for him to get detailed information from current P51 pilots, and I have yet to see one real P1 veteran say that the IL2 model is very wrong..

Can you tell us Ramstein, what are yourt credentials which give you the feeling that you 'know' the P51 flight model is wrong? If you can present some qualifications, such as 'ex P51 pilot' or something similar, then maybe we could take your comments seriously?

Waldo.Pepper
09-14-2007, 03:05 PM
For instance, if 90% of the combat reports say that plane A could out turn plane B, then its very likely that it could, and we should disregard the other 10%. ALso we could refer to the factory specs and tests.

However basing your opinion that Plane A could out turn Plane B on one single video or pilot quote, is pretty dumb, don't you think?.

I believe I tried to make very nearly EXACTLY the same points in a recent private topic with community member "X" - but he didn't wish to understand the opinions of another person either. He just wanted to rant on and on and on about how wrong it all was. So I finally got smart and emulated his debating strategy, and gave up listening to HIS opinion as well.

I feel better since this.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For instance, if 90% of the combat reports say that plane A could out turn plane B, then its very likely that it could, and we should disregard the other 10%. ALso we could refer to the factory specs and tests.

However basing your opinion that Plane A could out turn Plane B on one single video or pilot quote, is pretty dumb, don't you think?.

I believe I tried to make very nearly EXACTLY the same points in a recent private topic with community member "X" - but he didn't wish to understand the opinions of another person either. He just wanted to rant on and on and on about how wrong it all was. So I finally got smart and emulated his debating strategy, and gave up listening to HIS opinion as well.

I feel better since this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean me when you say 'X' Waldo?

I dont remember arguing with you? Can you give me a pointer to it?

Viper2005_
09-14-2007, 03:24 PM
So we have here a clip which was presumably recorded from a P-51.

It is composed of a series of guns passes, presumably against the same aircraft.

In those passes where the target aircraft is turning with more than about 45 degrees of bank, the P-51 loses angles and opts to break go high after taking a snapshot if available.

In those passes where the target aircraft is turning with less than about 45 degrees of bank, the P-51 is able to stay in the turn and slowly close the distance to take a tracking shot.

What exactly is the big deal?

This looks just like many tracks of good P-51 pilots at work in the game. It's an energy fight, not a turning contest. Remember, 45 degrees of bank in level flight is much less than 2 g.

Waldo.Pepper
09-14-2007, 03:27 PM
Do you mean me when you say 'X' Waldo?

I dont remember arguing with you? Can you give me a pointer to it?

No mate not you. It was during a recent private topic. But here's a hint it was nobody in this thread - so far. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
09-14-2007, 03:41 PM
I don't see a turn fight except the one sequence where there isn't really that much of a tight turn going on. The FW190 guy is trying to keep ahead of the Mustang and using a relatively slow turn with high energy.

I'm sorry...this proves and shows nothing that we can't already do in the game with the same aircraft involved.

DKoor
09-14-2007, 03:44 PM
Let's make a petition to the Maddox Games.......we want them to crossbreed LA-7/Spitfire 25 FM to the Mustang.

Now, who's with me?

stalkervision
09-14-2007, 04:26 PM
in case anyone doesn't know the actual real life turning performance of the "Pony Plane" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94

Brain32
09-14-2007, 04:28 PM
Wow now this is very funny really, in the whole footage(which I saw many times before) there is not one single sustained 360 deg. turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The last sequence where FW190A is being chased very low is closest, not quite the stuff but let's assume it is, even then you can see that the P51 couldn't get an angle on a FW190A, he fired and scored hits not before FW straitened out.
Since I can gain on a FW190A in game in a turn easily, this footage proves P51 in game has overmodelled turn capatibilities http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 05:19 PM
Pilots accounts are told by ACEs who always won for the most part. So as always people only choose to believe the ones that best suit their purpose and ignore the ones that do not or simply dismiss them as propaganda. Perhaps one day we can have a thread to discuss such matters without the "Im right your wrong" attitude. Maybe we can have one without the insults or the over the top sarcasm. People can look at a video and see whatever they want and turn it into something that serves their individual way of thinking.

S!

carguy_
09-14-2007, 05:21 PM
Aaaaaaaah seeing the Storm of War not having this plane will be soooooo much refreshing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Aaaaaaaah seeing the Storm of War not having this plane will be soooooo much refreshing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

You hate a plane because of some peoples opinion of it?

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 05:23 PM
For the record I think the Mustang does well enough in a turn fight with LW aircraft. But really, who turn fights other then the ones who fly in arcade quake type servers? Bandit if your dieing online its not because of the plane man. When you get shot down online its all you and you did something wrong or the other guy is simply better...fact.

S!

faustnik
09-14-2007, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Pilots accounts are told by ACEs who always won for the most part. So as always people only choose to believe the ones that best suit their purpose and ignore the ones that do not or simply dismiss them as propaganda. Perhaps one day we can have a thread to discuss such matters without the "Im right your wrong" attitude. Maybe we can have one without the insults or the over the top sarcasm. People can look at a video and see whatever they want and turn it into something that serves their individual way of thinking.

S!

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

Waldo.Pepper
09-14-2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Aaaaaaaah seeing the Storm of War not having this plane will be soooooo much refreshing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

I am surprised at such naivety. It would not surprise me at all if it were worse with the Spitfire 1 vs. Bf matchup that we can expect in the game.

"Hegative G! Well that's just Bollox that is!"
"What do you mean that the Bf is that good a climber - hangin' about way up there. How the heck do you expect the Hurricane to be able to do anything against that thing!" etc etc etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV
09-14-2007, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Aaaaaaaah seeing the Storm of War not having this plane will be soooooo much refreshing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

You hate a plane because of some peoples opinion of it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the really bad old days of P51 whining, I got so sick of it that i nearly completely went off the plane itself - and I was quite a big fan of the plane in previous sims. The whining was so childish that it in someway reflected off the plane itself to me. When you hear people saying it should cut battleships in half and blow up tiger tanks and why they can`t shoot down 50 109s like their Ace heroes over and over again, it eventually gets to you. (They even used real guncams to try and prove how it could blow up battleships with the .50s which of course was not actually happening).

TheBandit_76`s is just another example of this. he thinks that posting a guncam of p51s apparently outturning and shooting japanese planes proves that P51s could turn fight.

Now I`m willing to countenance that a skilled pilot in a P-51 could possible outturn a another plane, but seeing what`s just another attempt to convince people of something by posting only what HE wants to see is so annoying.

These are clearly 190s with possibly one shot of a japanese plane briefly in the mix. Even then they`re not really turn fighting at all, it`s mostly swift attacks and attempted deflections with the longest shot of a chase low after a 190 that`s turning slightly, it can`t do more than that.

If this is the best TheBandit_76 can do, he needs to stop posting guncams of planes he can`t recognise and start reading proper books of various historical accounts and aircraft specs. A guncam clip even if accurate (which it isn`t) is NOT enough to base an argument on how you believe you fave plane should fly and expect Oleg to then change it.

I`m just glad he don`t work in CSI cos his ability to detect and see the truth stinks. Or maybe he doesn`t care about the truth as long as he gets what he wants.

carguy_
09-14-2007, 05:43 PM
I feel kinda defensive about USAF planes.Maybe it is because the moanings about them make up for 80% of all of the cries here.The fifties,the compression,the roll rate,the CoG,the RoC,the DM,the rear visibility, the general feeling of helplessness of those who can`t tell a good plane from a bad plane.

Cut this BS about hating a plane.I get the feeling you don`t know the meaning of the word 'hate'.In my native language it`s a STRONG word.You must be quite the punk to assume hate from ppl you don`t know.


The Storm of War will present new quality to the genre.At least one year after release of peace and quiet, no redwhiteandblue hero wannabees,no "GIVE ME THE B17!!!" people. It`ll be aaaaaall quiet in the West like it used to be loooong ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif




Waldo.Pepper:
I am surprised at such naivety. It would not surprise me at all if it were worse with the Spitfire 1 vs. Bf matchup that we can expect in the game.

Yeah but still, lots of whining gone for a while.
About the Spit, I can`t possibly guess what you mean here.The Spitfire is the real deal, THE legend in 100% of the meaning of the word.
It was in fact better than the Me109 and the FW190.Anyone that has a problem with such a statement needs a spanking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Copperhead311th
09-14-2007, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
I feel kinda defensive about USAF planes.Maybe it is because the moanings about them make up for 80% of all of the cries here.The fifties,the compression,the roll rate,the CoG,the RoC,the DM,the rear visibility, the general feeling of helplessness of those who can`t tell a good plane from a bad plane.

Cut this BS about hating a plane.I get the feeling you don`t know the meaning of the word 'hate'.In my native language it`s a STRONG word.You must be quite the punk to assume hate from ppl you don`t know.


The Storm of War will present new quality to the genre.At least one year after release of peace and quiet, no redwhiteandblue hero wannabees,no "GIVE ME THE B17!!!" people. It`ll be aaaaaall quiet in the West like it used to be loooong ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Waldo.Pepper:
I am surprised at such naivety. It would not surprise me at all if it were worse with the Spitfire 1 vs. Bf matchup that we can expect in the game.

Yeah but still, lots of whining gone for a while.
About the Spit, I can`t possibly guess what you mean here.The Spitfire is the real deal, THE legend in 100% of the meaning of the word.
It was in fact better than the Me109 and the FW190.Anyone that has a problem with such a statement needs a spanking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.giftranslation: whaaaaaaaa wahaaaaaaaa i ahte Americans, American planes and everything those standfor waaaa please oleg make a sim with no Americans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Well.....you'll get your wish there car guy. well at leasst for a while. eventually you'll have to get used to American planes owning you again. in the meantime. have fun with Bob. We fat, lazy, & stupid Americans will see you in the next installment of SoW. Which will most likely be Korea or the Med. Oh....gee i forgot...most of us will be shooting you down in Spitfires in BoB. lol oh well.

Whirlin_merlin
09-14-2007, 06:04 PM
Hate to break it to you Bandit but this is a computer game (ok then it's a game with a simulator in it). NO plane is actually exactly like it was in reality.
The idea that the P51 was somehow specially singled out for an extreme and right royal porking is very silly, so stop it at once.
The P51 was an outstanding achievment in avaition engineering, it could do most things asked of it very well and most importantly it could do them a long way from home.
It was not however magic and the laws of physics still applied to it. It was not the bestest at everything possible nor did it in fact win teh war (that was some what of a 'team effort')

This over/undermodelled thing really suxs the biggie.
The other night I saw a fellow on line whine that the hurri was overmodelled because one out turned his 109F2.
It seems porkage is in the eye of the beholder.

Whirlin_merlin
09-14-2007, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I feel kinda defensive about USAF planes.Maybe it is because the moanings about them make up for 80% of all of the cries here.The fifties,the compression,the roll rate,the CoG,the RoC,the DM,the rear visibility, the general feeling of helplessness of those who can`t tell a good plane from a bad plane.

Cut this BS about hating a plane.I get the feeling you don`t know the meaning of the word 'hate'.In my native language it`s a STRONG word.You must be quite the punk to assume hate from ppl you don`t know.


The Storm of War will present new quality to the genre.At least one year after release of peace and quiet, no redwhiteandblue hero wannabees,no "GIVE ME THE B17!!!" people. It`ll be aaaaaall quiet in the West like it used to be loooong ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Waldo.Pepper:
I am surprised at such naivety. It would not surprise me at all if it were worse with the Spitfire 1 vs. Bf matchup that we can expect in the game.

Yeah but still, lots of whining gone for a while.
About the Spit, I can`t possibly guess what you mean here.The Spitfire is the real deal, THE legend in 100% of the meaning of the word.
It was in fact better than the Me109 and the FW190.Anyone that has a problem with such a statement needs a spanking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.giftranslation: whaaaaaaaa wahaaaaaaaa i ahte Americans, American planes and everything those standfor waaaa please oleg make a sim with no Americans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Well.....you'll get your wish there car guy. well at leasst for a while. eventually you'll have to get used to American planes owning you again. in the meantime. have fun with Bob. We fat, lazy, & stupid Americans will see you in the next installment of SoW. Which will most likely be Korea or the Med. Oh....gee i forgot...most of us will be shooting you down in Spitfires in BoB. lol oh well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you actually read what he wrote? Are you aware of the existance of irony?

Copperhead311th
09-14-2007, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I feel kinda defensive about USAF planes.Maybe it is because the moanings about them make up for 80% of all of the cries here.The fifties,the compression,the roll rate,the CoG,the RoC,the DM,the rear visibility, the general feeling of helplessness of those who can`t tell a good plane from a bad plane.

Cut this BS about hating a plane.I get the feeling you don`t know the meaning of the word 'hate'.In my native language it`s a STRONG word.You must be quite the punk to assume hate from ppl you don`t know.


The Storm of War will present new quality to the genre.At least one year after release of peace and quiet, no redwhiteandblue hero wannabees,no "GIVE ME THE B17!!!" people. It`ll be aaaaaall quiet in the West like it used to be loooong ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Waldo.Pepper:
I am surprised at such naivety. It would not surprise me at all if it were worse with the Spitfire 1 vs. Bf matchup that we can expect in the game.

Yeah but still, lots of whining gone for a while.
About the Spit, I can`t possibly guess what you mean here.The Spitfire is the real deal, THE legend in 100% of the meaning of the word.
It was in fact better than the Me109 and the FW190.Anyone that has a problem with such a statement needs a spanking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.giftranslation: whaaaaaaaa wahaaaaaaaa i ahte Americans, American planes and everything those standfor waaaa please oleg make a sim with no Americans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Well.....you'll get your wish there car guy. well at leasst for a while. eventually you'll have to get used to American planes owning you again. in the meantime. have fun with Bob. We fat, lazy, & stupid Americans will see you in the next installment of SoW. Which will most likely be Korea or the Med. Oh....gee i forgot...most of us will be shooting you down in Spitfires in BoB. lol oh well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you actually read what he wrote? Are you aware of the existance or irony? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeap. been reading it for about 4 or 5 years. same old thing. never changes.

Whirlin_merlin
09-14-2007, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I feel kinda defensive about USAF planes.Maybe it is because the moanings about them make up for 80% of all of the cries here.The fifties,the compression,the roll rate,the CoG,the RoC,the DM,the rear visibility, the general feeling of helplessness of those who can`t tell a good plane from a bad plane.

Cut this BS about hating a plane.I get the feeling you don`t know the meaning of the word 'hate'.In my native language it`s a STRONG word.You must be quite the punk to assume hate from ppl you don`t know.


The Storm of War will present new quality to the genre.At least one year after release of peace and quiet, no redwhiteandblue hero wannabees,no "GIVE ME THE B17!!!" people. It`ll be aaaaaall quiet in the West like it used to be loooong ago. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Waldo.Pepper:
I am surprised at such naivety. It would not surprise me at all if it were worse with the Spitfire 1 vs. Bf matchup that we can expect in the game.

Yeah but still, lots of whining gone for a while.
About the Spit, I can`t possibly guess what you mean here.The Spitfire is the real deal, THE legend in 100% of the meaning of the word.
It was in fact better than the Me109 and the FW190.Anyone that has a problem with such a statement needs a spanking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.giftranslation: whaaaaaaaa wahaaaaaaaa i ahte Americans, American planes and everything those standfor waaaa please oleg make a sim with no Americans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Well.....you'll get your wish there car guy. well at leasst for a while. eventually you'll have to get used to American planes owning you again. in the meantime. have fun with Bob. We fat, lazy, & stupid Americans will see you in the next installment of SoW. Which will most likely be Korea or the Med. Oh....gee i forgot...most of us will be shooting you down in Spitfires in BoB. lol oh well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you actually read what he wrote? Are you aware of the existance or irony? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeap. been reading it for about 4 or 5 years. same old thing. never changes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No try again this time with thought.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 06:10 PM
In the really bad old days of P51 whining, I got so sick of it that i nearly completely went off the plane itself - and I was quite a big fan of the plane in previous sims. The whining was so childish that it in someway reflected off the plane itself to me.

In the early days I believe the whining was just as bad for the 109 or the 190. Some of the claims people made are indeed quite ridiculous to say the least but this is a result of poor education and no fault of the plane itself. To change your view on a particular aircraft because of some peoples obvious neglect of historical knowledge is a little short sighted in my opinion. But you feel the way you feel and I can not change that.

S!

luftluuver
09-14-2007, 06:11 PM
Whirlin_merlin, he is the reason people have impressions of Americans as loud mouthed and obnoxious. Only takes one bad apple.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 06:16 PM
Cut this BS about hating a plane.I get the feeling you don`t know the meaning of the word 'hate'.In my native language it`s a STRONG word.You must be quite the punk to assume hate from ppl you don`t know.

Umm ok...lol. Your response does not surprise me. So you felt you needed to insult me by calling me a punk? Thats quite the offensive word in my native language. If you will notice I ask you a simple question. And its not like I said you hated a person for crying out loud. Its just a piece of equipment. You dont know me so please dont imply Im a so called punk. If Im going to insult someone I would do it in person rather then hide behind my monitor. I did not intend to offend you and Im still not sure how I did.

S!

S!

SeaFireLIV
09-14-2007, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:

In the early days I believe the whining was just as bad for the 109 or the 190. Some of the claims people made are indeed quite ridiculous to say the least but this is a result of poor education and no fault of the plane itself. To change your view on a particular aircraft because of some peoples obvious neglect of historical knowledge is a little short sighted in my opinion. But you feel the way you feel and I can not change that.

S!

Well actually the Luftwhining was also very bad, I remember how they went on and on too. but i was here when it went over to Fb and the P51 came in and `the P51 is porked` started. i`m afraid it put the Jerries into the shade.

But it eventually died away and like I said, it almost put me off the P51 - It didn`t. I fly it sometimes. I might even do a sig pic of it. It`s about time the P51 had one from me.

Whirlin_merlin
09-14-2007, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Whirlin_merlin, he is the reason people have impressions of Americans as loud mouthed and obnoxious. Only takes one bad apple.

Fair enough as I think I might be the reason many Americans think all British chaps are sarky barstewards with a hurricane obsession and possibly abit gay (see bump plane fixation in other thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) .

But then at least I have a higher IQ than my own stools, if only that were true for all

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Whirlin_merlin, he is the reason people have impressions of Americans as loud mouthed and obnoxious. Only takes one bad apple.

If one decides to make an opinion of an entire country because of a few so called bad apples that is pretty ignorant way of thinking in my honest opinion.

S!

joeap
09-14-2007, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
Revenge for the P51 puposely not fixed will come.

You write stuff like that and wonder why I and others called you names? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I see Bandit_76 is taking up the slack left by Hayateace. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Copperhead311th
09-14-2007, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In the really bad old days of P51 whining, I got so sick of it that i nearly completely went off the plane itself - and I was quite a big fan of the plane in previous sims. The whining was so childish that it in someway reflected off the plane itself to me.

In the early days I believe the whining was just as bad for the 109 or the 190. Some of the claims people made are indeed quite ridiculous to say the least but this is a result of poor education and no fault of the plane itself. To change your view on a particular aircraft because of some peoples obvious neglect of historical knowledge is a little short sighted in my opinion. But you feel the way you feel and I can not change that.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actua;;y it was quite worse.


Originally posted by Luftlover:

Whirlin_merlin, he is the reason people have impressions of Americans as loud mouthed and obnoxious. Only takes one bad apple.

Well it's like this.
With me it's full speed ahaead...damn the torpeedos. I say what i mean and i mean what i say. I call em like i see em. I speak loudly, and proudly. I don't pull any punches...nor do i care what anyone else "thinks". Everyone has thier opinion and they're entitled to it. I'll fight for what i belive in & for what i think is right. And if i ever go down....you can bet your *** it'll be fighting tooth and nail all the damn way. If that makes me obnoxious or as you say "a loud mouthed American". so be it.

But i will never compramise my ideals, integrity, honor, or priciples for you..or anyone else. EVER.

Whirlin_merlin
09-14-2007, 06:23 PM
Whoa everybody calm down this is getting crazy.

Ease up tiger Havok I dont think Carguy's saying what you think either. I believe he's saying he doesn't HATE the P51 'cos hate is too big a word to use here. If I'm right then he's right.

So let's all loose the hate, grab a beer, stroke the cat/dog/rabbit/whatever and relx. Life is a short and loverly thing.

Why am I not in bed?
How can I still be typing in a vaguely (I hope) coherant fashion?

These are the true mysteries of life. Night all, weet dreams.

Edit: I mean sweet dreams and most definatly not wet dreams there, darn typo.

M_Gunz
09-14-2007, 06:25 PM
Ooooooooooo, guncam footage! It doesn't get any more controlled than that! Except comic books.

We don't know the pilots.
We don't know the fatigue of each let alone the skill or lack of.
We don't know the loading of the planes.
We don't know damage either may have had.
We don't know how many other planes are in the fight.

We do know that Bandit wants something very badly and if this is his idea of proof then take it
as sign of how carefully he came about his opinion in the first place.

I give it 1 out of 5.

luftluuver
09-14-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
If one decides to make an opinion of an entire country because of a few so called bad apples that is pretty ignorant way of thinking in my honest opinion. S! I agree it is but that is a fact of life.

Copperhead311th
09-14-2007, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
If one decides to make an opinion of an entire country because of a few so called bad apples that is pretty ignorant way of thinking in my honest opinion. S! I agree it is but that is a fact of life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also a fact of life that morons don't just reside in the USA. Beliove me we have never had the monopoly on that.

