PDA

View Full Version : P51



robindeeyk
03-07-2006, 12:51 AM
i know there is already talked abouth the P51 a lot .

dont have any complanes abouth any plane exept the P51 .

the .50 kalibers are so bad and the turningspeed is so bad . it stalls when you try to turn very easely !!

i wish they finaly gonne fix that

carguy_
03-07-2006, 05:19 AM
news flash - P51 really was like that

VVS-Manuc
03-07-2006, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by robindeeyk:
i know there is already talked abouth the P51 a lot .

dont have any complanes abouth any plane exept the P51 .

the .50 kalibers are so bad and the turningspeed is so bad . it stalls when you try to turn very easely !!

i wish they finaly gonne fix that

Yeah man, you're right. Now move on...

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

JG4_Helofly
03-07-2006, 08:27 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Any data to prove it or only propaganda and pilot anecdotes?

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

jds1978
03-07-2006, 08:50 AM
set gun con. at 200m or less

only turn when you have lots of speed

arjisme
03-07-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by robindeeyk:
the .50 kalibers are so bad and the turningspeed is so bad . it stalls when you try to turn very easely !! The .50's do fine if you hit your target at convergence. Won't explode, but will disable the enemy. If stick settings are all at 100%, it will be easy to stall if you yank the stick alot. It never was a Zero, don't fly it like one.

Grey_Mouser67
03-07-2006, 11:13 AM
Better watch out with posts like that on this forum...the Mustang is the communities punching bag. It is poorly modelled in many attributes and there are those who think that if it is modelled in this game, it must be accurate.

The ingame B aircraft is 51km/hr too slow in "combat layout" at sea level...that being defined as radiator in auto and pylons installed. In addition, as far as I'm able to determine, the B climbs about 600 ft/min too slow at sea level...not sure how it does higher than that.

The guns are suffering too...real combat kills occurred on the average every 20 rounds striking the enemy aircraft....while nobody in the community has been able to definitively determine ingame averages...I see numbers from 35-45 rounds in player tests done where planes are actually shot down the aircraft as opposed to getting it smoking and gaining a kill upon landing.

In terms of turning radius...I think that is highly controversial and while I have an opinion on the matter, I've not seen anyone substantiate it....I believe the Mustang could out turn a 109 at speeds of 350 or 400 mph....they were even between speeds of 200-350 and the 109 regained the edge as the planes dropped below 200 mph. Wingloading of the Mustang favors it when enough fuel is consumed, but laminar wings in conjunction with 109's leading edge slats give it the slow speed advantage...however, the Mustang had more efficient flaps so it wasn't like the 109 just flew circles around it.

Another poster mentioned it was accurate...it is not, really no aircraft is accurate but some are closer than others. I'd say the Mustang could use some tuning, no doubt. Will it get tuned? I am coming to the realization that it, and a few other aircraft that have been neglected probably won't unfortunately. I see adjustments made on aircraft that seemingly have little wrong with them while others with well documented bugs and short comings are not tuned...I don't understand how and why some aircraft get attention and others don't...only that it is the way it is.

If you don't like the Mustang, then you can help put together information and try to persuade Oleg to change some stuff or live with it or not live with it.

I just know that a subjective post will not add to the cause...it will only bring out the trolls.

Allied_Killer
03-07-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by robindeeyk:
....and the turningspeed is so bad . it stalls when you try to turn very easely !!

i wish they finaly gonne fix that

I know, I feel your pain. I don't know why they don't fix that on my 190 either.

Brain32
03-07-2006, 12:03 PM
OK, I really dont have any data or in game flying time to make comments about P51B, BUT:

In terms of turning radius...I think that is highly controversial and while I have an opinion on the matter, I've not seen anyone substantiate it....I believe the Mustang could out turn a 109 at speeds of 350 or 400 mph....they were even between speeds of 200-350 and the 109 regained the edge as the planes dropped below 200 mph.
At speeds of 350-400mph, 109's are so stiff you will outturn them with ease, but don't turn if they are on your six, you will bleed speed and they will gain turn advantage it's very simple http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Turn to attack, not to evade and you'll be fine.
I think some P51 whines are exaggerated, I know it has it's bad sides but all planes do. P51 is a plane that needs to be mastered, it's not just another deck turner...

