PDA

View Full Version : P-51 all ver. and breaking off wings + .50 cal - Oleg, we need some explanations.



Peacemaker_PL
03-04-2006, 06:39 PM
Hi.
I wanna ask You, Oleg - why P-51 loosing wings on pull-up or turn over 640 km/h ? Ane reasonable explanation ? Sources ? Tests ? Provements ? Or this is only Your fantasy ?

Same about P-51 gunpower. Why its soooo weak ???
As i remember P-51 was one of the famous WWII fighter (one of... not only one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and i don't think it's beacouse it looks pretty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So, when You ballance it ?

And last Q.

Why P-51 is so sensitive on "one bullet hit" ?
One bullet and engine stop, one bullet and You loosing controls, one bullet You loosing machine guns... etc, etc...

greetings and waiting for answers...

FAe_Peacemaker.

SkyChimp
03-04-2006, 06:42 PM
He did it solely to piss you off. He doesn't want your business. And once you get rid of the game out of disgust, he'll fix it for the rest of us.

carguy_
03-04-2006, 07:19 PM
The P51 is a metaphore of Oleg`s opinion about P51 fanbois.

DaimonSyrius
03-04-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Peacemaker_PL:
Hi.
I wanna ask You, Oleg - why P-51 loosing wings on pull-up or turn over 640 km/h ? Ane reasonable explanation ? Sources ? Tests ? Provements ? Or this is only Your fantasy ?

This is getting tiring... Correction, it got past tiring quite some time ago.

Tell us first why are you whining so much about your inability to:
-Fly the P51
-Read recent threads here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8121067614) (originally on ORR, later moved to GD because of excessive bovine droppings content)

Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Well Oleg, show us where this is realistic?
Well sergio, show us where your moaning and whining isn't childish and puerile.

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

v.4.04 P51-Over700 TRK & ntrk (http://www.infonegocio.com/daimon/calaix/P51-Over700-404.zip)
Turning and rolling at >700 km/h, <1000m alt. In the TRK, relevant part is after 2:00 min </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, turning, and rolling, and also pulling up out of a dive, not only at >700km/h, also at >750km/h. Wings are just fine.

And that was only a week ago.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

About your other questions... they seem to be based on similar quality reasonings, so there you are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
To put it in your own words and style, your post is "soooo weak".

Cheers,
S.

FritzGryphon
03-04-2006, 08:29 PM
For the benefit of our newbie friend, I'll repost these things:

1. The wingbreak G load in PF is 15G according to Oleg, or 14G, according to UPDspeed testing. Regardless of plane type, airspeed or altitude. The P-51 is no exception, and is no different from any other plane in wingbreaking.

2. The M2 machine gun has been shown to be roughly 1/3 as effective as a Hispano cannon, on average, over a variety of target planes in tests by at least 3 forum members. This is about 4-5 bullets per cannon shell, which agrees with historical testing.

The number of hits to kill aircraft also agrees with historical testing, except in the case of aircraft with errant damage models.

3. In my own testing, I've found the P-51 engine to easily be one of the least durable engine in the game, along with the Spitfire and P-40.

This is in number of hits to kill via M2, side shots from 10m range. An average of 2-3 hits is required to stop it, or burn it.

As there is no empirical historical data to compare this test to, I can draw no conclusions. The USAF testers should have shot more engines if they wanted future sims to be accurate!

DaimonSyrius
03-04-2006, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
For the benefit of our newbie friend, I'll repost these things:
FritzGryphon,

Have you noticed that Peacemaker_PL registered here a couple of weeks before yourself, and he has been posting in these forums regularly since several months ago?
See a list here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=userposts&u=4221008623&p=2), it's two pages of posts links.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,
S.

FritzGryphon
03-04-2006, 08:55 PM
Nice catch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Then I might be a noob, too. Though, not one that whines about my favorite plane being porked. Which is the P.11c, btw, and yes, it is severely porked!

Really though, I've been around since IL-2. As Fennec_P up until recently. I'd look up my posts, but then I'd get depressed about how much time I've wasted posting here.

And, oh yes, I've got track. Have I ever got track. I've got so much track it'll make your head spin.

DaimonSyrius
03-04-2006, 09:15 PM
FritzGryphon,

It's not about you, of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif My registration date is only slightly earlier, and I wasn't here before.