RamsteinUSA
09-14-2007, 06:37 PM
I have already stated the problems and fixes in other threads and refrences to official historical records for the P51. Those that are the absolutely insane crazed attack dog stalkers in these forums already know the threads, no need to repeat it for the 1,000th time.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif


Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
Revenge for the P51 puposely not fixed will come. This is how. If Oleg does not/refuses to fix the P51 in the last patch 4.09, then this is how he will be busted!

As SOW:BOB expands with more planes and years, the P51 will be added. If Oleg uses the same borked/porked/scred FM as now exists in IL-2 1946 it will show as a nightmare that is totally wrong FM.

If he fixes the P51 and it has the proper FM than SOW:BOB P51 FM will show that he puposely left a bad P51 model in the Il-2 series.

I would suggest he fix it in IL-2 witht he last patch so there wil be no red faced explanation why it's correct in one series and totally wrong in the other. I could not imagine how 1c/Oleg/the team could possibly put the porked FM in SOW:BOB.

This also goes for:

http://www.rrgstudios.com/EN_01_01_News.shtml and Korea aka project Galba. They will be putitng the P51 in there and if they put the porked P51 FM in there they will screw the pooch.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

carguy_
09-14-2007, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.giftranslation: whaaaaaaaa wahaaaaaaaa i ahte Americans, American planes and everything those standfor waaaa please oleg make a sim with no Americans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You`re right to an extent.Not many Americans wanted to fly for the Ruskies those days.They were flying for the Luftwaffe moslty.Apart from being quiet, they also formed quite an elite I always liked to fly aside.Most of my flight time with Americans on comms is enjoyable, teamwork instinct being what I like the most, makes up for the little flaws in their flying skills.Surely many valuable wingmen lost to the `merican planes since FB for sure.




Well.....you'll get your wish there car guy. well at leasst for a while. eventually you'll have to get used to American planes owning you again. in the meantime. have fun with Bob. We fat, lazy, & stupid Americans will see you in the next installment of SoW. Which will most likely be Korea or the Med. Oh....gee i forgot...most of us will be shooting you down in Spitfires in BoB. lol oh well.

First of all, if I get to play SOW, it won`t be pretty against those Spits - hard work with lots of deaths, never like against the Ruskies.Though I have no problem with being killed by the Spit - I figure the pilot was at least good if he killed me in a better plane.But those luftie `mericans will get back to us Luftwaffles for a while too!However, things might just stay quiet like I said.In Korea I wager you might have a bigger problem with the Migs than you might expect.From what I read about their flying characteristics,they fit Luftwaffle flying style like a charm.

carguy_
09-14-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Umm ok...lol. Your response does not surprise me. So you felt you needed to insult me by calling me a punk? Thats quite the offensive word in my native language. If you will notice I ask you a simple question. And its not like I said you hated a person for crying out loud. Its just a piece of equipment. You dont know me so please dont imply Im a so called punk. If Im going to insult someone I would do it in person rather then hide behind my monitor. I did not intend to offend you and Im still not sure how I did.

I called you a punk because I think that assuming that I hate the P51 from few forum posts is a little overboard.Hate means really a lot and does not resemble my feelings towards the plane one bit.Anyhow, you still put a question mark at the end so it`s my bad.Whirlin_merlin explains it correctly.

Hate?No ,not by a long shot.Please, stop assuming people of hate.It`s a HUGE misinterpretation of one`s written words.A little critique does not hurt either,aye?

Brain32
09-14-2007, 07:16 PM
In Korea I wager you might have a bigger problem with the Migs than you might expect.From what I read about their flying characteristics,they fit Luftwaffle flying style like a charm.
Ahh Korea, honestly I cant freakin' wait to get into that Sabre and enter the Mig Valley http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I expect a lot of whine about the Sabre though, as MiG will turn better, climb better and overall have better high altitude performance, Sabre should be faster at lower alts, have much better high speed control, better dive characteristics, not sure about the roll-rate. It shoul be pretty hairy and VERY fast, no BS 50kmh war winning sustained turning and stuff like that, high speed, high closure rates, team tactics... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

f.ip2
09-14-2007, 07:26 PM
hey Copperhead311th

at least her are some very funny M ones in this country. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v2U_KRpz5NY&mode=related&search=



only being on this board for few week showed me that quite many still cannot read history, get over old feelings/impressions and don't realize this is just a damn game ...

I personally like to fly the spit a lot because the german planes seem more difficult for me to fly. but i would not because of that call the german planes worse.

also i sense some lack of analytical thinking here. theories can only be proven by good solid facts.

the only way to compare plane a with plane b is when the same person flies both and tries to do the same moves/turns.

judging by films is rather childish in general. judging by what old aces said, is childish as well, because it is out of context and very subjective. plane is plane and pilot is pilot.
a plane with different pilot can be perform in different ways. thats such a simple logic.

why don't you just have fun and fly the plane you just like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Copperhead311th
09-14-2007, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In Korea I wager you might have a bigger problem with the Migs than you might expect.From what I read about their flying characteristics,they fit Luftwaffle flying style like a charm.
Ahh Korea, honestly I cant freakin' wait to get into that Sabre and enter the Mig Valley http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I expect a lot of whine about the Sabre though, as MiG will turn better, climb better and overall have better high altitude performance, Sabre should be faster at lower alts, have much better high speed control, better dive characteristics, not sure about the roll-rate. It shoul be pretty hairy and VERY fast, no BS 50kmh war winning sustained turning and stuff like that, high speed, high closure rates, team tactics... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually...you may want to look into those staments a littel close. The F-86 was a better turner than the Mig. Other than that...your spot on.
I'm wondering if they will try to model in KNOWN ISSUES in SoW. For example..... Acording to my grandfather.....who worked on the 58th FG F-86's @ Osan....The Sabres had a teeny weenie problem with the landing gears freezing up from time to time. it was quite random, and was a known issue. took them a long time to sort out the problem. but it was eventually fixed on all F-86-G's.

Viper2005_
09-14-2007, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Ahh Korea, honestly I cant freakin' wait to get into that Sabre and enter the Mig Valley http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I expect a lot of whine about the Sabre though, as MiG will turn better, climb better and overall have better high altitude performance, Sabre should be faster at lower alts, have much better high speed control, better dive characteristics, not sure about the roll-rate. It shoul be pretty hairy and VERY fast, no BS 50kmh war winning sustained turning and stuff like that, high speed, high closure rates, team tactics... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I would suggest that "overall" is pushing it a bit. The MiG-15 can climb a little higher, but when it comes down it has a hard Mach limit. Meanwhile the F-86 may safely be taken supersonic.

Bear in mind that in IL2 a substantial proportion of P-47 bounces are actually supersonic...

Altitude is nothing more than a store of potential energy.
Energy is relative. It doesn't matter how much I've got; all that matters is that I have more than you when we meet in combat.

Now, I might have lots and lots of energy up at 53,000 feet, but if I can't bring it down with me in the form of speed to engage you at 45,000 feet then it's an academic quantity save for the fact that it makes it impossible for you to engage me when I climb away.

At the end of the day, the F-86 retains the capability to run away bravely, both in level flight and in the dive, and IMO that's the most useful capability of them all. It also has a radar gunsight.

I know what I'd fly if giving the choice!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-14-2007, 07:58 PM
as MiG will turn better

On most accounts I have heard or read the Sabre was the better turner and overall more maneuverable.

S!

Viper2005_
09-14-2007, 08:39 PM
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-642636087900...ype=search&plindex=0 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6426360879008097407&q=we+flew+the+mig&total=2&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

luftluuver
09-14-2007, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
It's also a fact of life that morons don't just reside in the USA. Beliove me we have never had the monopoly on that. So you are saying you are a moron? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Von_Rat
09-15-2007, 12:31 AM
i bet 95% of the big mouths in here claiming that the ingame p51 is a great plane,,, can't do shLt with it in game.

Feathered_IV
09-15-2007, 12:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Manu-6S
09-15-2007, 01:49 AM
If I was 4 FW190 against 1 Spitfire I shall turn fight against it...

Feathered_IV
09-15-2007, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
If I was 4 FW190 against 1 Spitfire I shall turn fight against it...

EXACTLY!

And if I was with 16 well coordinated P-51's against a Sopwith bloody Camel, I'd turn fight against that too. And win.

anarchy52
09-15-2007, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as MiG will turn better

On most accounts I have heard or read the Sabre was the better turner and overall more maneuverable.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
true, but remember who is making the sim.

Same people that brought you the legends like I-16 tie fighter, LaGG-3 the delta wood spitfire, MiG-3 outturning and climbing with 109s, FW that turns worse then even a derated, crashlanded A4 with a stuka prop in the real tests, the infinite P-39 oil tank, Tempest outturning 109G6 at stall speed etc, La-5 that flies like F, F that flies like FN and La-7 which I really do not know what to compare with.

K_Freddie
09-15-2007, 02:40 AM
Back to the original thread idea...
Even if the P51 is not modelled exactly, what's more important is the relative performance modelling between the planes.
This I feel has been done fairly accurately by Oleg and 1C, and it gives one a great idea on what combat experience was like.
So as it has been said a thousand times before, if you're having a problem with any a/c, it because YOU are not 'flying' it properly or your opponent is just that much better than you - period.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mbfRoy
09-15-2007, 03:42 AM
It really depends what you are facing ingame... For example against ace AI, I can take on 3 FW190s (any model) without a sweat, just play on your ground (high up!) and bounce them.

However against a 109G or similar... now that's a different beast! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif they can climb waay better (I'm talking AI only, not that the player 109's can't climb better) and definitely turn way better, although they don't have a lot of fuel and the 51 runs faster <-- that's the thing to do, disengage and come back with more alt than them, although because of their situation awareness it's quite hard to land a shot when diving on them.

However online it's a different story from QMBs obviously. You can engage enemy planes from high above almost always, because nearly nobody goes past 6000m, you can also catch them offguard etc... no need to turn if you can go back to 21000ft after a dive and stay safe!

If you want to fight on low-med alts get a proper plane for it: the Tempest! very nice speed and accel, superb firepower, can take quite some punishment, can turn better than FWs (imo) and depending on the situation and the other pilot, can even match the 109, not in the 109's terms though (NOT near stall speeds)

SeaFireLIV
09-15-2007, 04:50 AM
Ah, morning arrives and the anti-Brit/European and `Oleg must be a commie` name-calling and bashing ceases for now...

It`s quite simple. Don`t use guncam to base allegations of porked aircraft. get better info, know what you`re talking about and don`t just run off something because it says `P-51 ver. Ki-84` without looking to really see if it is really P-51 ver. Ki-84.

`Anti-OlegFanbois unite` isn`t the best name to give it either and looks just like a trouble-making fishing attempt to me.

Copperhead311th
09-15-2007, 07:37 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by f.ip2:
hey Copperhead311th

at least her are some very funny M ones in this country. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v2U_KRpz5NY&mode=related&search=



only being on this board for few week showed me that quite many still cannot read history, get over old feelings/impressions and don't realize this is just a damn game ...

I personally like to fly the spit a lot because the german planes seem more difficult for me to fly. but i would not because of that call the german planes worse.

also i sense some lack of analytical thinking here. theories can only be proven by good solid facts.

the only way to compare plane a with plane b is when the same person flies both and tries to do the same moves/turns.

judging by films is rather childish in general. judging by what old aces said, is childish as well, because it is out of context and very subjective. plane is plane and pilot is pilot.
a plane with different pilot can be perform in different ways. thats such a simple logic.

why don't you just have fun and fly the plane you just like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/QUOTE

Look idiots are every where. and in that type of video...the producers and crew try to find the dumbest people they can find. all of them are pre screened. Like i said before we do not hold the monopoly on stupid people. unfortantly there seems to be more of them than more of the intelligent few who actually have a brain. and stupidity doesn't confine it's self to a line on a map.

Brain32
09-15-2007, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as MiG will turn better

On most accounts I have heard or read the Sabre was the better turner and overall more maneuverable.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First time I hear that, on all accounts I saw, Sabre had a very small window of turn advantage at very high speed, while at lower ones MiG15 held the advantage...

DKoor
09-15-2007, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Pilots accounts are told by ACEs who always won for the most part. So as always people only choose to believe the ones that best suit their purpose and ignore the ones that do not or simply dismiss them as propaganda. Perhaps one day we can have a thread to discuss such matters without the "Im right your wrong" attitude. Maybe we can have one without the insults or the over the top sarcasm. People can look at a video and see whatever they want and turn it into something that serves their individual way of thinking.

S!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Kwiatos
09-15-2007, 09:47 AM
I think P51 FM in FB is quite moddeled in speed, climb, roll and turn ability. In game P-51 generally turn better then Fw190 like should and better then Bf109 at high speed. Still Bf109 outclimb and outturn P-51 at slow speed like shlould be. The are 2 problem with P-51 FM in game which i see:
- too good elevator response at high speed which cause broke wing at pull up ( IRL P51D had some weight added to stick to prevent such good elevator response at high alt which could damage the wing)
- too big instability in flight (directional and longitudal) which casue aiming to be very frustating and difficult. P-51 in game is very unstable gunnery platform and comparing to other planes are much less effective then others. In game there is a big problem to shot down enemy planes from 0,50 cal in P-51. I didn't see these problem in RL guncams or combat pilot reports. These casue that P-51 in game is much less deadly weapon like should be. I think these is the biggest problem of these plane in game.

If we comparing P-51 in game to the other planes i think these plane have good relatvie FM to the m. Especially comparing it to Bf109 and Fw 190 A. Only Fw190 D-9 (1944 version)has too good performance expecially in speed. D-9 is way too fast especially at high alt at about 20 km/h. P-51 maximum speeds are accurate so these overmoddeled speed of D-9 could casue problem which should not exist.
Besides handling of Fw190 D-9 is also too easy. These plane should be more draggy expecially at pitch manouvers -due to its longer fuselage (like it was some patches ago) and have more nasty stall characteristic. Actually these plane is too easy to fly.

DKoor
09-15-2007, 09:59 AM
Long time no seehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TheBandit_76
09-15-2007, 10:26 AM
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.

Fact: Watching brits and assorted eurotrash get owned nightly playing BoB by the superior Biffy-09, and sobbing their eyes out daily on these boards is going to be pure gold.

Gold.

Waaaaah, why does my propellor shut off, waaaaah.

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

ElAurens
09-15-2007, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead311th:
stupidity doesn't confine it's self to a line on a map.

Quote of the year.

Be sure.

Swivet
09-15-2007, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Pilots accounts are told by ACEs who always won for the most part. So as always people only choose to believe the ones that best suit their purpose and ignore the ones that do not or simply dismiss them as propaganda. Perhaps one day we can have a thread to discuss such matters without the "Im right your wrong" attitude. Maybe we can have one without the insults or the over the top sarcasm. People can look at a video and see whatever they want and turn it into something that serves their individual way of thinking.

S!



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

Once i read the initial post and a few "semi inteligent" responses after that it's ok. Anything after that is, well you know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Korolov1986
09-15-2007, 10:50 AM
http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/nancy_chart.jpg

airdale1960
09-15-2007, 11:24 AM
The P-51 was 1500 LBs heavier. you need a much larger wing area to be able to turn with the 109. Laminar = efficiant = drop tank = more gas = escort to and from Germany. That is why the 51 has such a good rep. Turned OK for a huge fighter. The ability to break contact when you get out-turned, kept alot of pilots alive.

Brain32
09-15-2007, 11:36 AM
Only Fw190 D-9 (1944 version)has too good performance expecially in speed. D-9 is way too fast especially at high alt at about 20 km/h. P-51 maximum speeds are accurate so these overmoddeled speed of D-9 could casue problem which should not exist.
Last time I tested at it's best altitude P51D was also some ~20kmh faster than it should be, those two have different best altitudes(51's is higher) so both of them case problems for each other which should not exist.


Besides handling of Fw190 D-9 is also too easy. These plane should be more draggy expecially at pitch manouvers -due to its longer fuselage (like it was some patches ago) and have more nasty stall characteristic.
Never heard of "nasty stall characteristics" on any FW190, maybe you mixed it up with P-39? They both have letters and numbers in their designation so it may be a bit confusing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
As for pitching manouvers, not sure what exactly you mean by this, in looping manouvers you can't get a proper angle on any western allied plane, even heavies like P47 and Tempest, but you can follow in lag pursuit, what do you expect, Fw to just stall as soon as you touch the stick lol.

RamsteinUSA
09-15-2007, 12:19 PM
2 questions for the forums users here:
These questions are mainly about the people here who thrive on harrassing those who are sickened and saddened by the P51 problems that were purposely not fixed. (Oleg has had a few years to fix the problems).

a)Why do people that see the 'Please fixed the P51' threads swarm in to berate those asking for it to be fixed?

b)what skin is it off your nose if it is fixed?

Here it goes again, I wil not provide the offical documents for every thread.

Fact: the first fuel tank to be drained is the fuselage tank. If it was not drained first the plane has seriously handling problems which throws the yaw off (COG) and widly spins in turns... (easiest expalantion anyone can understand)

Oleg purposely left this tank to drain last which left the plane totally porked, borked, screwed. if it wasn't on purpose why has it taken all these years to correct it with an easy and simple fix?


So please, answer the 2 question?
Why harass those that need it fixed desperately?
What skin is it off your nose if it were fixed?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Brain32
09-15-2007, 12:28 PM
Oleg purposely left this tank to drain last which left the plane totally porked, borked, screwed. if it wasn't on purpose why has it taken all these years to correct it with an easy and simple fix?
How many times it has to be said????

There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.


Is it enough now or you need another "package"?

stalkervision
09-15-2007, 12:37 PM
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.

lets see "multiple cg changes are related to no modelled fuel tanks in this them game.." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I am slightly dyslexic could you repeat this all again once more.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i bet 95% of the big mouths in here claiming that the ingame p51 is a great plane,,, can't do shLt with it in game.

You may be right, but that does go both ways you know. Redwhiners claiming the 109 and 190 are uber most likely can not do well in them online either. Its hard to tell who is blowing smoke for the sake of arguing when many use different aliases. For the record I never claim anything in this forum that I can not do. I fly under the same name I use here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Many will never be able to accept the fact that the problem just may lie with them and not the plane flight model. Or maybe Oleg does not have some evil biased agenda.

S!

Brain32
09-15-2007, 12:43 PM
For the record I never claim anything in this forum that I can not do. I fly under the same name I use here.
So do I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.

Fact: Watching brits and assorted eurotrash get owned nightly playing BoB by the superior Biffy-09, and sobbing their eyes out daily on these boards is going to be pure gold.

Gold.

Waaaaah, why does my propellor shut off, waaaaah.

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

What do you want people to say? Please just explain.

S!

SeaFireLIV
09-15-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:



So please, answer the 2 question?
Why harass those that need it fixed desperately?
What skin is it off your nose if it were fixed?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Well, i`ll answer before someone `answers` for me.

I am not harassing anyone, I`d say the same for any plane, even the Spitfire (and I have spoken against it being changed due to non-facts). If correct and reliable facts and proof are generated and proven then i have no qualms about any aircraft being `fixed`. What i don`t want is an aircraft `fixed` due to constant uncorrobated `facts`.


Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
What skin is it off your nose if it were fixed?:

None. I almost never fly Japanese or German. Online, I`m always flying next to my American friends in P51s nearly all the time and value their help in my Spitfire. i`ve even flown it a few times as the brits did have it too. There is no benefit to me in having a P51 `porked`. But I want ALL aircraft to fly realistically in relation to each other. I don`t want it `fixed` if it`s actually correct to historical accounts. I don`t want it made a purely rails-smooth stable platform if it wasn`t. To be honest few planes have I found to be stable platforms except maybe the Corsair. P51 seems a lot more stable than the Spit when firing, that`s for sure and not hard to hit things with.

If it`s proven without a doubt and Oleg changes it that way then I`ll accept it as so (unless it`s obviously wrong), but to me, the P51 is a damn fine aircraft as it is, giving any opponent a bloody nose. what more do you want? seems to me, that some expect a `perfect` aircraft. to me, there`s no such thing as a perfect WWII aircraft. Blemishes are what makes these things authentic to me.

Just my opinion.

DKoor
09-15-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i bet 95% of the big mouths in here claiming that the ingame p51 is a great plane,,, can't do shLt with it in game.

You may be right, but that does go both ways you know. Redwhiners claiming the 109 and 190 are uber most likely can not do well in them online either. Its hard to tell who is blowing smoke for the sake of arguing when many use different aliases. For the record I never claim anything in this forum that I can not do. I fly under the same name I use here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Many will never be able to accept the fact that the problem just may lie with them and not the plane flight model. Or maybe Oleg does not have some evil biased agenda.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1 .... x2

Jaws2002
09-15-2007, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Oleg purposely left this tank to drain last which left the plane totally porked, borked, screwed. if it wasn't on purpose why has it taken all these years to correct it with an easy and simple fix?
How many times it has to be said????

There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.
There are NO multiple fuel tanks and CoG changes related to them modelled in this game.


Is it enough now or you need another "package"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


BTW Ramstein, if you want to try a plane with the COG problems you are talking about go take the YAk-9B with bombs for a spin.

M_Gunz
09-15-2007, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In Korea I wager you might have a bigger problem with the Migs than you might expect.From what I read about their flying characteristics,they fit Luftwaffle flying style like a charm.
Ahh Korea, honestly I cant freakin' wait to get into that Sabre and enter the Mig Valley http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did not get the Rowan Mig Alley 8 years ago? It's been patched in the last few years.


I expect a lot of whine about the Sabre though, as MiG will turn better, climb better and overall have better high altitude performance, Sabre should be faster at lower alts, have much better high speed control, better dive characteristics, not sure about the roll-rate. It shoul be pretty hairy and VERY fast, no BS 50kmh war winning sustained turning and stuff like that, high speed, high closure rates, team tactics... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Depends on the speed, MiG-15 don't turn so well at high speeds and don't dive as fast... it
also depends on which MiG-15 or bis and which Sabre. Neither has it all, MiG has more pep
and much better armament.