Viper2005_
03-07-2006, 12:14 PM
The cooling drag bug affects almost every aeroplane in the game, as does the bombrack drag bug.

The injury to the Mustang in air combat is reduced somewhat by the small size of the maps on which we fight, which reduces the need for droptanks, and the fact that almost every aeroplane out there overheats like nobody's business. Close your radiator if you want to go fast. When you get an overheat, run it hot for a few minutes, then open the radiator and chop the throttle; it'll cool quite quickly.

Since IL2 runs a timer system for overheat damage, as soon as it says "engine normal" you're good to go; the timer has been reset and you've got another few minutes of safe operation at full power with a closed radiator.

Given that there is a mountain of data showing that overheating shouldn't be a problem in high speed flight, I don't view this hard-nosed approach to the game to be an exploit.

As for weapon effectiveness, the big difference between IL2 and reality is the marginal propensity of pilots to use their parachutes when taking fire, especially when there are points at stake. It's easy to be a hero on the internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif ...

Cannon are often "overkill" and so suffer from this problem to a somewhat lesser degree, giving an erronious impression of the effectiveness of HMGs.

I don't think that it's entirely reasonable to position the P-51 as nothing but a victim. Mistakes and bugs are inevitable in any item of software as complex as this, and they happen at random. The Mustang III was far to fast at altitude until recently. Going slightly further back in time the entire Luftwaffe had to suffer incorrect MG151/20 belting. Bad stuff happens. Sometimes it gets fixed. Sometimes it doesn't (eg P-47 cockpit!).

The best thing you can do is collect hard data and email pf@1c.ru.

I really don't think that Oleg is intentionally biased; if you've got the data and can provide proof that there's an error then the chances are that it will be fixed, especially if it's serious, provided that a fix is possible within the constraints of the engine and the time available to the dev team.

Sure you'll get flamed from all sides if you try to set up a rational thread in ORR about a performance error, since one side's whiners will feel angry that they're losing performance relative to the enemy (even if they hadn't actually noticed the performance error before you posted about it). But that's life. The thread is nice, and some people may actually have constructive things to say in it. But the email you send is the thing that actually gets stuff done.

Hard Data is needed because otherwise within about 2 weeks we'd go from IL2 to X-Wing vs TIE Fighter...

That's just human nature for you. Not that anybody around here would like to replace their Fw-190 with Darth Vader's TIE fighter, ("just to see the looks on their faces") of course... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

danjama
03-07-2006, 02:09 PM
Well, you all post this stuff backing up why the things he mentioned arent porked, but theres no doubt that the P51 is ****ed in many other ways.

jds1978
03-07-2006, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
OK, I really dont have any data or in game flying time to make comments about P51B, BUT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In terms of turning radius...I think that is highly controversial and while I have an opinion on the matter, I've not seen anyone substantiate it....I believe the Mustang could out turn a 109 at speeds of 350 or 400 mph....they were even between speeds of 200-350 and the 109 regained the edge as the planes dropped below 200 mph.
At speeds of 350-400mph, 109's are so stiff you will outturn them with ease, but don't turn if they are on your six, you will bleed speed and they will gain turn advantage it's very simple http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Turn to attack, not to evade and you'll be fine.
I think some P51 whines are exaggerated, I know it has it's bad sides but all planes do. P51 is a plane that needs to be mastered, it's not just another deck turner... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

fordfan25
03-07-2006, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
news flash - P51 really was like that

news flash no it was not

Bearcat99
03-07-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Better watch out with posts like that on this forum...the Mustang is the communities punching bag. It is poorly modelled in many attributes and there are those who think that if it is modelled in this game, it must be accurate.