It's rather about making a request to 1C:Maddox in that know-better-than-the-developer tone. Someone who has been here for at least 9 months, and having even released an IL2 movie last february, as Peacemaker has, should know to substantiate such a request better than just with the hollow "P-51 was one of the famous WWII fighter" line. Not to mention that the wings issue isn't even true, as shown by tracks quoted above.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

BSS_Vidar
03-04-2006, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
2. The M2 machine gun has been shown to be roughly 1/3 as effective as a Hispano cannon, on average, over a variety of target planes in tests by at least 3 forum members. This is about 4-5 bullets per cannon shell, which agrees with historical testing.

Very interesting point, and one that I agree with to a certain extent. However, this is one weapon vs the another on a one to one basis. If you add two more 50's per Hispano cannon, the ratio PER AIRCRAFT comes out to be 1:1 effectiveness in comparison. i.e 2 Hispano's to 6 50 cals.. and should even be a slight advantage on behalf of the P-47 with its 8 50's. This is NOT reflected in this game properly. With that much ammo going down range with the 50's high rate of fire, German aircraft were easily cut to pieces. LW pilots use to call the 47, "The Buzzsaw".

3. In my own testing, I've found the P-51 engine to easily be one of the least durable engine in the game, along with the Spitfire and P-40.

Agreed! The P-51's ONLY "Aqillies Heel" was its engine in real life. That's why they cringed about doing strafing runs with Ponys. The Merline had a glass jaw which a single round could crack. The game reflects this aspect of the P-51's weakness quite nicely.

FritzGryphon
03-04-2006, 10:55 PM
3. In my own testing, I've found the P-51 engine to easily be one of the least durable engine in the game, along with the Spitfire and P-40.

Not true. The P-51's ONLY "Aqillies Heel" was its engine in real life. That's why they cringed about doing strafing runs with Ponys. The Merline had a glass jaw which a single round could crack. The game reflects this aspect of the P-51's weakness quite nicely.

I agree, the P-51 would exhibit the same vulnerability inherent with inline engines of the period.

Though, in PF, they don't appear to be created equal. The P-51 is the worst, then the 109s, then the Yaks and LaGGs.

Under the conditions posted before, the P-51 survives 2-3 side hits, compared with 4-6 for the LaGG-3. The LaGG-3 motor simply stops, whereas the P-51 motor burns, and the aircraft soon explodes.

One would expect them to be more equal. Though, I don't know anything of the design of the Allison engine.

Kocur_
03-05-2006, 02:45 AM
Khem, we dont have Mustangs with Allisons yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I dont have wings breaking when t/o with 25% fuel in P-51D, but 50% makes it far more probable...
Concerning firepower: sorry I dont have track, so belive me or not: cant remember exact numbers of kills and hits, but my average number of hits to kill in P-51D was 26 last night on AFJ dedicated.

msalama
03-05-2006, 02:53 AM
Hey, you should change the heading of this thread to "n00bs breaking off wings & are unable to shoot etc." so that it would reflect reality a bit better. HTH.

slipBall
03-05-2006, 03:26 AM
The weakest design feature in the p-51, was that it was water cooled. One bullet in the cooling system = bye,bye motor.

x__CRASH__x
03-05-2006, 04:01 AM
http://www.war-clouds.com/screenshots/jumostamp.JPG

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jumoschwanzing&defid=0

Grendel-B
03-05-2006, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Peacemaker_PL:
Hi.


P-51 did have historiacl trouble with wings breaking up.
And the engine is very vulnerable. See how didfferent systems are placed. You didn't even need to hit the engine itself, as the engine could be disabled or damaged even hitting the other vulnerable systems. And Merlin itself isn't the toughest engine around either. Powerful, but vulnerable.

As per P51's weapons, get this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1840372273/104-0240865...61?v=glance&n=283155 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1840372273/104-0240865-1149561?v=glance&n=283155)

And then you know a lot more about the weapons of WW2 era. P51 carried group of mediocre machineguns, not a fantastic one hit kill rayguns.

anarchy52
03-05-2006, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Very interesting point, and one that I agree with to a certain extent. However, this is one weapon vs the another on a one to one basis. If you add two more 50's per Hispano cannon, the ratio PER AIRCRAFT comes out to be 1:1 effectiveness in comparison. i.e 2 Hispano's to 6 50 cals.. and should even be a slight advantage on behalf of the P-47 with its 8 50's. This is NOT reflected in this game properly. With that much ammo going down range with the 50's high rate of fire, German aircraft were easily cut to pieces. LW pilots use to call the 47, "The Buzzsaw".