But try and see if you can get the Rowan game running, the biggest whines will be going for
stall and spin... "I can't turn ANY of these jets!". Just wait.

Friendly_flyer
09-15-2007, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i bet 95% of the big mouths in here claiming that the ingame p51 is a great plane,,, can't do shLt with it in game.

I'm a fairly standard "P-51 basher". I confess I don't do great in the P-51, but then again, I don't do great in any plane. I do have a better survival-rate in the P-51 compared to Spitfires on the other hand, mostly because I use the extra speed to run away from trouble.

mortoma
09-15-2007, 02:15 PM
My overall assessment is that the pilot of the enemy aircraft is apparently not so hot and lacks experience. If it were a better pilot in the enemy plane, what would the outcome be then??

Von_Rat
09-15-2007, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i bet 95% of the big mouths in here claiming that the ingame p51 is a great plane,,, can't do shLt with it in game.

You may be right, but that does go both ways you know. Redwhiners claiming the 109 and 190 are uber most likely can not do well in them online either. Its hard to tell who is blowing smoke for the sake of arguing when many use different aliases. For the record I never claim anything in this forum that I can not do. I fly under the same name I use here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Many will never be able to accept the fact that the problem just may lie with them and not the plane flight model. Or maybe Oleg does not have some evil biased agenda.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe a better way to phrase it would be to say,, that even the best players in here who are claiming the ingame p51 is a great plane will have a much better k/d ratio in almost any other comparable plane. i have no way to prove this of course, but i doubt to many will argue with me. if they do i'd like to see their stats on whatever server they fly on.

i fly under this name also, never saw the point of using a alias.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 03:02 PM
even the best players in here who are claiming the ingame p51 is a great plane will have a better k/d ratio in almost any other comparable plane. i have no way to prove this of course, but i doubt to many will argue with me.

Nope, your probably right. Who said it was great btw? Im gonna have to back through this mess and have a look.

S!

Von_Rat
09-15-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">even the best players in here who are claiming the ingame p51 is a great plane will have a better k/d ratio in almost any other comparable plane. i have no way to prove this of course, but i doubt to many will argue with me.

Nope, your probably right. Who said it was great btw? Im gonna have to back through this mess and have a look.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its not just this thread im speaking of, but everytime theres a complaint about the p51( whether its justified or not) the aces come out of the woodwork with tales of how good the ingame p51 is, and how great they are in it, and that the complainers are just poor pilots.(which may or may not be true).

its my strong suspicion that the aces arent as good in the p51 as they claim.

SeaFireLIV
09-15-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:


maybe a better way to phrase it would be to say,, that even the best players in here who are claiming the ingame p51 is a great plane will have a much better k/d ratio in almost any other comparable plane. i have no way to prove this of course, but i doubt to many will argue with me. if they do i'd like to see their stats on whatever server they fly on.



Hmm. Well that`s designed to be a purposely difficult challenge, isn`t it? How many of us have tried proving this and measuring the stats of a P51 success compared to any other plane? It would take numerous tests versus numerous planes over numerous maps and conditions equalling an amazing amount of time.

How many of us are willing to go to this kind of effort except for those who purposefully want to see lower stats for the P51?

And those that do who aren`t leaning to the P51 (if any do) and prove that the plane gets high scores will be accused, by those that don`t like the result, that the tester purposely created higher stats for the P51 or even unconscously did so!

You know no one`s going to bother! It`s a safe challenge.

This is just another `Oleg hates the P51 and porked it on purpose` paranoid statement, said in a roundabout way.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 03:10 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 VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">even the best players in here who are claiming the ingame p51 is a great plane will have a better k/d ratio in almost any other comparable plane. i have no way to prove this of course, but i doubt to many will argue with me.

Nope, your probably right. Who said it was great btw? Im gonna have to back through this mess and have a look.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its not just this thread im speaking of, but everytime theres a complaint about the p51( whether its justified or not) the aces come out of the woodwork with tales of how good the ingame p51 is, and how great they are in it, and that the complainers are just poor pilots.(which may or may not be true). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgrt, I know what you mean as I recall similar comments by individuals in the past. Same goes for other planes as well.

S!

Von_Rat
09-15-2007, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:


You may be right, but that does go both ways you know. Redwhiners claiming the 109 and 190 are uber most likely can not do well in them online either. Its hard to tell who is blowing smoke for the sake of arguing when many use different aliases. For the record I never claim anything in this forum that I can not do. I fly under the same name I use here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Many will never be able to accept the fact that the problem just may lie with them and not the plane flight model. Or maybe Oleg does not have some evil biased agenda.

S!

maybe a better way to phrase it would be to say,, that even the best players in here who are claiming the ingame p51 is a great plane will have a much better k/d ratio in almost any other comparable plane. i have no way to prove this of course, but i doubt to many will argue with me. if they do i'd like to see their stats on whatever server they fly on.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. Well that`s designed to be a purposely difficult challenge, isn`t it? How many of us have tried proving this and measuring the stats of a P51 success compared to any other plane? It would take numerous tests versus numerous planes over numerous maps and conditions equalling an amazing amount of time.

How many of us are willing to go to this kind of effort except for those who purposefully want to see lower stats for the P51?

And those that do who aren`t leaning to the P51 (if any do) and prove that the plane gets high scores will be accused, by those that don`t like the result, that the tester purposely created higher stats for the P51 or even unconscously did so!

You know no one`s going to bother! It`s a safe challenge.

This is just another `Oleg hates the P51 and porked it on purpose` paranoid statement, said in a roundabout way.[/QUOTE]
________________________________________________



you dont understand, they'd have to post their current stats, not go out and create new ones.


for instance , how good are you in the p51. would you mind posting a link to your favorite server that has stats, so we can check out how good you are in it compared to other planes you fly.


btw dont put words in my mouth. i dont think the p51s porked. i agree with havok thats its probaly the most realisticly modeled plane. its contemparies im not so sure of.

Kwiatos
09-15-2007, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Only Fw190 D-9 (1944 version)has too good performance expecially in speed. D-9 is way too fast especially at high alt at about 20 km/h. P-51 maximum speeds are accurate so these overmoddeled speed of D-9 could casue problem which should not exist.
Last time I tested at it's best altitude P51D was also some ~20kmh faster than it should be, those two have different best altitudes(51's is higher) so both of them case problems for each other which should not exist.


Besides handling of Fw190 D-9 is also too easy. These plane should be more draggy expecially at pitch manouvers -due to its longer fuselage (like it was some patches ago) and have more nasty stall characteristic.
Never heard of "nasty stall characteristics" on any FW190, maybe you mixed it up with P-39? They both have letters and numbers in their designation so it may be a bit confusing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
As for pitching manouvers, not sure what exactly you mean by this, in looping manouvers you can't get a proper angle on any western allied plane, even heavies like P47 and Tempest, but you can follow in lag pursuit, what do you expect, Fw to just stall as soon as you touch the stick lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry but P-51 D-20 in game reach 710 km/h at 7,5km instead 703 km/h - so its overspeed is marginal - 7 km/h.

D-9 other hand reach 725 km/h at 5.5km instead 705 km//h (i checked the best value for D-9 with C3 fuel) so is faster at 20 km/h.

In game speed is easy to check with Il2 Compare which is realiable in speed section ( i checked it byself)

About spin you miss flat spin characteristic of P-39 with nast stall characteristic of Fw 190. As ww2 german pilots reported Fw190 D-9 was better in dive, climb and maximum speed then Anton and dont loose so fast energy in turn (but have the same turn rate as Fw190 A-8) but D-9 need more carefully handling and was worse in roll rate. German pilots reported also that D-9 was more draggy in pitch movement.

I wonder that you didnt read about stall characteristic of Fw190 - these is very common informarion.

You could read it here (Eric Brown test report)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200010/ai_n8925541/pg_2

"The flight tests confirmed that the Fw 190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft with a very high rate of roll and impressive acceleration in the dive. Its Achilles' heel was in its violent accelerated stall that could lead to a spin if it tried to out-turn the Spitfire. The tests also revealed that, above 25,000 feet, the newer Spitfire IX could outperform the Fw 190. This information was, of course, rapidly transmitted to all Allied operational fighter units; it was evident that the Fw 190 pilots preferred to fight by climbing and diving while the Allied fighters were well advised to stick to level turning combat.

The elevators proved to be moderately heavy at all speeds, particularly at above 350mph (565km/h), when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction with regard to pullout from low-level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose-down pitch that was evident at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds. The critical speed at which this change of trim happened was around 220mph (355km/h), and it could easily be gauged in turns. Below that speed, the Fw 190 had a tendency to tighten up in a turn, but above 220mph, some backward stick pressure was required to hold the turn. Thus, in combat, the pilot had to be aware that if he dived on the enemy to get enough speed to follow him into a steep turn, he had to ensure that he didn't lighten his initial pull force by using the trimmer. As speed fell off in the turn, he would have a sudden reversal of stick force that could tighten the turn so much that the plane would depart dramatically into a spin. Most of the early Fw 190 pilots were, however, too well-trained to lose their cool to that extent in battle."

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
i bet 95% of the big mouths in here claiming that the ingame p51 is a great plane,,, can't do shLt with it in game.

I'm a fairly standard "P-51 basher". I confess I don't do great in the P-51, but then again, I don't do great in any plane. I do have a better survival-rate in the P-51 compared to Spitfires on the other hand, mostly because I use the extra speed to run away from trouble. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least your honest. But may I ask what your justification for bashing the Mustang is? Do you feel its too good or something? Or do you just <STRIKE>hate</STRIKE>(oops, sry carguy) dislike the fact that some people here feel its the greatest plane ever? If so I would say your focus should be on the individuals making such comments and not the plane itself. Some of us Americans have a little better understanding when it comes to WW2 aviation. And we can separate facts and fiction quite well. Every nation has their version of the "ignorant Mustang lover". IMHO.

S!

DKoor
09-15-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
maybe a better way to phrase it would be to say,, that even the best players in here who are claiming the ingame p51 is a great plane will have a much better k/d ratio in almost any other comparable plane. i have no way to prove this of course, but i doubt to many will argue with me. if they do i'd like to see their stats on whatever server they fly on.

i fly under this name also, never saw the point of using a alias. Signed...........190D, Tempest and P-47 to an extent are all better for stats.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 03:26 PM
Hey bandit! You started this thread but only managed to post twice that I count. Whats up? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

S!

fordfan25
09-15-2007, 03:34 PM
http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theat...yerstats&pilotid=141 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=playerstats&pilotid=141)

a link to my stats at WC. the stats per plan is fairly telling. i have a near same completion rate BUT i fairly higher kill score in the dora.I ythink im rated at #8 in the dora and i have only just started flyn it. the fact is, is the argument of its the man not the plane is only partly true. you take the same man and put him in a better plane he will do better.

As far as jumping from a stang to a dora i can tell you as far as advantges go ill take the dora. and this is comeing from a guy that hardly ever flew a FW up till a month or so ago. IMHO you have to work MUCH harder in the stang. the dora can take more hits and just the two 20mm's are as good as 4 20's on the tempest IMHO. Its faster up till about 24k then it evens out. better exclaration. only real down side is the horrible cockpit. bad obstructions,its easy to completly lose a target.

The stang is not bad now but IMO from the things iv read ect its high alt 25k+up is a bit lacking. mainly in the heat mangment department.And the wing snap is BS. thay only had that problem with the VERY early d's do to the adding of the 5th and 6th guns. the problem was very quickly fixed and why its moddled on the p51s we have in game is beyond me.

As far as real life goes.. i dont think a stang could out turn a early or mid war 109 in a slow turn fight but a late war 109 maby. would depend on how much fuel the stang had vs the 109. a stang with a full fuel load out is a heavy beyoch after all lol.

Whirlin_merlin
09-15-2007, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Hey bandit! You started this thread but only managed to post twice that I count. Whats up? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

S!

Fair play that wooden spoon is heavy, using it twice is quite an achievment.

Friendly_flyer
09-15-2007, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
But may I ask what your justification for bashing the Mustang is? Do you feel its too good or something?

I'm of the opinion that the Mustang is one of the better modelled planes in the sim. I have never flown a plane, but from what little I know about aerodynamics, it seems about "right". It's all gut-feeling, so don't run to Oleg saying he has done it right based on my asumption. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The reason I sometimes throw my lot in with the "bashers" is because of the "Mustang won teh war" crowd. I have nothing against the Mustang per se (apart from it looking like a pregnant guppy with that ridiculously deep body and polished silvery skin), nor do I have anything against Olegs version of it. As you noted, I should be focusing on the individuals, but sometimes I can't help myself. Like SeaFire wrote, all the hype rub of on the Mustang, making it an (undeserved) symbol of American chauvinism.

Whenever I need speed, I fly a Mustang Mk.III if available. Giving it a proper colour helps a lot too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
09-15-2007, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
As far as real life goes.. i dont think a stang could out turn a early or mid war 109 in a slow turn fight but a late war 109 maby. would depend on how much fuel the stang had vs the 109. a stang with a full fuel load out is a heavy beyoch after all lol.

There are many problems about relative USAF vs LW performance.In the coops which I fly from time to time I get a Dora, a FW190A9, Bf109G10 or K4.Well, aside from the Mustang III and late uberboosted P47, USAF planes have mid `43 to mid `44 performance.So unless you fly those in a `45 coop, you`re the underdog.The issue has been covered here many times and I`m not going to post the same stuff of others who took their time to actually try to shed some light for those who don`t have the knowledge,don`t know their plane and generally ingore any factors that made the P51 some kind of a legend.

Here`s what you want to do.Take the time to create a mid `43 coop, gather around 20 people and set a B17 carpet bombing escort mission flown at alt of 6500m. Escort : P51C/D, enemy : Bf109G6early and FW190A8, equal numbers of fighters opposing.

This is the simplest way to find out how good your plane is at those circumstances because it resembles a part of the real thing.If you place average pilots in both parties, things can be little on the side of LW but the more experienced the crew gets, the better the stats for USAF escort.

It`s useless to try to catch human players for the MOST POPULAR variant of the 109G6 because the plane is ****!People know that so they get shine new G10/K4 with great engine and a hell of a boost from the MW50.Heck,you can even change the P51 to P38L and it stays the same!

What I always experienced in REALISTIC coops is that LW gets hammered plenty.Few passes on the B17 formation and that`s it - you break or die.Mustang B/C model is able to DF the G6 even at low alt.It`s a true skills match here and I love it.Sadly, most of the time I have the K4 and am FORCED by the Mustang D into T&B which I can take with no problem under 5500m.

It`s just that through some 5(?) years of the Mustang in FB I keep meeting hot heads who ALWAYS try to T&B with me even when it`s a 1v1, even when I CLEARLY have the plane which does this kind of fighting better....a regular of 2 hotheads downed in such an engagement per mission.

It`s simple, most of you dumbells just don`t get it.
If people actually put some thought before engaging an enemy in his playground, in circumstances FAVORING him then not only their would be less Mustang useless moans, there would be also less Messerschmitt/Focke-Wulf useless moans.

You in your Mustang engage a 109 in a low and slow fight, on the other side of the planet someone else flying a 109 engages a Yak9 in the same situation and it all ends at these forums.What a joke! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

BillyTheKid_22
09-15-2007, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Guess the thousands of P51 pilot accounts engaging axis enemies in turning fights are worth listening to after all.......Oleg.

Oh yeah, the almost non-existant stories from P51 pilots saying, "golly, we wouldn't dare try to turn with enemy fighters!"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anti-OlegFanBois unite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9QGUR9acUw&NR=1)



Great video!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif I love P-51!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

fordfan25
09-15-2007, 04:28 PM
yea i agree with pretty much everything you said carguy. sept i dont get low and turn fight in a stang vs 109 lol. but i know what you ment.the worst thing about the p51 in this GAME is the way the online server missions are set up. like you said if the missions in say WC was to escort b17's at 30k then the stang would hold up much much better. as it is most missins are tactical low alt ground strikes. and on the rare map that is built for higher alt b25 drops its almost imposable to get enough people togather to have a decant formation and escort. haveing to climb a loaded B25 to 25 to 30k ft is a real time burner and most will not do it "my self included" its a shame a server like warclouds cant make the bomber air starts at like say 20k ft. i was told it was imposable. and takeing a b25 at 10 to 15k to target in a room full of mk108s is just not a good idea lol. even with a couple of fighters along. so yea in most servers the stang and 47 are fish outa water. And like you said the p51d is working off mid43 to mid 44 specs but in most cases flyn aginst late 44 and 45 spec planes.

M_Gunz
09-15-2007, 04:35 PM
If that guncam video is somebody's idea of proving performance then I'll just wait for the
cartoon. THAT's got zip to do with how the P-51 is in IL2, it's just BS conclusions from limited
information.

"Fix" the plane to match picked data and ideas means "Make It Like I Want" in standard whiner.
Do it for one, do it for all and call the result CFS.

Brain32
09-15-2007, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by M-Gunz:
You did not get the Rowan Mig Alley 8 years ago?
Nope, 8 years ago I was into Quake3 Team Arena http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Seriously though I'm playing around with Strike fighters series, it has great looking F-86 made by the same guy that did P11 and Hellcat and there's a Mig15 too, however it's against AI only and FM is allegedly simplified...


Originally posted by VonRat: Hmm. Well that`s designed to be a purposely difficult challenge, isn`t it? How many of us have tried proving this and measuring the stats of a P51 success compared to any other plane?
Well I tried it, actually I do that all the time, before the recent stat shange at WC,in most of my primarly used fighters I averaged around 1.40 T/S, with P51D I averaged 1,45(D20) and 1,55(D5) which put it along the lines with my scores with P47,190A's and D, even SpitfireIX, there were only two exceptions in my fighter stats, Tempest with 2.0 and ME109G14 with miserable 0,65 with which I was #2 on the server, with 1,55 I made with P51D I was 4th, go figure...


Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Its Achilles' heel was in its violent accelerated stall that could lead to a spin if it tried to out-turn the Spitfire.
And you are saying that in-game FW190 will not stall and spin if it pushes to outturn a spitfire?????
Also I find it amusing that you mention D9 and then offer a document of captured FW190A4.

As for the P51D speed at alt I managed to make it go 728kmh at rated altitude and I also did better with the Dora - also 728kmh, that was before v408 so I'd had to make the test again.

PanzerkwgnIV
09-15-2007, 04:50 PM
I didn't bother seeing if this had already been stated but the 109G6 had a higher power to mass ratio than the P51D, also the laminar flow wings of the P51 not only reduced drag but also lift!
And comparing the planes, the P51 is a long range escort fighter while the 109 is a interceptor. Turn radius was not the top priority of the designers of the 109 anyway, so turn radius wasn't expected to be impressive.

Jaws2002
09-15-2007, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theat...yerstats&pilotid=141 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=playerstats&pilotid=141)

a link to my stats at WC. the stats per plan is fairly telling. i have a near same completion rate BUT i fairly higher kill score in the dora.I ythink im rated at #8 in the dora and i have only just started flyn it. the fact is, is the argument of its the man not the plane is only partly true. you take the same man and put him in a better plane he will do better.

As far as jumping from a stang to a dora i can tell you as far as advantges go ill take the dora. and this is comeing from a guy that hardly ever flew a FW up till a month or so ago. IMHO you have to work MUCH harder in the stang. the dora can take more hits and just the two 20mm's are as good as 4 20's on the tempest IMHO. Its faster up till about 24k then it evens out. better exclaration. only real down side is the horrible cockpit. bad obstructions,its easy to completly lose a target.

The stang is not bad now but IMO from the things iv read ect its high alt 25k+up is a bit lacking. mainly in the heat mangment department.And the wing snap is BS. thay only had that problem with the VERY early d's do to the adding of the 5th and 6th guns. the problem was very quickly fixed and why its moddled on the p51s we have in game is beyond me.

As far as real life goes.. i dont think a stang could out turn a early or mid war 109 in a slow turn fight but a late war 109 maby. would depend on how much fuel the stang had vs the 109. a stang with a full fuel load out is a heavy beyoch after all lol.

The problem I see here is how the things go in Warclouds.
From my limited experience with warclouds i noticed that usually the blue outnumbers red, and is usually more organized.
Not that they are flying in better formations, they are usually staying at the altitudes where they have advantage and are always a lot of them in one place.
Usually there are more blues on coms then reds and that also counts.
The blues are usually orbiting in packs somewhere inside their territory or really close to the front line.

Reds usually go for targets more so they fly heavy loaded and slower planes. Also a lot of times I saw two three reds go and take on the cloud of foke wulfs and 109's. All the time the reds go and fight where the blues decided to fight.
Last night i noticed the trend really clear. 80% of the blew flew in circles over a bunch of their ships, deep inside their teritory. Whenever reds got there they quickly knew exactly where they are because the flak was shooting at them.
This is a trend. Usually blue decides where and how to fight in Warclouds. You can't blame the planes because of that.
At low altitude the pack of 190's and 109's with their big cannons are extremely dangerous because they don't have to dogfight. They just take wild deflections and keep going. The guns do the rest.
You go down there, alone, you are toast. As it happened to me few times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Also having such a late war setup doesn't help.
Back then D-9's, A9's and k4's were the exception, not the rule.

If the Germans had only D9's A9's and K4, with the numbers and experience reflected by Warclouds (and all other servers for that matter), things would have been very different.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2007, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theat...yerstats&pilotid=141 (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=playerstats&pilotid=141)

a link to my stats at WC. the stats per plan is fairly telling. i have a near same completion rate BUT i fairly higher kill score in the dora.I ythink im rated at #8 in the dora and i have only just started flyn it. the fact is, is the argument of its the man not the plane is only partly true. you take the same man and put him in a better plane he will do better.

As far as jumping from a stang to a dora i can tell you as far as advantges go ill take the dora. and this is comeing from a guy that hardly ever flew a FW up till a month or so ago. IMHO you have to work MUCH harder in the stang. the dora can take more hits and just the two 20mm's are as good as 4 20's on the tempest IMHO. Its faster up till about 24k then it evens out. better exclaration. only real down side is the horrible cockpit. bad obstructions,its easy to completly lose a target.

The stang is not bad now but IMO from the things iv read ect its high alt 25k+up is a bit lacking. mainly in the heat mangment department.And the wing snap is BS. thay only had that problem with the VERY early d's do to the adding of the 5th and 6th guns. the problem was very quickly fixed and why its moddled on the p51s we have in game is beyond me.

As far as real life goes.. i dont think a stang could out turn a early or mid war 109 in a slow turn fight but a late war 109 maby. would depend on how much fuel the stang had vs the 109. a stang with a full fuel load out is a heavy beyoch after all lol.

The problem I see here is how the things go in Warclouds.
From my limited experience with warclouds i noticed that usually the blue outnumbers red, and is usually more organized.
Not that they are flying in better formations, they are usually staying at the altitudes where they have advantage and are always a lot of them in one place.
Usually there are more blues on coms then reds and that also counts.
The blues are usually orbiting in packs somewhere inside their territory or really close to the front line.

Reds usually go for targets more so they fly heavy loaded and slower planes. Also a lot of times I saw two three reds go and take on the cloud of foke wulfs and 109's. All the time the reds go and fight where the blues decided to fight.
Last night i noticed the trend really clear. 80% of the blew flew in circles over a bunch of their ships, deep inside their teritory. Whenever reds got there they quickly knew exactly where they are because the flak was shooting at them.
This is a trend. Usually blue decides where and how to fight in Warclouds. You can't blame the planes because of that.
At low altitude the pack of 190's and 109's with their big cannons are extremely dangerous because they don't have to dogfight. They just take wild deflections and keep going. The guns do the rest.
You go down there, alone, you are toast. As it happened to me few times. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Also having such a late war setup doesn't help.
Back then D-9's, A9's and k4's were the exception, not the rule.

If the Germans had only D9's A9's and K4, with the numbers and experience reflected by Warclouds (and all other servers for that matter), things would have been very different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif And the fact that Mark 108s are equipped everytime when in reality only about 10% were and were used for bombers does not help. You rarely see blue cross the line as well. Of course it has been a long time since I flew there and things may have changed. Im not intending to offend anyone that flies as I use too a lot back when it was on UBI and when it first came to HL, but stating some obvious observations I noticed when I did. I prefer historical driven servers and one that mixes up the years and plane sets.

S!

Bearcat99
09-15-2007, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I think P51 FM in FB is quite moddeled in speed, climb, roll and turn ability. In game P-51 generally turn better then Fw190 like should and better then Bf109 at high speed. Still Bf109 outclimb and outturn P-51 at slow speed like shlould be. The are 2 problem with P-51 FM in game which i see:
- too good elevator response at high speed which cause broke wing at pull up ( IRL P51D had some weight added to stick to prevent such good elevator response at high alt which could damage the wing)
- too big instability in flight (directional and longitudal) which casue aiming to be very frustating and difficult. P-51 in game is very unstable gunnery platform and comparing to other planes are much less effective then others. In game there is a big problem to shot down enemy planes from 0,50 cal in P-51. I didn't see these problem in RL guncams or combat pilot reports. These casue that P-51 in game is much less deadly weapon like should be. I think these is the biggest problem of these plane in game.

If we comparing P-51 in game to the other planes i think these plane have good relatvie FM to the m. Especially comparing it to Bf109 and Fw 190 A. Only Fw190 D-9 (1944 version)has too good performance expecially in speed. D-9 is way too fast especially at high alt at about 20 km/h. P-51 maximum speeds are accurate so these overmoddeled speed of D-9 could casue problem which should not exist.
Besides handling of Fw190 D-9 is also too easy. These plane should be more draggy expecially at pitch manouvers -due to its longer fuselage (like it was some patches ago) and have more nasty stall characteristic. Actually these plane is too easy to fly.

I agree with you 100%..... and that is my beef as well.... that instability is what causes it to stall out even in relatively highspeed turns down low on occasion..... and probably accounts for why the P-40 is a much more stable platform than the P-51 in this sim. Some say it holds E better than most but I dont see that... and I also don't think it accelerates as well as it should.... Maybe Im just flying it wrong.



Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.

Fact: Watching brits and assorted eurotrash get owned nightly playing BoB by the superior Biffy-09, and sobbing their eyes out daily on these boards is going to be pure gold.

Gold.

Waaaaah, why does my propellor shut off, waaaaah.

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

Be all that as it may be... you need to cool your jets with the Eurotrash bit... and quickly. If the shoe were on the other foot you'd have your drawers in a twist so chill out. This will be the only warning you will get.


Originally posted by fordfan25:
yea i agree with pretty much everything you said carguy. sept i dont get low and turn fight in a stang vs 109 lol. but i know what you ment.the worst thing about the p51 in this GAME is the way the online server missions are set up.

Down low or up high as long as it kept it's speed up the Mustanhg was a good fighter. True it was better in the BnZ role because it was heavy.... but it could do the turn fight thing too... at least for a little while... and often that was all that was needed. It was no Spitfire in that department by a long shot.

Whirlin_merlin
09-16-2007, 01:45 AM
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 TheBandit_76:
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.



Be all that as it may be... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nice to see you agree with him, or do I misunderstand.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 TheBandit_76:
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.



Be all that as it may be... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nice to see you agree with him, or do I misunderstand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How did you get that out of what he said?

Whirlin_merlin
09-16-2007, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 TheBandit_76:
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.



Be all that as it may be... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nice to see you agree with him, or do I misunderstand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How did you get that out of what he said? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure I do, which why I've asked. To me it reads your right about the ******s just don't use the phrase eurotrash.
Of course I could be way off target here, so I asked.

JZG_Thiem
09-16-2007, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif And the fact that Mark 108s are equipped everytime when in reality only about 10%
S!

arent you guys overestimating the Mk108 a bit?
look at WC: the 190D9 is THE mainstay in there. I´d say, 60% of all fighter sorties in total are made with it, and it does not even have the option for Mk108.
its been quoted millions of times but,
1)
the mix of 151 and 108 on a 190A8/9 is not easy to handle because of the different trajectories, and
2)
the effect of smaller caliber allied guns like .05 or hispano is just as bad for a 190 than Mk108 for allied planes. Its a well known fact that in most cases where your wings are hit by even single 0.50s -> you got a ticket back home, because you are reduced in top speed by some 100km/h and to a 747 in the horizontal. Ive been hitting Tempests, Spits n stuff repeatedly with Mk151 in the wings and they still almost outperform me, at least the are very capable of fightign back, which never ever happened to me in a 190. Im not saying this is always and 100% the case, but imo its a very strong feeling i have after thousands of (virtual) sorties.

Brain32
09-16-2007, 04:43 AM
The problem I see here is how the things go in Warclouds. Etc.
Actually you have a few misconceptions although it might be related to the time of day you fly.
First, Blue is nearly always outnumbered, sometimes I don't fly Red for weeks because it's pointless chasing friendlies around, yes it can be THAT bad.
Second, yes Blue is way more organized, we have to be if you look at plane performance.
Third if you only found Blue orbiting on their side of the fence it has to be due to a few reasons, it was probably defense map, and since we have no plane like Spit that can go over enemy base and perform a nice airshow, even suicidal types on our side rather stick with the pack.
Fourth, Red attacking targets??? I whish that would start to happen again, I've heard Red bombers exist, I just yet have to see them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

This is a trend. Usually blue decides where and how to fight in Warclouds. You can't blame the planes because of that.
Exactly, it's not the Blue planes that are to blame for sometimes utter incompetence of the opposition, although I noticed that to be the trend on many servers.


Back then D-9's, A9's and k4's were the exception, not the rule.
It works both ways actually, how many Tempests where there, how many 25lbsMustangIII, how many whichever that P47D_late is where there, tools are there for both sides to use if one can not utilize it's equipment the right way.... You should look at our '43 maps, nothing changes in the situation and there are no later rides than 109G6 and FW190A5 on the Luft side...

FluffyDucks2
09-16-2007, 06:15 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Also Brain don't forget the contribution the 110s make to those WC missions.
Packs of 110s ROUTINELY win the blue maps AND decimate the Temps,Spits and Ponies while they're at it, Ive lost track of how many Pony, Spit, Temp or Jugs get down low and slow with my 110....which has som FEARSOME weaponry in the nose.....nothing like scisorring with a Pony that is forced to track across my nose 50mts away ....thats when I introduce him to my 4 little friends...and they ALL go BOOOOOMMM!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

DKoor
09-16-2007, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The problem I see here is how the things go in Warclouds. Etc.
Actually you have a few misconceptions although it might be related to the time of day you fly.
First, Blue is nearly always outnumbered, sometimes I don't fly Red for weeks because it's pointless chasing friendlies around, yes it can be THAT bad.
Second, yes Blue is way more organized, we have to be if you look at plane performance.
Third if you only found Blue orbiting on their side of the fence it has to be due to a few reasons, it was probably defense map, and since we have no plane like Spit that can go over enemy base and perform a nice airshow, even suicidal types on our side rather stick with the pack.
Fourth, Red attacking targets??? I whish that would start to happen again, I've heard Red bombers exist, I just yet have to see them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

This is a trend. Usually blue decides where and how to fight in Warclouds. You can't blame the planes because of that.
Exactly, it's not the Blue planes that are to blame for sometimes utter incompetence of the opposition, although I noticed that to be the trend on many servers.


Back then D-9's, A9's and k4's were the exception, not the rule.
It works both ways actually, how many Tempests where there, how many 25lbsMustangIII, how many whichever that P47D_late is where there, tools are there for both sides to use if one can not utilize it's equipment the right way.... You should look at our '43 maps, nothing changes in the situation and there are no later rides than 109G6 and FW190A5 on the Luft side... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes indeed that can be argued as a counter argument, and very valid too.

My opinion is while WC is great server that will provide many many hours of fun, it is not a place where user should be looking for historical accuracy.
It's just not about that.
It's more about good time and fun.

Please don't misunderstand my post; by saying "fun" I'm by no means implying that flying there is easy - it's not.
For instance, WC is likely the hardest server of all HL DF servers regardless of not being on "realistic" settings.
It's because of players skill which is, I will take a full freedom and say it loud, probably the highest you'll find on net. No offense, but the guys there know the planes inside and out and more. Take for instance crazy people like Oktoberfest who goes outhere chasing Spits in his Bf-110, he shot down more than 80 E/A while in 110 pit and countless more ground targets as well....
http://i18.tinypic.com/4uv3911.jpg
Or Brain32 which post I quoted here, who flies everything in this sim that moves and is doing outstanding job;
http://i7.tinypic.com/4mhwvvr.jpg
Or VonRat who kinda knows what he's talking about considering his experten service....
http://i7.tinypic.com/4udbqmq.jpg

Etc. etc. just look at these guys and many more who are ALL exceptional sim pilots. I'm sorry I don't have the time to list them all here, they deserve that. Some of them even do not have fancy equipment, all they have is good joystick and l0ads of strong will to do well thru practice.

Let's go back to the historical accuracy.
I will say only this: there is no way any DF server can compete with COOP in this regard. In coop you get only one life, restricted planes to one/two types, restricted loadouts and you are strictly bound with missions goal, but due to known reasons DFs are more popular.
That's it. IMO.

BfHeFwMe
09-16-2007, 07:59 AM
What bull, the historical record shows the opposite. It was when the USAAF did change the tactics from pure escort to going low and hunting fighters that it achieved air superiority over the Luft******s.

Only a real ignoramuses could say otherwise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SeaFireLIV
09-16-2007, 08:13 AM
This is pointless. using dogfight servers like Warclouds (or most any server) is the worse place to try and test the validity or statistical realism of an aircraft.

This just aptly demonstrates what I said before. You need proper controlled environments limited to the historical parameters before you`ll get any kind of realistic statistical analysis. You`d need a proper campaign server that limited the Luftwaffe to certain planes and ammo supplies. The Luftwaffe would need to STICK to their mission goals - not swan up high waiting for bait but being forced to go in and tackle Allies not always in environments of their own choosing, etc, etc.

Pointless.

joeap
09-16-2007, 08:19 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif That's why wargames (I mean board or miniatures) are usually more realistic, for one thing the players are determined to play battles out historically.

Brain32
09-16-2007, 08:25 AM
The Luftwaffe would need to STICK to their mission goals - not swan up high waiting for bait but being forced to go in and tackle Allies not always in environments of their own choosing, etc, etc.
You see it's exactly this mentality that prevents "Historical scenarious", you can set up a DF server to have all variables for historical missions but the fact is that things will go the way people that play choose to.
And this constant b1tching and whining and other bull about Blues is going on my nerves too, what to frak do you expect for us to deliberatly go in place and position to play frakin moveable targets for "great Red aces"??? Assemble a flight of B25's with escort and climb to 6000m and attack "my" targets and you will have historical, it goes both ways you know? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ElAurens
09-16-2007, 08:35 AM
Indeed joeap, indeed.

This reasoning alone has me very worried about KOTS. Although it will be pretty fun to watch all those BnZers rip their wings off all the time.

Of course they will all be in late war stuff, DVIIs, SPADs, and the like, whilst those of us that care about WW1 will be in our Eindeckers and D.H.2s.

IMHO.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-16-2007, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Indeed joeap, indeed.

This reasoning alone has me very worried about KOTS. Although it will be pretty fun to watch all those BnZers rip their wings off all the time.

Of course they will all be in late war stuff, DVIIs, SPADs, and the like, whilst those of us that care about WW1 will be in our Eindeckers and D.H.2s.

IMHO.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Da_Godfatha
09-16-2007, 08:40 AM
This was very intresting to read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I always like it when someone says " its the pilot not the plane" or "maybe he was better onwhine".

The truth is "he has a better system than me" is more like it. Lets face it, it depends more on your computer, connection, and your joystick than anything else.

Only in RL it is the pilot and not the plane.

Some of you guys here havea super set for flying this game. Best computer, more RAM, and the top of the line GFX card. Not to mention a great joystick. I use a 6 year old non-FF sidewinder. My homey uses a X-52 and can make any plane turn like a TIE fighter. Those are the facts. THAT is what makes alot of people here good flyers onwhine. Yes, I know some of you are good without a Super System.... but that is rare.

Even on a WW, everybody flying LA-7, Spits, arcade AirQuake server...... I can score kills too.BTW, lately that is about 90% of the servers on HypnoLobby today.

IMO, I doubt if the SOW series will even have any American planes. I think the Devs are still too insulted about the last fiasco they had to include any US planes.

BTW, I would like the load-outs for the P-51 ( and all other planes that need them) be fixed. FM or DM is more a mattter of interpetation of the data than anything else.

Just my 2 cents worth.

SeaFireLIV
09-16-2007, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Luftwaffe would need to STICK to their mission goals - not swan up high waiting for bait but being forced to go in and tackle Allies not always in environments of their own choosing, etc, etc.
You see it's exactly this mentality that prevents "Historical scenarious", you can set up a DF server to have all variables for historical missions but the fact is that things will go the way people that play choose to.
And this constant b1tching and whining and other bull about Blues is going on my nerves too, what to frak do you expect for us to deliberatly go in place and position to play frakin moveable targets for "great Red aces"??? Assemble a flight of B25's with escort and climb to 6000m and attack "my" targets and you will have historical, it goes both ways you know? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then don`t expect realistic, statistical data. Getting juvenily excited doesn`t make you any more right.

I hear much talk about comparing aircraft to realistical historical data. OK. If you expect this data, then guess what? You need to place them in similar situations that the REAL aircraft were in.

I`m sure that most Luftwaffe pilots in real life hated it (just like you). when told to go in close with HE11s in the BOB, or they hated when told to attack B17s in head ones, etc.

Unlike you, unlike in Warclouds, these men had ORDERS and they had to follow ORDERS. If they insisted in swanning up high because of your screaming, ` what to frak do you expect for us to deliberatly go in place and position to play frakin moveable targets for "great Red aces"???`

Well, your commanders would say. Yes, pilot, now shut the F- up and go attack the enemy or join the Whermacht.

Now saying that it works both ways is true and I would expect the Allies to follow their historical orders too, but YOU KNOW that it would benefit the Allies better than it would beenfit the Luftwaffe and you don`t want that.

And that`s the problem, the mental problem with you Lufty flyboys. You have a coronary if you ever had to fly some of the arduous missions that the REAL Luftwaffe had to over Europe in the war - and while they might complain, they HAD to follow orders.

If you`re not prepared to fly sometimes as it was, then forget any realistic comparing of aircraft to the historially real ones.

ElAurens
09-16-2007, 08:51 AM
Guys, historical accuracy is impossible to totally achieve in this, or any other online simulation.

Why?

Because we are human, and no one likes to lose. So we will all do what it takes to win and history be d@mned.

Any server on HL that attempts very close historical accuracy is empty. Why? Because the fun factor is totally removed. One side or the other always has an insurmountable edge, because that's the way it really was, so no one will fly in opposition. Online it has to be about balance. Both sides have to have a reasonable chance to win or the server dies a quick and lonely death. Hence the success of WC, Zekes, etc... This is something we do for enjoyment, and part of that enjoyment is winning on occasion. Successful mission/server makers know this.


Now, as to the topic at hand, I will go with what the real pilots I know have said about this sim. They all agree it's the best WW2 prop sim ever, but, they also all agree that real aeroplanes don't fly like they do in the sim.

I'll take the word of a real pilot any day over that of the chart monkeys, red/blue whiners, and trolls in this forum.

Be sure.

Brain32
09-16-2007, 09:22 AM
Then don`t expect realistic, statistical data.
Excuse me? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif What are you even talking about here??? What kind of data would you collect form online missions?? Don't make me laugh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Unlike you, unlike in Warclouds, these men had ORDERS and they had to follow ORDERS. If they insisted in swanning up high because of your screaming, ` what to frak do you expect for us to deliberatly go in place and position to play frakin moveable targets for "great Red aces"???`

What you fail to understand which in return only supports my point is the fact, that during the war if there was no bombers attacking the Reich those orders wouldn't be issued. Do you really think somebody would panic for a couple of fighters flying at 8000m over Germany???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
They proabably wouldn't even know they are there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The thing is you need a proper action to get the wanted re-action. What I see when I play is 2-3 guys taking P51/P47IXHF and flying at 8000m complaining about lack of contacts and map making bias http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Tell me just what threat for my targets is a lone P51 or two flying at 8000m?

You want orders and historical RL missions, fine, find me a map where Red has ONLY P51/P47/P38 filled up full with drop tanks escorting B25's 100 Il2 map grids into Blue territory. I will gladly play my "historical role" in it and climb to meet you.

Friendly_flyer
09-16-2007, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
Packs of 110s ROUTINELY win the blue maps AND decimate the Temps,Spits and Ponies while they're at it, Ive lost track of how many Pony, Spit, Temp or Jugs get down low and slow with my 110....which has som FEARSOME weaponry in the nose...

I've been on the receiving end of that barrage, and can confirm FlyffyDucks story. When you're in a Spitfire, a Me 110 is supposed to be a sitting duck, only when he's coming unseen from behind it's very much the other way around.

SeaFireLIV
09-16-2007, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Guys, historical accuracy is impossible to totally achieve in this, or any other online simulation.

Be sure.

This is why this whole `test the P-51` or any other challenge test is pointless online unless the guys are prepared to fly in the missions like it was - and they aint.

On a slighty different point, this is also another reason for good offline campaigns (dynamic or static). In my DCg campaign i`m flying as Russian in the `****` I16 in July 1941. I`m being sent up against superior numbers of Luftwaffe who boom and zoom and run as soon as I get near their 6.

The missions are sometimes impossible. 6 I16s to bomb a supply convoy or intercept or protect bombers, ends up as me and maybe one other I-16 running home damaged with 8 109s on our tail! Virtual AI russian pilots are constantly wiped out. I always end up running away and sometimes not making it.

After 6 missions, we`re down to 2 I16s and still facing a laughing enemy.

Unfair? Sure is. realistic, you BET it is. I`m waiting for 1942/43 when the better planes start arriving.

I`d wager you could get a far more realistic statistical comparison of WWII aircraft playing offline against AI in campaign than you ever could with a bunch of Humans online who must win regardless of historical accuracy - then they come on a Forum and pretend it`s realistic. ha!

Truth is i`m not that bothered. I go offline for my realism fix. I`m just trying to say forget comparing Online sims Stats to real life in an attempt to prove a plane is uber or porked!

Viper2005_
09-16-2007, 10:05 AM
If you want to talk about aircraft performance, take some test data, and replicate those tests in the game.

There is no point trying to untangle a furball for this purpose because there are too many factors; energy, position, tactics, numbers, firepower etc..

Sturm_Williger
09-16-2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Unlike you, unlike in Warclouds, these men had ORDERS and they had to follow ORDERS. If they insisted in swanning up high because of your screaming, ` what to frak do you expect for us to deliberatly go in place and position to play frakin moveable targets for "great Red aces"???`

Well, your commanders would say. Yes, pilot, now shut the F- up and go attack the enemy or join the Whermacht.