You are taking it too literally. I do not know what criteria they used to compare 12.7 to 20mm to come up with 4-5:1 ratio, but that does not imply that if on average it took 4-5 20mm hits to shoot down a plane then .50 should kill any plane in 16-20 hits. Example: FW-190 was well protected from .50 cal from rear hemisphere, while Zero was very voulnerable.

IRL you had a lot of critical systems that could be knocked out by HMG round: radiators, oil coolers, ammo boxes, hydraulics, controls to name a few. In the game we do not have most of those systems modelled. Radiators for instance are an achilles heel of all liquid cooled engines. One single hit to radiator and when the coolant leaks out engine overheats and dies. No such thing in the game. but it's compensated to an extent by ridiculously high chance of cutting control cables.

People like to talk in hiperbolas ("shreading to pieces") and have a hard time accepting that .50 is *just* a heavy MG and should perform as one. Don't get me wrong, .50 performs worse in game the IRL in some respect ie. not enough things to hit, but it's exgregated in capacity to cause structural damage or affect plane handling (hits on the wings etc).



Agreed! The P-51's ONLY "Aqillies Heel" was its engine in real life. That's why they cringed about doing strafing runs with Ponys. The Merline had a glass jaw which a single round could crack. The game reflects this aspect of the P-51's weakness quite nicely.

Merlin wasn't much different then other inline liquid cooled engines. although inline engines are due to their construction more voulnerable, the real glass jaw as you put it was the radiator - the single point of failure of all engines of that type. That's why the last of the piston driven combat aircrafts were mainly powered by air cooled radials.

P-51's engine is really very weak in game (even weaker then DB60x which is very easy to destroy), especially compared to *soviet* (P-39 falls into this category also) engines some of which are invoulnerable to machine gun hits.

P.S. Buzzsaw, fork tailed devil, whistling death, silent death are products of allied propaganda effort. Real names weren't as flattering (for example Ronson for Shermans)

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/testing/LAGG3s4/LaGG-3_DM.jpg

DaimonSyrius
03-05-2006, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I dont have wings breaking when t/o with 25% fuel in P-51D, but 50% makes it far more probable...
In the tracks I've linked above, the P-51D has 50% fuel, which is what I use regularly, and all high-speed manoeuvering shown is a couple of minutes after starting the flight. I wasn't even flying carefully in those tracks (not perfectly trimmed, for instance), for the purposes of demonstration.

Even when I have sometimes taken 100% fuel, or a bombload, I have not had the impression that P51 wings shed off in any strange way. But of course one doesn't fly the heavily-loaded plane as if all that weight shouldn't matter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Anyway, at 50% fuel load, no bombs loaded under wings, the P51 can be flown quite roughly at airspeeds >700 and >750 km/h, see the tracks above. Nothing like "loosing wings when turning or pulling up at 640km/h" as the initial poster (and other threads' initial posters before) was ...uhmmh... complaining bitterly about. Unless the pilot actually is wanting to rip the wings off on purpose, then maybe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Cheers,
S.

SeaFireLIV
03-05-2006, 04:43 AM
Bah, he brings a bad name to all Peacemakers!

luftluuver
03-05-2006, 05:09 AM
Can someone tell me how many A-36s lost their wings when diving with a pair of 500lb bombs under the wing? Iirc the diving speed of the A-36 was close to 400mph.

Who has stats on the number of P-51s that lost their wings? A ball park number will do. Imo, this is another of those WW2 myths that has got blown out of all proportion with repect to reality.

Chuck_Older
03-05-2006, 05:42 AM
I don't have numbers for that; but I do know the A-36 had dive brakes

The P-51 wing break issue has been gone over and over and over

It happened with earlier D models, and had to do with the ammo boxes. The issue was rapidly addressed in real life

We don't have early model P-51Ds in the sim; a quick visual check will show that the vertical stabiliser fillet is in place, and I think the dash number also indicates a model other than one of the ones that had wing failure issues

JG4_Helofly
03-05-2006, 05:47 AM
The engine in the p 51 was realy a weak point on the mustang. I read that one bullet can shut down the engine because it was very vulnerable and this is reflected in the game. The fuselage is a very good protected area of the p 51 in il2, often I was able to shot more than one mk 108 bullet in it.