Now saying that it works both ways is true and I would expect the Allies to follow their historical orders too, but YOU KNOW that it would benefit the Allies better than it would beenfit the Luftwaffe and you don`t want that.

And that`s the problem, the mental problem with you Lufty flyboys. You have a coronary if you ever had to fly some of the arduous missions that the REAL Luftwaffe had to over Europe in the war - and while they might complain, they HAD to follow orders.

If you`re not prepared to fly sometimes as it was, then forget any realistic comparing of aircraft to the historially real ones.

Seafire, without getting heated about this, I suggest you come and fly some WarClouds missions with us mental 110 jocks. We die a lot, BUT we also win a lot of maps - which isn't in the stats, but it IS in the brief which I guess we're crazy enough to take seriously. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaws2002
09-16-2007, 10:26 AM
This was very intresting to read.

I always like it when someone says " its the pilot not the plane" or "maybe he was better onwhine".

The truth is "he has a better system than me" is more like it. Lets face it, it depends more on your computer, connection, and your joystick than anything else.

Only in RL it is the pilot and not the plane.

Some of you guys here havea super set for flying this game. Best computer, more RAM, and the top of the line GFX card. Not to mention a great joystick. I use a 6 year old non-FF sidewinder. My homey uses a X-52 and can make any plane turn like a TIE fighter. Those are the facts. THAT is what makes alot of people here good flyers onwhine. Yes, I know some of you are good without a Super System.... but that is rare.


You sound like that kid in Targetware that everytime was getting shot down was blaming his computer and was insulting the guyy that shot him down because he thought may have a better system then him.

I know A LOT of people here that have really old systems and use really dated flying gear and are pure killing machines online.


A second hand good stick is cheap. And so is a computer to play this game. If you can play off line you should have no problem online. Online most maps are optimized for online play and are easier on the machine.

The newest part in my PC is about two years old. Hack my mother board doesn't even supported 8xAGP, is so ancient. Is running the game and I won't buy another one until KOTS or BOB comes out.

I'd say go find another thing to blame, because this is not working.

Von_Rat
09-16-2007, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This is pointless. using dogfight servers like Warclouds (or most any server) is the worse place to try and test the validity or statistical realism of an aircraft.

This just aptly demonstrates what I said before. You need proper controlled environments limited to the historical parameters before you`ll get any kind of realistic statistical analysis. You`d need a proper campaign server that limited the Luftwaffe to certain planes and ammo supplies. The Luftwaffe would need to STICK to their mission goals - not swan up high waiting for bait but being forced to go in and tackle Allies not always in environments of their own choosing, etc, etc.

Pointless.

I was the one who brought stats into the discussion. so let me clarify,,,

my point wasnt about proving anything about whether the p51 is historical accurate or not. nor was it about any TESTING. i didnt say one dam thing about using stats to prove anything about historical accuracy or statistcal whatever, that was your doing.

my point was about guys shooting their mouth off about how good the p51 is ingame, when the majority of them actually do rather poorly in it compared to other planes they fly. since you havent posted any stats i'll take it you succk with it also.

not trying to insult you, since i succk with it to, compared to the other planes i fly.

FluffyDucks2
09-16-2007, 11:14 AM
Heres my 2 cents....as usual if flown to its advantages (high speed, great turning at high speed, LOTS of ammo/guns and did I mention high speed...) The Pony IN GAME is UNTOUCHABLE, much like the Jug.
Give up those advantages to go low and or slow and you are dead meat, especially if there are several bandits about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In real life I'm pretty sure a pilot would keep his advantage, knowing it will keep him alive, I'm pretty sure duking it out on the deck with better turning aircraft was not something most pilots would choose to do if they were concerned at all about their own lives.

Viper2005_
09-16-2007, 11:23 AM
In other news, a drag racer won't do very will in a Formula 1 race, and an F-1 car won't do very well in a drag race.

Stats measure something, but I don't think that they measure the things that the P-51 is good at, especially when those stats are measured on a dogfight server over short ranges...

Bearcat99
09-16-2007, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 TheBandit_76:
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.

Be all that as it may be... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice to see you agree with him, or do I misunderstand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is entitled to his opinion... as are you. I spoke about the issue that caused the quote and my concern in the first place...... Whether or not I agree with him A)cannot be inferred from my response and more importantly B)is really none of your business.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 03:09 PM
1)
the mix of 151 and 108 on a 190A8/9 is not easy to handle because of the different trajectories, and
2)
the effect of smaller caliber allied guns like .05 or hispano is just as bad for a 190 than Mk108 for allied planes. Its a well known fact that in most cases where your wings are hit by even single 0.50s -> you got a ticket back home, because you are reduced in top speed by some 100km/h and to a 747 in the horizontal. Ive been hitting Tempests, Spits n stuff repeatedly with Mk151 in the wings and they still almost outperform me, at least the are very capable of fightign back, which never ever happened to me in a 190. Im not saying this is always and 100% the case, but imo its a very strong feeling i have after thousands of (virtual) sorties.

I fly both sides as much as anybody when it comes to German and Allied and I would gladly put money on it. Im sorry but I could not disagree with you more. You are of course entitled to your opinion and play the game in whatever way makes you happy and fly wherever you choose. I or anyone else will not try to change that.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
Packs of 110s ROUTINELY win the blue maps AND decimate the Temps,Spits and Ponies while they're at it, Ive lost track of how many Pony, Spit, Temp or Jugs get down low and slow with my 110....which has som FEARSOME weaponry in the nose...

I've been on the receiving end of that barrage, and can confirm FlyffyDucks story. When you're in a Spitfire, a Me 110 is supposed to be a sitting duck, only when he's coming unseen from behind it's very much the other way around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Early 43 and below the 110 pwns...be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Whirlin_merlin
09-16-2007, 03:53 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 Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 TheBandit_76:
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.

Be all that as it may be... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice to see you agree with him, or do I misunderstand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is entitled to his opinion... as are you. I spoke about the issue that caused the quote and my concern in the first place...... Whether or not I agree with him A)cannot be inferred from my response and more importantly B)is really none of your business. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A) Fair enough, my bad.
B) Well er, yes it would have been if you had just said it, but as you didn't then, no I suppose it isn't.

No harm meant, just thought it was out of character, now I understand it was my misunderstanding. Sorry.

When people (not you) start getting aggressive, and putting on their 'I'm a tough guy who speaks my mind and you better not disagree' trousers I cant help getting be bit 'difficult'.

Bearcat99
09-16-2007, 07:09 PM
I can understand that.... but hey man.... folks are entitled to their opinions even if they are...... not mine.. but when someone starts using terms like Eurotrash etc... it gets into areas that it is my responsibility to make sure it doesn't progress. I dont appreciate the anti American tone that this forum often takes and I speak up about it everytime I see it.. and IMO this smacks of the same thing. Goose... gander....

skarden
09-16-2007, 07:32 PM
I could be wrong but since the thread starter has only posted twice i think he's landed one of the bigger ones for a while http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

p.s. turn fight in P-51 at low altitude and you will more then likly end up as a smoking hole in the ground.

right! now for this damm hook in my mouth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

SeaFireLIV
09-16-2007, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by skarden:
I could be wrong but since the thread starter has only posted twice i think he's landed one of the bigger ones for a while http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Probably. He\They probably make a bet that they can start a flame thread from some flippant first post remark that has no real interest in WWII aircarft, but know that stick `P51` in the title and some slightly sarcastic remark in the first post about `Oleg fanbois` and it`s a great way to get the ravenous wolves from 2 camps running.

They`ll probably be another one soon, but I`ll not join it as I grow tired of the constant repetition and most posters know that they can reply the same thing ad-infintum without ever admitting they may be wrong.

I only post every now and then to illustrate that the loud thread starters are not always right, even if they try to tell everyone they are by posting questionable guncam as `proof`. And it`s amazing how many will jump on the bandwagon if not shown otherwise.

Bearcat99
09-16-2007, 08:52 PM
Yeah but he does have some points.... I tell ya what..... Klingstroem's great thread not withstanding... and yes the P-51 as is has some good traits... but fly a QM.... 16 P-40Es or Ms against 16 Emils.... no flak. All pilots average, Smolensk at noon. Fly it several times..... at least 15 take into consideration how you do.... then try the exact same QM... and substitute a P-51D. Take a week or so... if neccessary... Then come back here talk about it.

Granted there was a 650lb difference between the P-40E (http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/curtiss/p-40e.htm) & the P-51D (http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/northam/p-51d.htm).. but considering the difference in HP between the Alison & The Merlin... (1150 vs 1650) at least according to this site (http://www.aero-web.org/air.htm) (I am sure there may be other specs but they will all probably be similar) that should not be a huge factor... by all accounts the Mustang was supposed to be a more stable platform that the P-40. Not here. Trying to get a bead on a target is sometimes like trying to do a balancing act with plates on a pole. I don't subscribe the the conspiracy and intentional bias theories... but try it yourself and see what you find. Something isn't right. Dont ask me for "proofs" either. Do the QM... and you will find your proof.

If the P-51 in this sim had the stability of the P-40 it would be more in line with what historical accounts indicate... since as so many people want to constantly repeat... COG (I.E. fuselage tank) is NOT modeled in this sim right? That has always been a factor in most beefs with the P-51 as modeled.. the fact that the P-40 appears to be a much more stable platform, even if that may not have been properly articulated in many cases. I has the same 6x50s... yet it is harder to hit with the P-51 agains older inferior aircraft. Check your shots fired/shots hit stats in the log. You will find higher hits in the P-40s. Thats because it is much more stable. The P-51 has the speed, the E retention and acceleration are debatable... but not bad as they are... but the instability is the major problem with the plane. It effects your marksmanship and everything. That's why so may people were saying the 50s were porked.

I will continue to fly the P-51 in this sim.. because I lke the P-51. It is what it is..... but it could be better and not "cave in to the whiners" like so many folks want to insinuate most Mustang fans want. All we want is a Mustang. Tell me... how many times did you get a one shot flaming engine (Your own..) in the P-40? How many times did it happen in the Mustang? How many times did you stall out in the P-40? How many times in the Mustang? How many times did you get a good steady bead on target in the P-40? How many times in the Mustang? All these things are reasons why so many people say that there is something wrong with the FM. Oh... and did I mention the blackouts? Even with adjusted stick settings.. I rarely blacked out doing the same maneuvers in the P-40.. but in the Mustang... it was often. Now maybe that was because the Mustang was faster.... I don't know...

buzzsaw1939
09-16-2007, 09:01 PM
Bearcat... Well put! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I happen to be doing that right now! wow!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-16-2007, 09:36 PM
The Corsair is a lot like the Mustang in regards to what Bearcat is saying. I will admit it sure would be nice if they were as stable as the P-40. My gunnery in the Wildcat or the P-40 is spot on and down right deadly. I dont predict any changes to either though seeing how we only have what would seem to be one patch left and I doubt these issues are at the top of the list for correction. I can live with it.

S!

Bearcat99
09-16-2007, 09:43 PM
Lastly... see this post quoted from another thread I posted in ORR concerning the Mustang. Horseback was spot on... and then there is the transcript from that video that I copied (Ok so I didn't put in all the P-51 dialog... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ):




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 horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4.) Should the P-51 be a hard plane to handle?
5.) Should it be more of a chore/more twitchy than the P-40?
6.) Should it require great skill to be good effective/with?

Yes to all! And guess what it is!
For a prop plane she is unbelievably fast! This evening I was easily catching enemy planes. Routinely going over 800kmph, and pulling out safely. I have to strongly disagree with you here. Talking to pilots at airshows who ahve flown both types over the years, including Bob Hoover (who just went on and on about the Spitfire when I asked about Mustangs), I got one overwhelming impression: The Mustang was much less twitchy and demanding to fly than the P-40 (and most other USAAF fighters of the time) in all their respective forms.

I know that the elitist in all of us wants to believe that the higher the performance, the greater the skill demanded, but the real-life logic is that the P-38, P-40 and P-39 were much earlier technology than the Mustang, and the concept of adjustable trim was less effectively executed in these aircraft. It's like comparing the setup of your first generation DVD player to the one you got last month-better performance AND <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">ease of use.</span>

The Mustang was conceived and built as a vastly improved fighter vehicle for the Allison V-1710 engine, and it was. Replacing it with the Merlin 60 series made it a bit less refined, but it was still far less twitchy and demanding of pilot input than any P-47, much less a P-40.

According to all sources, the Mustang was similar to the Spitfire, Hellcat and FW 190 in that it was much easier for a pilot new to the type to learn and fly effectively in combat than it's contemporaries. That is not merely a function of cockpit layout; there has to be a certain aerodynamic rightness and balance inherent in the design, and these aircraft all had it in spades.

According to America's Hundred-Thousand, page 340 (as you might guess, I have it bookmarked), under "P-51 Handling Qualities And Characteristics" and "Trimming", it says:

ALLISON powered Mustangs were particularly notable for <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">lack of required trim changes.</span> 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 the MERLIN Mustangs, and tabs were sensitive. In those 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.

Along with trimming the plane for longer term steady flight conditions, some pilots trimmed their aircraft almost continuously to wash out any high stick or pedal force during maneuvering in combat.

Now let us drop back to page 248, for the section on the P-40's handling characteristics and specifically, trimming:

A major aspect of flying the P-40 series airplanes 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 propellor fighters, the vertical tail was slightly offset to counter propellor 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 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 accelleration. 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 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.

A lot of the Mustang's current reputation for twitchiness is due to the number of flyable Mustangs still around; modern pilots will compare it to the Beech Barons or whatever modern general aviation or military aircraft they have flown, not its contemporaries. Compared to more sophisticated later generation airframes, of course the Mustang is more raw and demanding of the pilot. The later designs are the beneficiaries of the Mustang's heritage.

Jeffrey Ethell did a number of articles (in Flight Journal I think) about flying preserved warbirds, including the various P-40s, and especially the three flavors of Mustang. As I recall, he references the P-40 repeatedly in the account of his P-51A flights, as well as to the P-51B and D models he had flown, and he makes it quite clear that the P-40s were far more work and far more treacherous to fly and taxi than the late model Mustangs, which were a bit more work in the air than the Allison Mustang.

The fact is, I could go on and on (and have a published authoritive citation for every occasion), but it very much appears to me that Oleg has the trim portions of the Mustang and the P-40 reversed: in game, the P-40 is vastly more docile and trimable than the Mustang and that's just <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">wrong.</span>

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

From Flight Characteristics of the P-51 (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1541332312841515347)
<sub>Major: Hello Chilton.. How is she on directional trim changes when speed & horsepower are variant?

Pilot: I'll throttle back and give it a whirl...... The airplane is stable at all normal loadings, but the directional trim changes at low speeds as horsepower (MP or throttle) & speed is varied, however the rudder tab corrects this effectively with only a slight adjustment and it should be used as necessary. Normally there is no trouble as the plane is naturally stable.

Engineer: That means the P-51B will remain at any altitude without adjusting the trim tabs. Less work for the pilot.

Pilot: Now I'm going to show her stalling characteristics. The stall is comparatively mild and occurs at approximately 95 mph indicated with gear & flaps up. About 3 or 4 miles above this stalling speed a slight elevator buffet occurs. The plane [sinks a distance... (unclear)], then rolls over on one wing. It doesn't whip over as some other planes do, and it has very little tendency to drop into a spin. The recovery is completely normal. All that has to be done is to release the back pressure on the stick, and apply opposite rudder. With the gear and flaps down the stall would have the same characteristics as before only it occurs at about 85mph indicated.

Engineer: Naturally with combat tanks or bombs making an extra load the stalling speeds are higher.

Pilot: Now let's go into an accelerated stall.

P-51:VvVvVvVvvVVvVVVVvrRRRRRRrRrrRroOooOooOoOOOOOOoM mMMMmmmmmm

Pilot: A heavy buffet occurs around the wing root fillet and the horizontal stabilizer 3 or 4 miles above actual stalling speed, but the plane recovers immediately by releasing pressure on the stick. The accelerated stall has stronger warning characteristics than the normal stall.

Colonel: Hello Bob... show us a couple of dives....

Pilot: OK Col. here she goes.....

P-51: vvVVVvVVVvrRRRrROoOOoooooommmmmm

Pilot: The plane gains speed extremely fast in a dive. Tends to veer slightly to the right, and continue in a dive without pulling itself out for quite a long time.

.......................
Colonel:How about doing a couple of rolls for us.

Pilot: Here's one to the left. Rate of roll is extremely fast. Especially at high speeds.

Engineer: Thats due to the sealed balance ailerons. The final result of 14 different designs.

Major: That fast roll really counts too.

Colonel: Yes that means the pilot can disengage the enemy a lot quicker.

Engineer: We believe the only ship that can approach it for speed of roll is the Fw-190.

Pilot: Here's another dive.

P-51:VVVVvvvvvvrrrroooommmmmmMmMMMMmmm

Pilot: In the dive the pilot doesn't have to maintain excessive forward pressure on the stick. Catch the slight tendency to veer to the right with a trim tab if in a prolonged dive, otherwise the ship is positively stable in a dive. Hello Arthur, I'm going up high altitude and put her into a maximum speed dive to show you how fast she'll go before reaching compressibility.

........................
Pilot:38000.. you all set down there? .......
300..... 350.... 400.... 440..... compressibility.. stick moving fore and aft, slight elevator over balance, heavy buffeting on tail section, oscillation occurs rapidly, however control forces on elevator remain unchanged plane hunts slightly along horizontal axis.... pulling out now. No difficulty, except buffeting continues until a lower speed has been reached.

Major: 440 indicated at that height!!! That's really moving!!!

Colonel: Enemy fighters will have a h@ll of a time trying to keep up with this ship in a dive.
...................
Pilot: I'm going to try a couple of spins. I'll do a right spin first. Here she goes.
In a right spin there is a continuous oscillation. A slight rudder buffet is present. Procedure for recovery completely normal. No trouble getting out of the spin.

P-51:VVvvvvvvvvvrvvrvrvvvvooooooooooooommmmmmmm

Colonel: Why don't you try one to the left now.....

Pilot: For 3 turns an oscillation is present as in the right spin. Then the spin becomes stable. Recovery is the same. Roll opposite rudder then stick in neutral. </sub> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lowfighter
09-16-2007, 11:18 PM
About the stability when shooting, could you describe it in more detail? One plane which has big cannons might be unstable because of recoil. Another plane might have no such problem but might be unstable (or in other words might require more work to keep it stable)when doing the little flight adjustments when aiming at the target? Which one of them?

Brain32
09-17-2007, 02:01 AM
The P51 in-game is damn unstable in pitch. Why is that? Well because the freakin elevator is lighter and has more authority than it's good for it, heck I often fly it with up to 14 clicks of nose down trim just to dampen the "oh look a particle of dust fell on my joystick so I made a loop" effect.
But after all that ask yourself one thing, who to frak asked for such elevator anyway. I didn't hear you...was it "the Eurotrash"? Were those guys "P51 haters" or "Oleg fanboys"? No? Maybe "Luftwhiners", they are usually guilty for everything http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I think most of you, know the answer pretty good, weather you want to know it or not is entirely a different question.

lowfighter
09-17-2007, 04:20 AM
I feel too there's a kind of instability with P51 more pronounced than with most other planes. But I can't say exactly how this instability manifests, so that's why I'm asking.
Brain, it might be what you say: elevator too sensitive, but my feeling is that it's some elevator-rudder instability rather and more rudder related. I'd like to hear more oppinions about this. Maybe there's also someone who can tell there's no significant difference in stability of P51 relative to planes in the same class?
Just let aside the red-blue war, and tell your oppinion about the stability pf this plane relative to contemporary planes. It's not clear to me.

MrMojok
09-17-2007, 04:30 AM
All I ever fly is P-51/190/109, so I don't have a real wide breadth of experience in game aircraft to compare it to.

But I will say, flying it is like heaven now compared to what it was like when I had the dreaded "wobbles".

I trim it nose-down too, like Brain says. I also use all 100s on my stick pitch/roll/yaw settings. I avoided switching to 100s for a long time because it sounded to me like it would make all planes too twitchy, but when I finally tried it strangely it seemed to have the opposite effect.

I still veer and flip and flap around like a drunken sea lion when flying it, but it's better than it used to be. And come to think of it, I fly all aircraft that way, not just the p-51.

Viper2005_
09-17-2007, 04:49 AM
I think that the vast majority of the stability & control "issues" people complain about in the game are actually a function of their physical control inceptors rather than problems with the simulation itself.

AFAIK, when you apply full back stick IRL, you're asking your virtual pilot to apply full back stick or 25 kgf of aft stick pressure, whichever comes first.

Compare this 50 lb pull with the force needed to apply full deflection to the joystick on your desk and I think you'll have at least 50% of the answer.

DKoor
09-17-2007, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
And come to think of it, I fly all aircraft that way, not just the p-51. That is great remark, all aircraft should be managed like that.
Always advantage, from above, dive, shoot and that's it.

Von_Rat
09-17-2007, 05:15 AM
if its just controller issue why does it only effect one plane.


also as far as elevator goes, this sim has a history of overcorrecting problems. people asked for a little more responsive elevator on p51, and instead of getting a resonable improvement we get somthing that if you sneeze and jerk your hand, a wing pops off. its happened to me. lol.

Bearcat99
09-17-2007, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
The P51 in-game is damn unstable in pitch. Why is that? Well because the freakin elevator is lighter and has more authority than it's good for it, heck I often fly it with up to 14 clicks of nose down trim just to dampen the "oh look a particle of dust fell on my joystick so I made a loop" effect.
But after all that ask yourself one thing, who to frak asked for such elevator anyway. I didn't hear you...was it "the Eurotrash"? Were those guys "P51 haters" or "Oleg fanboys"? No? Maybe "Luftwhiners", they are usually guilty for everything http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I think most of you, know the answer pretty good, weather you want to know it or not is entirely a different question.

Brain I told Bandit the same thing I am tewlling you. Once. Knock off the Eurtotrash bit.... I may hate the term "Oleg fanboys" and such.. but there isnt much I can or would do about it... as long as it doesnt turn into outright slander... but "Eurotrash" is another ball of wax. Keep it off these boards. It isnt right, and if was a similar term directed at Americans most of the Americans here myself included wouldnt like it one bit so can it or be gone for a spell. This will be your only warning.

Bearcat99
09-17-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
All I ever fly is P-51/190/109, so I don't have a real wide breadth of experience in game aircraft to compare it to.

But I will say, flying it is like heaven now compared to what it was like when I had the dreaded "wobbles".

I trim it nose-down too, like Brain says. I also use all 100s on my stick pitch/roll/yaw settings. I avoided switching to 100s for a long time because it sounded to me like it would make all planes too twitchy, but when I finally tried it strangely it seemed to have the opposite effect.

I still veer and flip and flap around like a drunken sea lion when flying it, but it's better than it used to be. And come to think of it, I fly all aircraft that way, not just the p-51.

Well this is true.. this P-51 is the best one out of all of them.

lowfighter
09-17-2007, 05:42 AM
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 MrMojok:
All I ever fly is P-51/190/109, so I don't have a real wide breadth of experience in game aircraft to compare it to.

But I will say, flying it is like heaven now compared to what it was like when I had the dreaded "wobbles".

I trim it nose-down too, like Brain says. I also use all 100s on my stick pitch/roll/yaw settings. I avoided switching to 100s for a long time because it sounded to me like it would make all planes too twitchy, but when I finally tried it strangely it seemed to have the opposite effect.

I still veer and flip and flap around like a drunken sea lion when flying it, but it's better than it used to be. And come to think of it, I fly all aircraft that way, not just the p-51.

Well this is true.. this P-51 is the best one out of all of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember 4.03 patch, the wobble patch. I think there were two types of wobbles then, the good (FM related and perfectly accountable) and the bad (random instability of the planes for certain users). Now the good wobbles could be measured to some extent as that misterious guy tony_xyzhehehe told us: kick the rudder and count the number of oscillations of the plane. You name the 3 planes which were champions about the number of oscillations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Patch 4.04 corrected that to big extent...but it corrected it uniformly across all plane types.

Well if you missed that debate, the wobble champions then were P51, F4U and P47. Seeing the effect on a F4U for example from externals was pretty hilarious. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV
09-17-2007, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
not trying to insult you, since i succk with it to, compared to the other planes i fly.

I hate these kinds of questions because they are designed to trap a person so the original person vcan say, "See! he sucks too so what does he know about how good the P51 is!" And by that thinks he has now won the argument. Which of course is not the truth.

But fine, you want the truth, here it is, NO I`m not very good in the P51. I`m reasonable in that I can fly it, tangle with enemy aircraft and shoot down the odd FW190 or 109, but compare me to the experienced guys and I`m rubbish.

But then I fly the Spitfire various marks more and am much more capable with that. I`m also better with the P39N (an aircraft I really like) which most everyone seems to be avoid on the servers. It used to be a devil to hit anything with the cannon, but over time i learned to adjust my AOA and convergence and hit aircraft quite easily with it now. I even outturn aircraft that should easily turn with me because of inexperienced pilots behind me. The I16 i`m pretty good with too, sometimes taking on even 43-44 planes in a daring try.

I`m pretty certain that if I had devoted the same amount of time to the P51 I`d find it a very good aircraft and your complaints would seem very mild to nothing. Some would remember that the whole `wobble` escapade of a few patches ago that had everyone up in arms didn`t disturb me at all.

By the way, in all my time flying the P51 I have yet to snap its wings off, but then I don`t stress my aircraft quite the same way as some do. I never jam my combat flaps in combat in any plane either. I told a squad m8 once to put combat flaps on cos they never jam and he instantly jammed them - that`s when i realised some people are heavier on their planes than others.

My focus is the same as with any aircraft whether I fly it or no. Only `fix` it IF there`s enough evidence to prove it needs the fixing. i`m happy to go by Oleg`s judgement than the judgement of people who have a biased, invested interested to see their `fave` plane made `better` regardless of the reality. And I always see evidence that some people`s idea of `fixed` often equals `make it as good as I think it should be`. which is not enough.

Not all people are biased, but Oleg has to sift the wheat from the chaff of what should be `fixed` and what`s just `I think`. For that he needs to be SURE of his proof and not be brow-beaten into making erroneous fixes.


p.s.@ Bearcat. Your moderating is a credit to moderaters. I`ve come across some bad ones (on other forums) in my time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (although I personally don`t see eurotrash as a big insult, but you`re fair to say).

Von_Rat
09-17-2007, 05:57 AM
But fine, you want the truth, here it is, NO I`m not very good in the P51. I`m reasonable in that I can fly it, tangle with enemy aircraft and shoot down the odd FW190 or 109, but compare me to the experienced guys and I`m rubbish.

im pretty dam experianced with a p51 and im rubbish with it too, but not with a similar plane such as fw or p47. so far brain has been the only experianced player who has posted who does ok with it compared to other comparable planes. he didnt mention his completion rate however. be that as it may, brain would probaly do ok in a p11.

other than brain, nobody else who contends how good the ingame p51 is, has backed it up.

as i said, this has nothing to do with getting anything FIXED. its just a pet peeve of mine.

SeaFireLIV
09-17-2007, 06:01 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">But fine, you want the truth, here it is, NO I`m not very good in the P51. I`m reasonable in that I can fly it, tangle with enemy aircraft and shoot down the odd FW190 or 109, but compare me to the experienced guys and I`m rubbish.

im pretty dam experianced with a p51 and im rubbish with it too, but not with a similar plane such as fw or p47. so far brain has been the only experianced player who has posted who does ok with it compared to other comparable planes. but he didnt mention his completion rate either. be that as it may, brain would probaly do ok in a p11.

other than brain, nobody else who contends how good the ingame p51 is, has backed it up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am even worse in a P47. Much worse. But that`s due to inexperience. I attribute the same to other planes that I haven`t flown much. give me time with a P51 and i`d prove it as an excellent aircraft to fly and shoot... but I am NOT going to start training with it to prove this on a forum. I tend to only choose and fly a few choice aircraft, not all of them. Sorry. when I feel like flying a P51 all the time, then I will.

Von_Rat
09-17-2007, 06:09 AM
if you do ever get the chance to learn it, i'd be very interested in your comments on it.

lowfighter
09-17-2007, 06:14 AM
Just tell your opinion no matter how experienced you are in this plane. It's the only way we can realise if there's a problem with the plane or not.

Although dedicated P-51 players shoud be careful making statements. I see it like this: suppose a plane FM is a bit off but you like the plane so much that you'll fly it anyway. After a while you'll adjust and not feel the problem with that aircraft as a player which is not a dedicated pilot for that aircraft. You get used to it.

Da_Godfatha
09-17-2007, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This was very intresting to read.

I always like it when someone says " its the pilot not the plane" or "maybe he was better onwhine".

The truth is "he has a better system than me" is more like it. Lets face it, it depends more on your computer, connection, and your joystick than anything else.

Only in RL it is the pilot and not the plane.

Some of you guys here havea super set for flying this game. Best computer, more RAM, and the top of the line GFX card. Not to mention a great joystick. I use a 6 year old non-FF sidewinder. My homey uses a X-52 and can make any plane turn like a TIE fighter. Those are the facts. THAT is what makes alot of people here good flyers onwhine. Yes, I know some of you are good without a Super System.... but that is rare.


You sound like that kid in Targetware that everytime was getting shot down was blaming his computer and was insulting the guyy that shot him down because he thought may have a better system then him.

I know A LOT of people here that have really old systems and use really dated flying gear and are pure killing machines online.


A second hand good stick is cheap. And so is a computer to play this game. If you can play off line you should have no problem online. Online most maps are optimized for online play and are easier on the machine.

The newest part in my PC is about two years old. Hack my mother board doesn't even supported 8xAGP, is so ancient. Is running the game and I won't buy another one until KOTS or BOB comes out.

I'd say go find another thing to blame, because this is not working. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ANOTHER wannabe hero.

As the old saying goes... the truth hurts.

It is a fact, not only in IL2, but in alot of other games also. But, your a hero. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I think some of you guys should get a life. It is just a GAME.

Sturm_Williger
09-17-2007, 08:57 AM
Godfather, you're saying Jaws is a "wannabe hero" because he disagrees with your point ?

I don't ... really.. see the connection, maybe it's an idiom I'm unfamiliar with. Nevertheless, I have to agree with him - there's more than a "few" guys I fly with/against on WarClouds who are really really good and some of them don't even have TrackIR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif which tbh really boggles my mind because I could NEVER go back to a hatswitch. Be that as it may, their SA is better than mine.

Also, IL2 is really one of the better PC games in terms of its scalability to hardware - you can lower resolution, lighting, ground detail, all sorts of stuff to make up for lack of fancy GFX cards, RAM etc. Heck, you can even fly with Clouds=0 if you have to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheBandit_76
09-17-2007, 09:18 AM
No, Euro..oops.

All we want is to bring the CoG forward for a more accurate Mustang. Sorry Oleg, this one isn't close enough and the P51 was one of the top 5 most important a/c of the war.

Oleg, get the the top 5 right at least. That is all....

Manu-6S
09-17-2007, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
No, Euro..oops.

All we want is to bring the CoG forward for a more accurate Mustang. Sorry Oleg, this one isn't close enough and the P51 was one of the top 5 most important a/c of the war.

Oleg, get the the top 5 right at least. That is all....

IF it has flaws, then it's on the bottom of that list. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
09-17-2007, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
No, Euro..oops.

All we want is to bring the CoG forward for a more accurate Mustang. Sorry Oleg, this one isn't close enough and the P51 was one of the top 5 most important a/c of the war.

Oleg, get the the top 5 right at least. That is all.... How old are you mate? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seafire said that he's not taking offense of such remarks, and I agree with that, I'm also taking no offense, it's silly.
But I find it funny, insults directed to other user(s) speak more about those who are sending them.

Brain32
09-17-2007, 09:58 AM
Too bad this isn't CWOS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

MEGILE
09-17-2007, 10:00 AM
The Mustang is the most accurately modelled plane in game.

lowfighter
09-17-2007, 10:17 AM
Too bad it always turns into a red-blue festival. That's why subjects like this never ends.
To Bandit: in the GAME the P51 IS one of the "5", that's my oppinion. But that doesn't mean I say there are no problems with it. Just don't wave that flag so much, it'll not serve your purpose. By no means.
And this flag waving, same with the blue guys lol.

SeaFireLIV
09-17-2007, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:



A second hand good stick is cheap. And so is a computer to play this game. If you can play off line you should have no problem online. Online most maps are optimized for online play and are easier on the machine.

The newest part in my PC is about two years old. Hack my mother board doesn't even supported 8xAGP, is so ancient. Is running the game and I won't buy another one until KOTS or BOB comes out.

I'd say go find another thing to blame, because this is not working.

Jaws is correct.

My PC is getting pretty old. Still runs IL2 damn well.

I have TIR. Does it make me a better pilot? Hmmm. It`s more immersive, but I`ve still been owned by better pilots who use the hatswitch or mouse.

I have rudder pedals. Any better? Perhaps marginally. Great for some tactical flying and immersion, but a twist-stick still keeps you in the competition.

As long as your PC isn`t giving you constant stutters online, you have just a fair chance as anyone else, even more so on more realistic servers rather than the WW arcade ones.

It`s not about the PC.

faustnik
09-17-2007, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Too bad this isn't CWOS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif


Yes, CWOS has a certain "self-policing" factor which helps with this kind of thread.

Xiolablu3
09-17-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<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">But fine, you want the truth, here it is, NO I`m not very good in the P51. I`m reasonable in that I can fly it, tangle with enemy aircraft and shoot down the odd FW190 or 109, but compare me to the experienced guys and I`m rubbish.

im pretty dam experianced with a p51 and im rubbish with it too, but not with a similar plane such as fw or p47. so far brain has been the only experianced player who has posted who does ok with it compared to other comparable planes. but he didnt mention his completion rate either. be that as it may, brain would probaly do ok in a p11.

other than brain, nobody else who contends how good the ingame p51 is, has backed it up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am even worse in a P47. Much worse. But that`s due to inexperience. I attribute the same to other planes that I haven`t flown much. give me time with a P51 and i`d prove it as an excellent aircraft to fly and shoot... but I am NOT going to start training with it to prove this on a forum. I tend to only choose and fly a few choice aircraft, not all of them. Sorry. when I feel like flying a P51 all the time, then I will. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Seafire :http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just a few tips as you said you are having toruble with the P47...

When flying the p47, its all about ZOOM - you want to be zoom climbing or zoom diving at all times if possible, thats her biggests strength.

You must always have a height advantage if you are going to attack, and if you are attacked then a zoom dive is your best defence - nothing can catch a diving P47 unless he had a good headstart on you. The later war Japanese planes have real problems keeping up with a zooming P47D.

Think speed and zoom. You will not go far wrong, especially versus the 'slower-but-manouverable' late war Japanese planes, which just cannot stand the power of 8x 50 cals'.

faustnik
09-17-2007, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Oh... and did I mention the blackouts?

Bearcat,

Have you asked Oleg about how the blackout modeling works? From what I understand, it's simply a matter of G forces. The Mustang has fantastic high speed elevator authority in PF so, it can easily pull more Gs. Planes like the Bf109K or P-38 have such terrible high speed elevator authority that they are tough to pull enough Gs to black out in. You wouldn't want the elevator authority toned down because the P-51's historic high speed maneuverability advantage would be lost. It's up to the pilots to adjust their inputs to account for powerful elevator.

I agree that trim-changes to get a stable PF P-51 are a constant fight. Don't know how historical it is as my real-life combat time in the P-51 is limited.

Viper2005_
09-17-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
if its just controller issue why does it only effect one plane.

It doesn't.

But since the P-51 combines light stick forces with heavy scrutiny and low drag, it suffers most noticeably.

When I greatly increased the stick forces required for full deflection in my control setup, I noticed that the handling of many aeroplanes appeared to improve considerably. This was especially true of the Tempest and Mustang which seemed to retain energy much more effectively, and display less propensity to stall.

Because I can change my stick forces simply by flipping a few dip-switches, it's quite a simple matter for me to experiment with this.

Suffice it to say that when I get the opportunity I'm going to bolt my Cougar down and set the stick forces to the maximum value...

Xiolablu3
09-17-2007, 11:34 AM
This thread is hilarious.....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

jasonbirder
09-17-2007, 11:40 AM
Sorry Oleg, this one isn't close enough and the P51 was one of the top 5 most important a/c of the war

What really...ahead of the C47, F4F, B17, Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, Il2, LA5, Zero, Bf109, Ju52, Ju87 etc etc..

Quite a bold claim for a plane that didn't see service until 1944...

Or do you just mean one of your Top 5 favourite planes eh kid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
09-17-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as MiG will turn better

On most accounts I have heard or read the Sabre was the better turner and overall more maneuverable.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
true, but remember who is making the sim.

Same people that brought you the legends like I-16 tie fighter, LaGG-3 the delta wood spitfire, MiG-3 outturning and climbing with 109s, FW that turns worse then even a derated, crashlanded A4 with a stuka prop in the real tests, the infinite P-39 oil tank, Tempest outturning 109G6 at stall speed etc, La-5 that flies like F, F that flies like FN and La-7 which I really do not know what to compare with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats wierd. I had always read/gathered, that the Mig 15 was far more manouverable than the Sabre.

How I had assumed things, in a very generalised way :-

Mig 15 = (lighter, better turner, slower in the dive, faster in the climb)

Sabre = (A little faster overall, heavier, better in the dive, slightly worse in the climb)

Generally speaking, I thought that :

Mig 15 = Spitfire
Sabre = FW190

Do I have it the wrong way around?

Von_Rat
09-17-2007, 11:44 AM
it suffers most noticeably.


to noticeably imo. the fw was also known for its great hi speed elevator and light stick forces, but i have no problem whatsoever with fw or any other plane at my settings, just the p51.

btw ive tried changing settings for just the p51, it doesnt help.

faustnik
09-17-2007, 11:46 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">it suffers most noticeably.


to noticeably imo. the fw was also known for its great hi speed elevator, but i have no problem whatsoever with fw at my settings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because the Fw190 high speed elevator was reduced a few patches back. I'm sure all the experienced PF Fw190 pilots would love to see it back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
09-17-2007, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Cool, a bunch of ******ed responses from 51 haters and OlegFanBois, very refreshing.

Fact: Watching brits and assorted eurotrash get owned nightly playing BoB by the superior Biffy-09, and sobbing their eyes out daily on these boards is going to be pure gold.

Gold.

Waaaaah, why does my propellor shut off, waaaaah.

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

Best post ever.
I'm going to print, frame and mount it for posterity.

Von_Rat
09-17-2007, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<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">it suffers most noticeably.


to noticeably imo. the fw was also known for its great hi speed elevator, but i have no problem whatsoever with fw at my settings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because the Fw190 high speed elevator was reduced a few patches back. I'm sure all the experienced PF Fw190 pilots would love to see it back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


im a very experianced fw pilot. and i never had the stability problems with the fw elevator, even before they supposedly toned it down.

faustnik
09-17-2007, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:

im a very experianced fw pilot. and i never had the stability problems with the fw elevator, even before they supposedly toned it down.

Are you have issues with the P-51 blacking out? Are your stability problems at all speeds? How do you trim your plane as speed increases? What stick do you use and what is your stick profile?

(I'm asking all this because we found some similarities before in people who had control issues.)

Viper2005_
09-17-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
No, Euro..oops.

All we want is to bring the CoG forward for a more accurate Mustang.

As a European I find the use of "Euro.." where ".." is obviously short-hand for "trash" given your previous posts somewhat offensive. Given the context you might just as well have typed it in the clear and taken the consequences. If you don't have the guts to do that, I don't believe that you should be allowed to use the term by implication either.

As for the Mustang's CoG, have you bothered to work out where it currently is, and indeed where it "should" be in your not-so-humble opinion?

This report includes some CoG data:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-6883.html

27% MAC for an early P-51B. This doesn't imply a massive static margin.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-24777.html

over 30% MAC with a fuselage tank. This implies an even smaller static margin; as expected the report cites dynamic instability.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html

This report cites a reasonable combat CoG of 27.89% MAC.

I'd suggest that based upon these reports, you're unlikely to find a combat-ready Merlin engined P-51 with a CoG much forward of 27% MAC.

So let's assume that you want your P-51 to have it's CoG at 27% MAC. Now all that you need to do is:

- Calculate the MAC of the aircraft from some accurate drawings.
- Work out where 27% MAC is relative to some fixed datum point such as the nose
- Test the in-game P-51s to work out where their CoG is relative to that same datum point
- Compare & contrast your calculated in-game CoG with the desired CoG.
- Present your findings...

I'd suggest that the easiest way to calculate the longitudinal CoG of the aircraft in the game is to conduct tests under braking. From the rate of deceleration you can calculate the braking force at the axles. From this data and the rate at which the nose pitches you should be able to calculate the moment arm to the CoG.

By measuring the variation in moment arm as a function of pitch attitude you should be able to triangulate the longitudinal CoG. I'd suggest that this represents less than a week's work if you put your mind to it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Whirlin_merlin
09-17-2007, 12:08 PM
Sticking to what's resonable. There does seem to be general agreement that the P51 has stability issues. More than that I can't say.
The explination about the games FM 'engine' not modelling multiple fuel tank emptying and COG changes that result seems fair to me. After all it wasn't 'built' with the 51 in mind.
Hopefully the SOW 'engine' will be, ready for when they 'come along'.

SeaFireLIV
09-17-2007, 12:09 PM
That`ll be too much for him, Viper2005_ . He doesn`t work off actual facts!

Xiolablu3
09-17-2007, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by RamsteinUSA:
Revenge for the P51 puposely not fixed will come.

I'm sorry Megile, but this beats your 'best post ever' by a mile.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maybe you can have the title 'Best POst Ever' for your Bandit quote.

I will take the title 'Most mentally unstable Quote' for Ramsteins quote above.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Manu-6S
09-17-2007, 12:30 PM
However I still understand this "blackout" problem: damn, if you pull hard the stick and you are starting to black out RELEASE it.

I can only dream a elevator authority like the P51's one in the FW190...

Xiolablu3
09-17-2007, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:

- [b]too big instability in flight (directional and longitudal) which casue aiming to be very frustating and difficult. P-51 in game is very unstable gunnery platform and comparing to other planes are much less effective then others. In game there is a big problem to shot down enemy planes from 0,50 cal in P-51. I didn't see these problem in RL guncams.


Fifty cals in the game are comparble with RL guncams, watch this video of colour guncams from a P51 attacking Japanese bombers. Note how uneffective they are:-

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=La3qJ4sptuE&mode=related&search=%5C

These videos are EXTREMELY good source for historians on the effect of the 50cal, because they have been saved becasue of their high colour quality, and not for sheer dramatic/explosive effect like most of the black and white guncams we see.

They are good versus the lightly armoured Japanese fighters where they are often getting into the fuel and causing fire.

Bombers and German planes were much tougher and more of a problem for the 50 cal. Thats why every other coutry moved to cannon. 50 cal COULD bring down fighters, but it took longer.