And please, read next time a bit more about wwII fighters before you post such a request. There are many beginner who read many stories about there favourit plane and when they fly in il2 with this plane they realise that it's not flying like they expected. After this they think the game is wrong.
You should read a bit about fighters, tactics ... and then you will see that every fighter has strong and weak points. Than you can use the good qualitys of the aircraft and shoot many other planes down.

Good luck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
03-05-2006, 05:58 AM
Peacemaker- I'm not going to jump all over you, I think that's been covered

some quick observations:

1) Oleg has hardly ever posted in this forum in my experience; Before I was 'Chuck_Older' I was here under a different name, and I hardly if ever saw a post from him here even then

2) if you truly want to discuss potential inadequacies about a sim (something that models real life, and has real life data to back it up), it really pays to do your homework and know the issue. I'm sorry to say that you haven't done that. Hey, don't get mad at me, this isn't my doing, it's all you. There is over half a century's worth of info available about the aircraft in question, real data, and you didn't check it out. Lesson learned, I hope?

3) the members here have loooonnggg memories. We remember what's been posted and who posted it often. When Oleg posts about something, we tend to recall it. We also tend to remember other members, and some of us tend to click on a history of posts by some members to see what's what- see replies above

4) the 'Find' function works- most of the time. Doing a search for this info takes about 2 minutes on my dial-up modem. In fact, the other day I searched just for all posts by Oleg. It was amazingly quick even with a 56.6 connection that averages 5.3! You can save yourself some grief by simply searching for the info, in the future

5) some things about the P-51 are wrong. No question. Some other things are right, and players don't know they are right, because they fly the plane incorrectly. Still otehrs assume things about the aircraft and are surprised to learn otherwise. However, NO aircraft in this sim is 100% correct; no plane in any sim is 100% correct.

6) threads with titles like "We need some explanations" tells other members a few things, like the originator is speaking for them (That's what "We" means after all). That's not going to win you friends. Speak for yourself, not me, please. Also, it indicates a defiant, "I've caught you" attitude that typically doesn't fly here, if you can forgive the crappy little play on words. Lastly, it also indicates that you are the expert...we've been over that part


Anyway, chalk this one up to experience and let the pain tell you you're alive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kocur_
03-05-2006, 06:04 AM
The engine in the p 51 was realy a weak point on the mustang. I read that one bullet can shut down the engine because it was very vulnerable and this is reflected in the game.

So tell me, from what you've read, why should P-51s engine be ANY more vulnerable than one in Spitfire? And why should Packard Merlin be noticeably more vulnerable than any other in-line engine? Because Ive read, that not only cooling installations of in-lines made them vulnerable. Also the very way in-line engine is built makes it possible to fail in a critical manner if any of cylinders is damaged. What would happen to radial if the master rod cylinder was damaged - would happen to in-line if any cylinder was (engines experts assist needed).

Chuck_Older
03-05-2006, 06:13 AM
I've built a couple Lycoming aero inlines (horizontal sixes), studied P&W radials, as well as built some big cube V8s for muscle cars. I'm not an expert by any means, I think I'm finally "competent". I think your assesment is fairly on the money

Kocur_
03-05-2006, 06:24 AM
Chuck! I only know about paralell between results of damage to radial's master rod cylinder and any cylinder of typical in-line, but I dont know what those results are exactly. Would you please tell what happenes next in the engine when it is damaged in a above way?

FatBoyHK
03-05-2006, 09:32 AM
If you can rip off your wing easily, I think you are still suffering from the wobbling control bug. v404 solved the problem for me, but like the previous patches, this problem is machine-specific and not everyone have them.... In the meantime you should reduce your control sensitivity as a workaround, and patiently wait for the next patch which MAY solve the problem for you.

about the firepower, in v404 50cals is desynced and you should be able to hit your target easily. effect per round is unchanged... In my experience 10 hits is generally enough to send it limping back home, and 20 hits is generally enough to send it to the ground. It is NOT weak. but of course you can't compare it with MK108. But rememeber it is much easier to hit with 50cals, and I actually prefer 50cals more than any other guns in this game.

about the vulnerable engine.... It is realistic, what would you expect?

Xiolablu3
03-05-2006, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The engine in the p 51 was realy a weak point on the mustang. I read that one bullet can shut down the engine because it was very vulnerable and this is reflected in the game.