COmpare the above video of P51 attacks on lightly armoured Japanese bombers, with German cannon attacks on much heavier armoured US bombers :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjlN49szFOc

If the US had a 20mm cannon at the time, they would surely have used it on their fighters en masse, just like the rest of the world.

I get quite passionatte on this subject, because I have watched endless colour guncams and feel that the 50's in the game are extremely close to the real thing.

What would be nice, would be to get the 'speckled' effect of rounds hitting the target, like the .303 gets. Right now its hard to tell when we are hitting with it.

IFly_1968
09-17-2007, 12:44 PM
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 Kwiatos:

- [b]too big instability in flight (directional and longitudal) which casue aiming to be very frustating and difficult. P-51 in game is very unstable gunnery platform and comparing to other planes are much less effective then others. In game there is a big problem to shot down enemy planes from 0,50 cal in P-51. I didn't see these problem in RL guncams.


Fifty cals in the game are comparble with RL guncams, watch this video of colour guncams from a P51 attacking Japanese bombers. Note how uneffective they are.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=La3qJ4sptuE&mode=related&search=%5C

They are good versus the lightly armoured Japanese fighters where they are often getting into the fuel and causing fire.

Bombers and German planes were much tougher and more of a problem for the 50 cal.

If the US had a 20mm cannon at the time, they would surely have used it on their fighters en masse, just like the rest of the world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but I disagree about ineffective. A quick 2 second burst and that plane (any plane) is crippled. Then it is just buzzard meat. Except for the sniper AI gunners protecting the bombers.

Xiolablu3
09-17-2007, 12:52 PM
Watch the video when the P51's are attacking the Japanese bombers. The effect on Japanese bombers is there to compare to the 20mm/30mm videos we have of the LW attacking B17's/B24's (which were actually far more heavily armoured than Japanese planes as well).

Now compare it with the German cannon guncam.

How do you supose the Germans would have done versus the B17's and B24's if they had used just 50 cal?

A two sec burst of 50 cal against a bomber is going to have to score an extremely lucky hit to cripple it.

There is a reason the whole world was at that time using 20mm cannon and even bigger shells in some cases, such as 30mm vs bombers..

DKoor
09-17-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Suffice it to say that when I get the opportunity I'm going to bolt my Cougar down and set the stick forces to the maximum value...
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
This thread is hilarious.....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yeah I fully agree.....with teh part time sickos on board (such is myself) some of these lines makes a whole new perspectives when taken out of context.

Da_Godfatha
09-17-2007, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
Godfather, you're saying Jaws is a "wannabe hero" because he disagrees with your point ?

I don't ... really.. see the connection, maybe it's an idiom I'm unfamiliar with. Nevertheless, I have to agree with him - there's more than a "few" guys I fly with/against on WarClouds who are really really good and some of them don't even have TrackIR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif which tbh really boggles my mind because I could NEVER go back to a hatswitch. Be that as it may, their SA is better than mine.

Also, IL2 is really one of the better PC games in terms of its scalability to hardware - you can lower resolution, lighting, ground detail, all sorts of stuff to make up for lack of fancy GFX cards, RAM etc. Heck, you can even fly with Clouds=0 if you have to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

He can disagree all he wants, it is how he disagreed. I think I was not allowed to disagree or express my views. But then again, his post count is higher than mine and he has a fancy sig. So who really gives a feck. I don't. Like I said, I have a real life. This game is just a hobby, I don't take it so hard like some of the people here.

Again, fact is... the better the system, the better the game runs. I don't fly on kiddie arcade servers. So, those with the Track IR have a slight edge over those who don't. A X-52 with all the buttons and HOTAS gives you a edge over a normal joystick. Those are facts, (sorry, I have no track or dozens of charts to prove that). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I just expressed my views and he seemed to me to take it personally. Maybe he had a bad hair day, who knows?

I see why long time members who have contributed to this communitie have left for better grounds. Some people just don't respect others views.

BTW, before anyone starts to freak out. Read his answer post to mine, and you will see why I called him a "hero". In German he would be called a "maulheld".

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-17-2007, 03:02 PM
I don't take it so hard like some of the people here.

Sure about that?

S!

Da_Godfatha
09-17-2007, 03:05 PM
@Havok.......yes I am sure. I just don't like the tude of some of the posters when you go against what they think is right or wrong.

DKoor
09-17-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
fancy sig If you want some decent sig & avatar pm me we can work something out............ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheBandit_76
09-17-2007, 03:10 PM
Same as it ever was. The P51 is wrong, and there is a line of folks a mile long willing to refute the truth until they are blue (no pun) in the face, simply to keep it as dogged down as they can for as long as possible. They simply cannot handle the legendary status of the Mustang, and it hurts their ego to ponder.

Da_Godfatha
09-17-2007, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
fancy sig If you want some decent sig & avatar pm me we can work something out............ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool, let think about itwhen I come back from my trip to China. Work ya know.

DKoor
09-17-2007, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
fancy sig If you want some decent sig & avatar pm me we can work something out............ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool, let think about itwhen I come back from my trip to China. Work ya know. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Whirlin_merlin
09-17-2007, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Same as it ever was. The P51 is wrong, and there is a line of folks a mile long willing to refute the truth until they are blue (no pun) in the face, simply to keep it as dogged down as they can for as long as possible. They simply cannot handle the legendary status of the Mustang, and it hurts their ego to ponder.

Just for fun could you do me a favour, calmly and simply tell me how it's wrong in your opinion. Not that I'm saying it's right mind, I just want to know exactly what you think it should be like. (P.S Before you jump to any conclusions or start calling me names see if I've ever bad mouthed your beloved P51 anywhere.)

Is it just the COG thing or is their more to it?

Where in the great 'out-turn' food chain do you think it sits?

Does bubble-gum loose it's flavour on the bed-post at night?

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-17-2007, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Same as it ever was. The P51 is wrong, and there is a line of folks a mile long willing to refute the truth until they are blue (no pun) in the face, simply to keep it as dogged down as they can for as long as possible. They simply cannot handle the legendary status of the Mustang, and it hurts their ego to ponder.

Just for fun could you do me a favour, calmly and simply tell me how it's wrong in your opinion. Not that I'm saying it's right mind, I just want to know exactly what you think it should be like. (P.S Before you jump to any conclusions or start calling me names see if I've ever bad mouthed your beloved P51 anywhere.)

Is it just the COG thing or is their more to it?

Where in the great 'out-turn' food chain do you think it sits?

Does bubble-gum loose it's flavour on the bed-post at night? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im anxious to hear this myself. Some people such as Bearcat has clearly laid out in a thoughtful and respectful manner which things he still feels needs addressed and for the most part its hard to argue. But Bandit as well as some others just go off on a immature rant and never provide any insight whatsoever. So we are all waiting...

S!

Bearcat99
09-17-2007, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by IFly_1968:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Kwiatos:

- [b]too big instability in flight (directional and longitudal) which casue aiming to be very frustating and difficult. P-51 in game is very unstable gunnery platform and comparing to other planes are much less effective then others. In game there is a big problem to shot down enemy planes from 0,50 cal in P-51. I didn't see these problem in RL guncams.


Fifty cals in the game are comparble with RL guncams, watch this video of colour guncams from a P51 attacking Japanese bombers. Note how uneffective they are.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=La3qJ4sptuE&mode=related&search=%5C

They are good versus the lightly armoured Japanese fighters where they are often getting into the fuel and causing fire.

Bombers and German planes were much tougher and more of a problem for the 50 cal.

If the US had a 20mm cannon at the time, they would surely have used it on their fighters en masse, just like the rest of the world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but I disagree about ineffective. A quick 2 second burst and that plane (any plane) is crippled. Then it is just buzzard meat. Except for the sniper AI gunners protecting the bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I am not muistaken what Kwaitos is saying is that the 50s appear to be porked on the 51 when compared to other planes.. but not because of the 50s themselves but because of the stability issue. The 50s themselves are not bad.... when they hit.

ElAurens
09-17-2007, 04:45 PM
That was my take as well Bearcat.

As someone posted earlier it's as if the stability and trim sections of the in game P51's code have been swapped with the in game P40.

When I was at the thunder Over Michigan airshow this summer I spoke at length with the pilot of the P40E that was there. I'm sorry but I forget the man's name. (I'm terrible with names). Turns out he owns a P51D as well and his son flies that. When I asked him why he flies the Hawk 87 instead of the Mustang he said it is because it is more fun to fly, more lively at the controls and more eager to maneuver, at the cost of lots of workload dealing with trim all the time. He said the Mustang is far easier to fly, is far more stable and does not take the constant trimming of the P40 in order to fly well.

*Slips into Nomex suit waiting for the flames...*

Xiolablu3
09-17-2007, 04:55 PM
Ahhh Apologies - I DID misunderstand.

Its wierd however, I dont see any different between the American 50cal planes. in the p0ower of their 50 cal gun. I know that the P51 is more unstable than the others, so thats probably why less bullets hit and hence the guns seem less powerfull.

I am still unsure about the stability of the P51. I'm with you guys and tend to think that tghe instability could do with toning down a little..The COrsair and P51 seem to be the only planes which wobble about while trying to aim. Are they heavier than the rest of the fighters?

I guess we can say that for the size of its engine, the P51 is heavy for a fighter - would this lead to instabilty? The Jug and the Tempest are heavier, I believe, but these have massive heavy engines compared to the Merlin. Would this make a difference to instability? The Tempest is a little unstable, but the Jug is as steady as a rock.

If anyone can answer this question I would be most appreciative. :-

Why should the Corair and the p51 be more 'wobbly' and unstable in flight and as gun platforms than all other fighters in the sim? Good gun platforms and stable flyers for me are the Hurricane, the Wildcat, the La5, The P38, The Mosquito, The Ki84, the Bf109.

What differs on these planes compared to the P51 and Corsair (and even Spitfire is not a great gun platform - a bit wobbly) to make them stable on the controls, and good gun platforms?

As I dont have an excplanation, I am for toning down the Mustangs instability a little unless I find/read something which proves otherwise. Eric Brown lists it in one of his top5 WW2 fighters, and I cannot think he would do that if it was as unstable as it is in the game.

ElAurens
09-17-2007, 05:07 PM
Just some basic physics here, but typically a heavier vehicle is more stable than a lighter one. Extra 500 vs. DC3 for (an extreme) example.

I suspect that the sim is probably "over patched" at this point in time. As we all know sometimes a patch fixes one thing but has unexpected results in other areas. It may help to explain the instability of some aircraft and not others.

I really don't buy into the anti American conspiracy espoused by some here. Many other planes are not performing to their historical limits either. The Hurri for example, or the A6M2.

faustnik
09-17-2007, 05:12 PM
Here's an interesting opinion relating to this subject that is found in Osprey's new "P-51 Mustang vs Fw190 book by Martin Brown:

Louis Wait, Administrative Test Pilot for North American concerning the conversion from Allison to Merlin on the P-51:

The new, heavier, more powerful Packard-built Rolls-Royce engine made necessary a heavier radiator for proper cooling and a heavier four-blade wide-chord propeller to utilize the increased power at altitude. The P-51B/C was an overloaded aeroplane since the combat weight was increased from 8,000lb to slightly over 9,000lb. As later results demonstrated, the decrease in "g" factor alone was not a serious complication. However, the increased engine power and four-blade propeller caused a marked decrease in directional stability.

Whereas the pilot had to use increasing rudder pressure for increasing sideslip or yaw angles, the rudder forces now tended to decrease at yaw angles greater than 100 degrees. If the pilot did not apply sufficient opposite rudder, the aeroplane tended to increase the skid or sideslip all by itself, eventually resulting in an unintentional snap roll or entry in a spin.

VW-IceFire
09-17-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
...If the pilot did not apply sufficient opposite rudder, the aeroplane tended to increase the skid or sideslip all by itself, eventually resulting in an unintentional snap roll or entry in a spin.
You know that sounds like most of my problems with the Mustang. Till I started correcting with rudder and watching the ball a bit more.

SeaFireLIV
09-17-2007, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:


I really don't buy into the anti American conspiracy espoused by some here. Many other planes are not performing to their historical limits either. The Hurri for example, or the A6M2.

The anti-american talk is a phenomena that pops up from time to time and often makes me chuckle. I can only compare it to 2000 years ago when the Romans might have said to a foreigner, "You`re anti-Roman."

No where else do I hear this. No one says, "You`re anti-German!` or "Anti-english." or "Anti- Hawaiian!"

Because of this I`m supposed to suddenly agree that American planes are porked as part of an anti American foreign conspiracy?

I don`t even know what it`s really supposed to mean. In the context of IL2 and aircraft comparisons it`s ridiculous.

Viper2005_
09-17-2007, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Whereas the pilot had to use increasing rudder pressure for increasing sideslip or yaw angles, the rudder forces now tended to decrease at yaw angles greater than <span class="ev_code_red">100 degrees</span>. If the pilot did not apply sufficient opposite rudder, the aeroplane tended to increase the skid or sideslip all by itself, eventually resulting in an unintentional snap roll or entry in a spin.

Surely a typographical error; at 100 degrees of sideslip rudder overbalance would be the least of your worries! 10 degrees would be a more sensible number...

faustnik
09-17-2007, 05:23 PM
Viper,

I checked it, and the text says 100 degress. So, at least it wasn't my typo...this time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
09-17-2007, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I don`t even know what it`s really supposed to mean. In the context of IL2 and aircraft comparisons it`s ridiculous.

Easy.The Americans are somehow comfortable with the thought that everyone hates them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
09-17-2007, 05:32 PM
At 100degs of sideslip you're actually flying backwards and quite a lot sidewards.

I'm quite sure it's a typo in the text.
Even 10 degs of sideslip is quite a bit.

Xiolablu3
09-17-2007, 05:38 PM
What we really need is a pilot who has flown a P51 to try out the sim and give his comments on the P51 model.

I am sure Oleg has had P51 pilots flying the game before to test the model. But it would be nice to get confirmation of that.

Of course it would be best to have a non-American, with no 'feelings' towards the Mustang, but to be honest anyone is better than noone!

Waldo.Pepper
09-17-2007, 05:45 PM
If the pilot did not apply sufficient opposite rudder, the aeroplane tended to increase the skid or sideslip all by itself, eventually resulting in an unintentional snap roll or entry in a spin.

Nice quote!

When I was trying to suggest that the P-51 was more of a handful than the P-40 (at the extremes of the flight envelope!) this is along the lines of the comments that I had selected from AHT to illustrate this feature.

I may have to buy this Damn book after all!

Thanks Faust!

carguy_
09-17-2007, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Of course it would be best to have a non-American, with no 'feelings' towards the Mustang, but to be honest anyone is better than noone!

How about an account of a person that tested them all ?

Waldo.Pepper
09-17-2007, 05:53 PM
Time for a mini rant I think!

--

There is NO perfect source of information.

Pilot Testimony: is flawed like all witness testimony. The memories and impressions will be subject to all the frailties of the human mind right away, as well as degradation over time.

Captured Aircraft Evaluation: is flawed for at least two very important reasons.

1. The aircraft is ALMOST CERTAINLY to not be in fighting trim. It will be damaged, or running on poor quality fuel, or repaired by people who don't know the machine with bodged parts.

and more importantly

2. The pilot flying it will be GREATLY unfamiliar with it, have GREATLY reduced confidence in it, and consequently will NOT be able to get any better than mediocre performance from it.

=====

We are all trapped in a hell of our own creation. Even those in the industry are also trapped without a solid method of evaluating a planes performance. (this is certainly true in the 40/50's.)

I think this is PROVEN by the methodology adopted by the fighter conference that is used as source material in America's Hundred Thousand. They surveyed pilots and asked their OPINION - because they were groping for a reliable methodology to find out which plane the pilots THOUGHT or FELT were the best. There was no better method. Those OPINIONS that were divergent were discarded and an impression evolved.

Those impressions and whatever data survives a similar weeding out process is all that we have to go on.

Those who seize on even the most tenuous scrap of information which supports their own ill informed opinion do harm to the community, but in my own ill informed opinion do even greater harm to their reputation and the cause (axe they are grinding) that they aspire to support.

I feel better!

fordfan25
09-17-2007, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I don`t even know what it`s really supposed to mean. In the context of IL2 and aircraft comparisons it`s ridiculous.

Easy.The Americans are somehow comfortable with the thought that everyone hates them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>of course some of use dont care http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jermin122
09-17-2007, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Wow now this is very funny really, in the whole footage(which I saw many times before) there is not one single sustained 360 deg. turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The last sequence where FW190A is being chased very low is closest, not quite the stuff but let's assume it is, even then you can see that the P51 couldn't get an angle on a FW190A, he fired and scored hits not before FW straitened out.
Since I can gain on a FW190A in game in a turn easily, this footage proves P51 in game has overmodelled turn capatibilities http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Bump!

SeaFireLIV
09-17-2007, 07:20 PM
The problem is in bias.

It`s extremely difficult to get someone come on this forum and say `I tested X plane and the results are this compared to this.` Without any bias, without any wishing their fave plane was ubered.

It`s extremely rare to see someone come and say, `I Think my fave X plane is too good, please reduce its goodness`.

(Actually, when the FB Hurricane first came out a few of us did say that the Hurricane turned too well, I know it did. The thing felt like it was on anti-gravity. This has been reduced and it feels much better now. But it`s a rare thing.)

Usually if anyone wants a plane ability reduced, it`s from the opposing camp, not the camp that usually uses the plane. Sometimes it`s good as it helpe the I16 to be more realistic, but even then Oleg has to be careful, because the Luftboys would carry on until it exploded whenever the ignition key was pressed!

How nice it would be if people could be completely fair and say "My fave plane is porked in its ability to climb, but it`s too uber in its abitity to turn. please fix, Oleg!"

But a lot of these posters do not know the word non-bias, only `fixing` it to be `uber` and if it becomes too `uber`, well, we`ll just not say anything....

Funny how SO MANY are EXPERT in how GOOD their plane should be, but not so expert in how BAD it may be.

ah... in a perfect world...

ElAurens
09-17-2007, 07:22 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

R_Target
09-17-2007, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
watch this video of colour guncams from a P51 attacking Japanese bombers.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=La3qJ4sptuE&mode=related&search=%5C


This footage has been attributed to almost every plane the Americans fielded. Much of it is Hellcat guncamera footage and is lifted from The Fighting Lady (http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/fightinglady.html) (1944).


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
These videos are EXTREMELY good source for historians on the effect of the 50cal

Can you name some of these historians?

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-17-2007, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Time for a mini rant I think!

--

There is NO perfect source of information.

Pilot Testimony: is flawed like all witness testimony. The memories and impressions will be subject to all the frailties of the human mind right away, as well as degradation over time.

Captured Aircraft Evaluation: is flawed for at least two very important reasons.

1. The aircraft is ALMOST CERTAINLY to not be in fighting trim. It will be damaged, or running on poor quality fuel, or repaired by people who don't know the machine with bodged parts.

and more importantly

2. The pilot flying it will be GREATLY unfamiliar with it, have GREATLY reduced confidence in it, and consequently will NOT be able to get any better than mediocre performance from it.

=====

We are all trapped in a hell of our own creation. Even those in the industry are also trapped without a solid method of evaluating a planes performance. (this is certainly true in the 40/50's.)

I think this is PROVEN by the methodology adopted by the fighter conference that is used as source material in America's Hundred Thousand. They surveyed pilots and asked their OPINION - because they were groping for a reliable methodology to find out which plane the pilots THOUGHT or FELT were the best. There was no better method. Those OPINIONS that were divergent were discarded and an impression evolved.

Those impressions and whatever data survives a similar weeding out process is all that we have to go on.

Those who seize on even the most tenuous scrap of information which supports their own ill informed opinion do harm to the community, but in my own ill informed opinion do even greater harm to their reputation and the cause (axe they are grinding) that they aspire to support.

I feel better!

I think I uttered the same sentiments in this and some other threads with the same subject matter. I obviously agree with you 100% but I know those who are guilty of such statements will ignore mine or your post and carry on with what hey have been doing since 2001.

S!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-17-2007, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I don`t even know what it`s really supposed to mean. In the context of IL2 and aircraft comparisons it`s ridiculous.

Easy.The Americans are somehow comfortable with the thought that everyone hates them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>of course some of use dont care http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly fordfan. If people wish to create an opinion of an entire population of a country because of a few outspoken goof balls that their own respective country do not take serious or what their government does then so be it. It only shows their ignorance and a narrow minded way of thinking. I feel the same towards my own countrymen who cast similar generalizations towards the people of other countries. Who needs them is my opinion.

S!

Von_Rat
09-17-2007, 08:01 PM
The anti-american talk is a phenomena that pops up from time to time and often makes me chuckle. I can only compare it to 2000 years ago when the Romans might have said to a foreigner, "You`re anti-Roman."

No where else do I hear this. No one says, "You`re anti-German!` or "Anti-english." or "Anti- Hawaiian!"


i dont think theres any anti american bias per se in the game.


on these forums there sure the heck is.

of course theres anti euro bias too, as we witnessed earlier in this thread.

Bearcat99
09-17-2007, 09:07 PM
Is it just me or does the WEP key not work in the 51. It works fine for me in the Spit.. I press W and I get WEP.. but in the 51 the only way I can get WEP is to go to 100% throttle. Or is that normal...

mbfRoy
09-18-2007, 01:08 AM
It's the same for all the american fighters with WEP

M_Gunz
09-18-2007, 04:03 AM
Instability, nose bob, whatever have been with us all along. The more torque and the more
sensitive the stick on any model the more it has to be trimmed proper for whatever speed
you have it. It's simple, when you are out of trim you are fighting the natural tendency
for the plane to fly at trim attitude with stick correction and **we have no feel of the
@#$% stick**.
When you have stick center sensitivity values that are very low it is worse. Try setting
the left sliders starting at 40 or 50 and see the difference if you don't ham-hand the stick.

P-51 has very sensitive elevator and loads of torque to weight, both.

Sturm_Williger
09-18-2007, 04:20 AM
Jeez, why does it always have to be anti-american/anti-P51/anti-whatever ?

It was said very well in another of these threads about the P51...
to whit -

Now onto bias...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
There is bias in this game and always will be. Jugs don't take a 30 cal round to the motor and just freeze up. The P38 was a very fast aircraft, 50 cals ripped apart planes, and the P39/63 was barely good enough to be a trainer.

And there is a bar problem in Fw-190, a single shot that can take out rudder/elevator/aeleron in the 190, an elevator of reduced efectiveness in 109's, and oil splashes on Hien's windscreens when there could not have been,

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I think you are citing important evidence of flaws. Not bias. </span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of these things will be fixed due to lack of time and resources on the part of Maddox Games.

Brain32
09-18-2007, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Wow now this is very funny really, in the whole footage(which I saw many times before) there is not one single sustained 360 deg. turn http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The last sequence where FW190A is being chased very low is closest, not quite the stuff but let's assume it is, even then you can see that the P51 couldn't get an angle on a FW190A, he fired and scored hits not before FW straitened out.
Since I can gain on a FW190A in game in a turn easily, this footage proves P51 in game has overmodelled turn capatibilities http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Bump! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope everybody understands that my last remark was a sarcastic joke on account of making gospel conclusions based on guncamera clips http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
09-18-2007, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I don`t even know what it`s really supposed to mean. In the context of IL2 and aircraft comparisons it`s ridiculous.

Easy.The Americans are somehow comfortable with the thought that everyone hates them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>of course some of use dont care http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We, teh €, love you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
09-18-2007, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Is it just me or does the WEP key not work in the 51. It works fine for me in the Spit.. I press W and I get WEP.. but in the 51 the only way I can get WEP is to go to 100% throttle. Or is that normal... Bearcat I think it works as in the Russian aircraft, Lavochkins.
If you go above 100% engine automatically produces military & combat power output, without the need to specially turn it on.

In 109G when I manually turn on the WEP (MW50) it works only when I exceed 100% throttle (methanol-water mix is injected).

Xiolablu3
09-18-2007, 06:33 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 Xiolablu3:
watch this video of colour guncams from a P51 attacking Japanese bombers.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=La3qJ4sptuE&mode=related&search=%5C


This footage has been attributed to almost every plane the Americans fielded. Much of it is Hellcat guncamera footage and is lifted from The Fighting Lady (http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/filmnotes/fightinglady.html) (1944).


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
These videos are EXTREMELY good source for historians on the effect of the 50cal

Can you name some of these historians? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are all amateur historians here as we are interested inhistory. Many bad, many good.

Whatever plane it is from, it is certainly 50 cals all the way through the clips, which is what matters.

ploughman
09-18-2007, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Is it just me or does the WEP key not work in the 51. It works fine for me in the Spit.. I press W and I get WEP.. but in the 51 the only way I can get WEP is to go to 100% throttle. Or is that normal...

I'm not sure but I think the Spit throttle isn't modelled correctly. On a Spit (I think) you push the throttle through a gate to boost the engine (there would have been a wire there that, if broken, indicated that the engine had been run at high boost). I'm guessing (some one who knows migh confirm this) that in reality the spit throttle should be more like the throttle on the p-51 (makes sense, same power plant) going past 100% is using boost on the motor.

JG53Frankyboy
09-18-2007, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Is it just me or does the WEP key not work in the 51. It works fine for me in the Spit.. I press W and I get WEP.. but in the 51 the only way I can get WEP is to go to 100% throttle. Or is that normal...

I'm not sure but I think the Spit throttle isn't modelled correctly. On a Spit (I think) you push the throttle through a gate to boost the engine (there would have been a wire there that, if broken, indicated that the engine had been run at high boost). I'm guessing (some one who knows migh confirm this) that in reality the spit throttle should be more like the throttle on the p-51 (makes sense, same power plant) going past 100% is using boost on the motor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, the CEM in all the planes are not programmed to the same standards i think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

SeaFireLIV
09-18-2007, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Is it just me or does the WEP key not work in the 51. It works fine for me in the Spit.. I press W and I get WEP.. but in the 51 the only way I can get WEP is to go to 100% throttle. Or is that normal...

I'm not sure but I think the Spit throttle isn't modelled correctly. On a Spit (I think) you push the throttle through a gate to boost the engine (there would have been a wire there that, if broken, indicated that the engine had been run at high boost). I'm guessing (some one who knows migh confirm this) that in reality the spit throttle should be more like the throttle on the p-51 (makes sense, same power plant) going past 100% is using boost on the motor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, that`s the first British Spit complaint I`ve heard in a looong time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

R_Target
09-18-2007, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
We are all amateur historians here as we are interested inhistory.

Ah, I see. But you didn't qualify your earlier post as such. I guess I could agree that guncam is an extremely good source for amateur historians.


Whatever plane it is from, it is certainly 50 cals all the way through the clips, which is what matters.

Like I said, mostly F6F footage from 1944, so they're very likely .50 cal. Whether or not that matters is open to debate. Guncams have plenty of unknown variables.


Many bad, many good.

No doubt.

Viper2005_
09-19-2007, 08:03 AM
I found a rather interesting video series on youtube.

Of course, this aeroplane isn't in a 100% representative condition, so the speeds might not be quite the same in IL2, but I would imagine that the buffet and wing-drop should be similar...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0vapvp_YvSc
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8OqlP873z1w
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xpaGwxdvs74

Because we know that it's got 180 gallons at the start of the video it should be possible to make a reasonably decent estimate of weight & balance. Attempts may then be made to replicate the flight in IL2.

Yes, I'm green with envy too!

Xiolablu3
09-19-2007, 08:34 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 Xiolablu3:
We are all amateur historians here as we are interested inhistory.

Ah, I see. But you didn't qualify your earlier post as such. I guess I could agree that guncam is an extremely good source for amateur historians.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For ALL historians..

Just think about it...

There are very very few colour guncams around from WW2, but lots and lots of black and white ones.

As such, the 'best' and 'most explosive' black and white guncams are seen the most, and shown the most. And so its easy to think that the 50's ALWAYS had this explosive effect on planes, if you just watch those.

However when it comes to colour guncams, there are so few around, that we get a much more 'everyday' show of what the effect of the 50 cal was, rather than 'the pick of the crop' as with the thousands of black and white guncams which are around.

The MOST DRAMATIC black and white ones are seen the most, because there are so many to pick from. the clour guncams are seen purely because they are colour/so rare. Therefore the colour guncams are a much better source for the 'everday' effect of the 50 cal.

Its only common sense...

Viper2005_
09-19-2007, 09:28 AM
On the subject of trim changes:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fK0AGh37rpg

ElAurens
09-19-2007, 10:52 AM
The stall was interesting.

the aircrft did not go flopping about and enter a flat spin like in game.

Huh, imagaine that?

IFly_1968
09-19-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The stall was interesting.

the aircrft did not go flopping about and enter a flat spin like in game.

Huh, imagaine that?

I think that there have been to many modifications done to that aircraft to use that as an indication of the stall characteristics.

SeaFireLIV
09-19-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The stall was interesting.

the aircrft did not go flopping about and enter a flat spin like in game.

Huh, imagaine that?

i`m no expert, but even i saw that that was a controlled stall. the pilot never allowed it to become any more than that. He even said it was a non-event.

Now if the pilot really did allow it to go into a really dangerous stall with flat spin then we`d see it. but he`s not that dumb to risk such a dangerous manouever.

Come on, guys, you gotta be a bit smarter than this when watching cams like this.

Flight_boy1990
09-19-2007, 11:16 AM
*** i posted to another Ponye discution...:

LOL...Ooo MY GOD!!!!I'm a blue pilot in this game,and when i readed this i was about to hang my self on my mouse!!!!!You guys don't have shame?!Can't you see?The A-3 in the tests don't have a WEP!So if the brits which have done these tests would have to wrote something much more different when testing an FW-190 Anton-9 or Dora-9 with WEP-ON+100% prop.pitch .And for the G-6,don't you ever heared guys that the Trop versions were a bit slower?And stop crying for your Ponyes(or Mustangs),when they fought with the ME-109s,the 109s were with heavy cannons!Gondolas under the wings+an MK.108 nose cannon+the Fuel,which means that they had much than worst performance when dog.fighting!(lets not talk about the drop tank that the G-6 was able to carry with all those cannons).Try to overturn an Ponye with such an ornament in Me-109 and even to catch him in the game.
And what is all about?!To tune down the turn performence of the Me-109?!Ok,so it'll be more realistic when fighting with the western allies,but what about when fighting the Ivans in the East?We can't overturn them now,and when we'll get an Me-109 with tuned down turn and speed performance in the next patch...we can't overturn them now,so what if we get 109s with much more tuned down charasteristics,and we face an LA-5 FN,OMG it'll be better to shoot myself with my LUGER in the 109s cockpit!
/Just wonna tell ya guys,that german pilots have tested captured LA-5F,and the pilots said that the ME-109 have better turn performance,i think that everyone here knows this pretty well!/

Now check what 'good' performence your Mustang have against an german 190 without the gondolas:
LOLLLLl that was fun when i watch Mustang gettin' kickes :.Fun starts at 00:23 second:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8Bp-ZTX5U

Jaws2002
09-19-2007, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
*** i posted to another Ponye discution...:

LOL...Ooo MY GOD!!!!I'm a blue pilot in this game,and when i readed this i was about to hang my self on my mouse!!!!!You guys don't have shame?!Can't you see?The A-3 in the tests don't have a WEP!So if the brits which have done these tests would have to wrote something much more different when testing an FW-190 Anton-9 or Dora-9 with WEP-ON+100% prop.pitch .And for the G-6,don't you ever heared guys that the Trop versions were a bit slower?And stop crying for your Ponyes(or Mustangs),when they fought with the ME-109s,the 109s were with heavy cannons!Gondolas under the wings+an MK.108 nose cannon+the Fuel,which means that they had much than worst performance when dog.fighting!(lets not talk about the drop tank that the G-6 was able to carry with all those cannons).Try to overturn an Ponye with such an ornament in Me-109 and even to catch him in the game.
And what is all about?!To tune down the turn performence of the Me-109?!Ok,so it'll be more realistic when fighting with the western allies,but what about when fighting the Ivans in the East?We can't overturn them now,and when we'll get an Me-109 with tuned down turn and speed performance in the next patch...we can't overturn them now,so what if we get 109s with much more tuned down charasteristics,and we face an LA-5 FN,OMG it'll be better to shoot myself with my LUGER in the 109s cockpit!
/Just wonna tell ya guys,that german pilots have tested captured LA-5F,and the pilots said that the ME-109 have better turn performance,i think that everyone here knows this pretty well!/

Now check what 'good' performence your Mustang have against an german 190 without the gondolas:
LOLLLLl that was fun when i watch Mustang gettin' kickes :.Fun starts at 00:23 second:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8Bp-ZTX5U

I think you should start flying the other guy's planes for a change so you'll know better what you are talking about.

With your reply here it shows clearly that you don't know how the P-51 is flying in this game and all you do is show that you are a "Lufwhiner".

People here talk about the P-51 flying in the GAME and if you don't fly it you are not really an expert in telling us if it should be fixed or not.

You want to know what you are talking about? Go online and fly pony for a week or two, then come back and tell us.

Right now you are nothing but a whiner like the guy that started this tread.


EDIT.

This is from someone that flew German planes in this game for over five years.

Flight_boy1990
09-19-2007, 11:44 AM
HEy dude,i'm not a whiner,OK?!I flew the ponye manytimes!The ponywhiners here want to get an handling in the Mustang as the ingame Polikarpov:Ishak-16.So it's the same when i'll get shotdown in FW-190 when i'm trying to overturn the Rata.The FW-190,P-51 and ME-109 have the most important thing:THE SPEED.USe it guys.Fly your ponyes at 7k and you'll not going to have any problems.Use only energy vertical fight.Not horizontal.And the problem's gonna be solved.
BTW here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8Bp-ZTX5U ,you can see that we can clearly stay on the Thunderbolts tail in hard deffensive brake,so that means that FW-190 is better than P-47 in the overturning,but the blue pilots here(including me) keep their mouth shut,We play with that,what Mr.Olegs team gave to us to fly with,the planes characteristics,etc.
We're not whining!

ps:And Jaws,read very well dude,i haven't wrote 1k messages here about the Mustang!I have only 2 posts in this Topic.

faustnik
09-19-2007, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
The ponywhiners here want to get an handling in the Mustang as the ingame Polikarpov:Ishak-16.

Some maybe, but, I think most here are discusing the instability and heavy trim change requirements of the P-51 in PF. That sounds like a great question to me.

I guess the way this thread was started, it's hard to expect serious replies.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-19-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
*** i posted to another Ponye discution...:

LOL...Ooo MY GOD!!!!I'm a blue pilot in this game,and when i readed this i was about to hang my self on my mouse!!!!!You guys don't have shame?!Can't you see?The A-3 in the tests don't have a WEP!So if the brits which have done these tests would have to wrote something much more different when testing an FW-190 Anton-9 or Dora-9 with WEP-ON+100% prop.pitch .And for the G-6,don't you ever heared guys that the Trop versions were a bit slower?And stop crying for your Ponyes(or Mustangs),when they fought with the ME-109s,the 109s were with heavy cannons!Gondolas under the wings+an MK.108 nose cannon+the Fuel,which means that they had much than worst performance when dog.fighting!(lets not talk about the drop tank that the G-6 was able to carry with all those cannons).Try to overturn an Ponye with such an ornament in Me-109 and even to catch him in the game.
And what is all about?!To tune down the turn performence of the Me-109?!Ok,so it'll be more realistic when fighting with the western allies,but what about when fighting the Ivans in the East?We can't overturn them now,and when we'll get an Me-109 with tuned down turn and speed performance in the next patch...we can't overturn them now,so what if we get 109s with much more tuned down charasteristics,and we face an LA-5 FN,OMG it'll be better to shoot myself with my LUGER in the 109s cockpit!
/Just wonna tell ya guys,that german pilots have tested captured LA-5F,and the pilots said that the ME-109 have better turn performance,i think that everyone here knows this pretty well!/

Now check what 'good' performence your Mustang have against an german 190 without the gondolas:
LOLLLLl that was fun when i watch Mustang gettin' kickes :.Fun starts at 00:23 second:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8Bp-ZTX5U

I think you should start flying the other guy's planes for a change so you'll know better what you are talking about.

With your reply here it shows clearly that you don't know how the P-51 is flying in this game and all you do is show that you are a "Lufwhiner".

People here talk about the P-51 flying in the GAME and if you don't fly it you are not really an expert in telling us if it should be fixed or not.

You want to know what you are talking about? Go online and fly pony for a week or two, then come back and tell us.

Right now you are nothing but a whiner like the guy that started this tread.


EDIT.

This is from someone that flew German planes in this game for over five years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He could also try reading the entire thread.

Vipez-
09-19-2007, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
*** i posted to another Ponye discution...:

LOL...Ooo MY GOD!!!!I'm a blue pilot in this game,and when i readed this i was about to hang my self on my mouse!!!!!You guys don't have shame?!Can't you see?The A-3 in the tests don't have a WEP!So if the brits which have done these tests would have to wrote something much more different when testing an FW-190 Anton-9 or Dora-9 with WEP-ON+100% prop.pitch .And for the G-6,don't you ever heared guys that the Trop versions were a bit slower?And stop crying for your Ponyes(or Mustangs),when they fought with the ME-109s,the 109s were with heavy cannons!Gondolas under the wings+an MK.108 nose cannon+the Fuel,which means that they had much than worst performance when dog.fighting!(lets not talk about the drop tank that the G-6 was able to carry with all those cannons).Try to overturn an Ponye with such an ornament in Me-109 and even to catch him in the game.
And what is all about?!To tune down the turn performence of the Me-109?!Ok,so it'll be more realistic when fighting with the western allies,but what about when fighting the Ivans in the East?We can't overturn them now,and when we'll get an Me-109 with tuned down turn and speed performance in the next patch...we can't overturn them now,so what if we get 109s with much more tuned down charasteristics,and we face an LA-5 FN,OMG it'll be better to shoot myself with my LUGER in the 109s cockpit!
/Just wonna tell ya guys,that german pilots have tested captured LA-5F,and the pilots said that the ME-109 have better turn performance,i think that everyone here knows this pretty well!/

Now check what 'good' performence your Mustang have against an german 190 without the gondolas:
LOLLLLl that was fun when i watch Mustang gettin' kickes :.Fun starts at 00:23 second:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm8Bp-ZTX5U

I think you should start flying the other guy's planes for a change so you'll know better what you are talking about.

With your reply here it shows clearly that you don't know how the P-51 is flying in this game and all you do is show that you are a "Lufwhiner".

People here talk about the P-51 flying in the GAME and if you don't fly it you are not really an expert in telling us if it should be fixed or not.

You want to know what you are talking about? Go online and fly pony for a week or two, then come back and tell us.

Right now you are nothing but a whiner like the guy that started this tread.


EDIT.

This is from someone that flew German planes in this game for over five years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He could also try reading the entire thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or try turn 18 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Von_Rat
09-19-2007, 01:09 PM
or 13 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif


and im a long time blue flyer myself.

Viper2005_
09-19-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The stall was interesting.

the aircrft did not go flopping about and enter a flat spin like in game.

Huh, imagaine that?

i`m no expert, but even i saw that that was a controlled stall. the pilot never allowed it to become any more than that. He even said it was a non-event.

Now if the pilot really did allow it to go into a really dangerous stall with flat spin then we`d see it. but he`s not that dumb to risk such a dangerous manouever.

Come on, guys, you gotta be a bit smarter than this when watching cams like this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMO the real value of the video is that it allows you to calibrate your expectations.

The stall was approached very gradually in level, coordinated flight.

At the break the wing drop is rather abrupt, despite the fact that considerable care is being taken to keep the ball in the middle, and the ailerons are carefully held neutral. If the stall took place with sideslip, or if injudicious use was made of the ailerons it's easy to see how things could be considerably worse.

This video shows a slightly more developed departure:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eoUF2MfDSiI

Having seen these videos, it is perhaps rather easier to interpret written sources on the subject of the Mustang's stall.



The stalling characteristics of the Mk. III were mild without fuel in the fuselage tank, with slight tail buffeting at some 3-4 mph before the actual all-up stall at 90 mph when the right wing dropped gently. The all-down stall occurred at 75 mph. With full fuselage tank there was no buffet stall warning, but a series of stick reversals just before the wing fell sharply.

The Mk. IV with full fuselage tank stalled at 105 mph (all up) and 96 mph (all down). In high speed stalls either wing could drop very rapidly, preceded by pronounced juddering.

Eric Brown, Wings of the Weird & Wonderful Volume 2.

Note that 70 knots is only 80.6 mph, the low stall speed being indicative of the fact that Crazy Horse is rather lighter than a combat-ready Mustang would have been in WWII. My best guess is about 7200 lb based upon this data sheet:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-III-ads-7.jpg

(I consider Mk. III weights and speeds to be more sensible since AFAIK there is no rear tank in the TF-51D, and the CoG implications of the rear tank are likely responsible for the high stall speed Brown cites for the loaded Mk. IV)

Anyway, though this reduced speed implies a lower Reynolds number, it is unlikely that this would dramatically affect the stall behaviour of the wing since any increased tendency to misbehave would impact upon the all-down stall of the aircraft at combat weight, and anyway the Civilian regulators would be disinclined to allow the aeroplane to be operated in a manner which made its stall any worse than in military Service.

It seems sensible to conclude therefore that the wing-drop seen in this video, which seems pretty violent to my eyes, corresponds to what Eric Brown considers to be "mild" behaviour. It therefore follows that one should expect the aeroplane to really bite in accelerated stalls, even with ailerons neutral and the ball in the middle.

Not only can we attempt to replicate the video in IL2 in order to compare & contrast, but having "calibrated" our interpretation of Eric Brown's descriptions of aircraft handling we may also tender somewhat better informed speculation as to the handling characteristics of the other aeroplanes in the game.

WOLFMondo
09-19-2007, 01:14 PM
Viper, since your using Eric Brown as a guide, maybe his tests might be repeated in IL2...but using the stick settings he stated as being more like the real thing?

Viper2005_
09-19-2007, 01:36 PM
I am of the opinion that the "Eric Brown Stick Settings" were created in response to the small stick-top deflection and stick forces associated with the average PC joystick, with the intention of making general flying somewhere in the middle o the envelope "feel" right.

However, I don't think that the limited deflections they impose are likely to be compatible with stall testing, which must by defintion take place at the edge of the envelope.

This is particularly important given the game's trimming system which is optimised to frustrate online cheating.

Feel free to experiment; at the end of the day everybody needs to make their own mind up about this stuff, and seeing how the performance of the aeroplane compares with the available data on your machine using your settings is a vital part of that process.

Further to Eric Brown's quote, here are the pilot's notes for both the Mustang III and Mustang IV. The excellent agreement with Eric Brown's quote is unsurprising as he probably wrote the notes...

http://www.tailwheel.nl/downloads/p51rafsmall.pdf
http://www.tailwheel.nl/downloads/p51rcafsmall.pdf

Viper2005_
09-19-2007, 02:05 PM
The American Pilot's notes are rather more extensive, and are even in colour! But then they would be wouldn't they... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.tailwheel.nl/downloads/p51trainingmanualsmall.pdf