So tell me, from what you've read, why should P-51s engine be ANY more vulnerable than one in Spitfire? And why should Packard Merlin be noticeably more vulnerable than any other in-line engine? Because Ive read, that not only cooling installations of in-lines made them vulnerable. Also the very way in-line engine is built makes it possible to fail in a critical manner if any of cylinders is damaged. What would happen to radial if the master rod cylinder was damaged - would happen to in-line if any cylinder was (engines experts assist needed). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isnt from my experience. They are the same. Try attacking a bomber from its 6 in a Spitfire and you will get the same result, one hit can take out the engine, set it on fire or have it smoking badly.

The question should be why can the Lagg3 take around 300 hits to the engine and nothing happens except it only ticks over enought to get you home.

The Spit and Mustang, burn,smoke, and die very quickly.

Luftkillier
03-05-2006, 01:02 PM
I'm not sure what you were expecting from Oleg. I think the original P-47 in forgotten battles lets you know where he stands on these issues. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ColoradoBBQ
03-05-2006, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The question should be why can the Lagg3 take around 300 hits to the engine and nothing happens except it only ticks over enought to get you home.

The Spit and Mustang, burn,smoke, and die very quickly.

The LaGG is one of a few that has the simplest damage model in the game. The DM is from the original IL-2 game and hasn't been updated since then.

Peacemaker_PL
03-05-2006, 01:30 PM
Well, thank you for your replies and explanations.
Most of you known my secret... i'm 8 years old and i'm nOOb... well, also i'm big fan of Sky Capitan... even if i am... so what ?
I'm saying what a lot of sim fans thinking about some weird issues on some planes in this game.

I dont'h have 500+ posts here, so what? I still want to know few more things, that's why i'm asking more exparience fighterpilots.

Maybe i'm not best shooter here, so what? I'm trying to understand what's going on, what's wrong and why? Why nose is shaking like crazy (previous patch) why you slide on runways (previous patch), etc.

Once again thanks for your answers. I appreciate it.

FatBoyHK - yea, i was trying a lot of settings (including yours) and all the time trying to find best for me. After last patch i get back to default settings for all inputs (10 - 100) and drop down sensitivity of my Fighterstick (pitch) and pedals.
Now P-51 is great flyable aircraft, but i'm really angry on those few issues.

thanks once again and see you in the air.

greetings,

FAe_Peacemaker.

p.s.
track recording off-line are not good (in my opinion). i good weird feeling, that planes reactions and gun power are a litlle bit diffrent... but maybe it only me...

Rjel
03-05-2006, 03:41 PM
What does the ammo box have to do with wings breaking off? I've read several different articles stating that the landing gear was re-designed on the D model. The doors were getting sucked out into the slip stream during high speed flight, causing more stress than the wings could withstand. When an uplock cam was installed on newer models, and indeed retrofitted on existing airframes, the problem was considered fixed.

FatBoyHK
03-05-2006, 08:03 PM
Peacemaker, I use all-100s in pitch and roll axis now. you may wanna try. I trimmed head-heavy when speed is over 250MPH, it helps avoiding wing breakage.

FritzGryphon
03-05-2006, 08:42 PM
1 hit versus 300 is a bit of an exaggeration.

I tried the effects of the MG-181 on the side of the engine of the P-51 and LaGG-3(43). Hitting the very center of the exhaust pipes from 10m range.

Over 5 trials each, the P-51 averaged 13 hits to stop. LaGG-3, 68 hits to stop. No fires in either case.

This is relative durability of the block. Striking other parts of the engine will kill much quicker (fire). In the case of P-51, I managed to flame it in 3 hits, by attacking the top of the engine, near the canopy.

Xiolablu3
03-05-2006, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Luftkillier:
I'm not sure what you were expecting from Oleg. I think the original P-47 in forgotten battles lets you know where he stands on these issues. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am confused, can someone explain this post for me?

I dont know what people are expecting from the big heavy plane like the P47. Its certainly not going to turn or climb like a Spitfire or 109.

It should be stronger than these, which I think it is (a lot stronger) and dive faster.

Maybe I misuderstood the post, I dunno?

Kocur_
03-05-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
What does the ammo box have to do with wings breaking off?

There was a problem with ammo boxes covers locks - sometimes they let go - rest was like with gear slipping out. That was cause of AFAIK one crash of a D. Faulty covers were replaced immediately in all produced till then very early Ds and all the later had proper ones.