The ingame B aircraft is 51km/hr too slow in "combat layout" at sea level...that being defined as radiator in auto and pylons installed. In addition, as far as I'm able to determine, the B climbs about 600 ft/min too slow at sea level...not sure how it does higher than that.

The guns are suffering too...real combat kills occurred on the average every 20 rounds striking the enemy aircraft....while nobody in the community has been able to definitively determine ingame averages...I see numbers from 35-45 rounds in player tests done where planes are actually shot down the aircraft as opposed to getting it smoking and gaining a kill upon landing.

In terms of turning radius...I think that is highly controversial and while I have an opinion on the matter, I've not seen anyone substantiate it....I believe the Mustang could out turn a 109 at speeds of 350 or 400 mph....they were even between speeds of 200-350 and the 109 regained the edge as the planes dropped below 200 mph. Wingloading of the Mustang favors it when enough fuel is consumed, but laminar wings in conjunction with 109's leading edge slats give it the slow speed advantage...however, the Mustang had more efficient flaps so it wasn't like the 109 just flew circles around it.

Another poster mentioned it was accurate...it is not, really no aircraft is accurate but some are closer than others. I'd say the Mustang could use some tuning, no doubt. Will it get tuned? I am coming to the realization that it, and a few other aircraft that have been neglected probably won't unfortunately. I see adjustments made on aircraft that seemingly have little wrong with them while others with well documented bugs and short comings are not tuned...I don't understand how and why some aircraft get attention and others don't...only that it is the way it is.

If you don't like the Mustang, then you can help put together information and try to persuade Oleg to change some stuff or live with it or not live with it.

I just know that a subjective post will not add to the cause...it will only bring out the trolls.

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

Ya know I am glad we got that smiley... I was never comfortable with... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif when I wanted to agree with someone.

Xiolablu3
03-07-2006, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Better watch out with posts like that on this forum...the Mustang is the communities punching bag. It is poorly modelled in many attributes and there are those who think that if it is modelled in this game, it must be accurate.

The ingame B aircraft is 51km/hr too slow in "combat layout" at sea level...that being defined as radiator in auto and pylons installed. In addition, as far as I'm able to determine, the B climbs about 600 ft/min too slow at sea level...not sure how it does higher than that.

The guns are suffering too...real combat kills occurred on the average every 20 rounds striking the enemy aircraft....while nobody in the community has been able to definitively determine ingame averages...I see numbers from 35-45 rounds in player tests done where planes are actually shot down the aircraft as opposed to getting it smoking and gaining a kill upon landing.

In terms of turning radius...I think that is highly controversial and while I have an opinion on the matter, I've not seen anyone substantiate it....I believe the Mustang could out turn a 109 at speeds of 350 or 400 mph....they were even between speeds of 200-350 and the 109 regained the edge as the planes dropped below 200 mph. Wingloading of the Mustang favors it when enough fuel is consumed, but laminar wings in conjunction with 109's leading edge slats give it the slow speed advantage...however, the Mustang had more efficient flaps so it wasn't like the 109 just flew circles around it.

Another poster mentioned it was accurate...it is not, really no aircraft is accurate but some are closer than others. I'd say the Mustang could use some tuning, no doubt. Will it get tuned? I am coming to the realization that it, and a few other aircraft that have been neglected probably won't unfortunately. I see adjustments made on aircraft that seemingly have little wrong with them while others with well documented bugs and short comings are not tuned...I don't understand how and why some aircraft get attention and others don't...only that it is the way it is.

If you don't like the Mustang, then you can help put together information and try to persuade Oleg to change some stuff or live with it or not live with it.

I just know that a subjective post will not add to the cause...it will only bring out the trolls.

One of the best posts ever on the P51 'debate'. Hope it gets tweaked a little next patch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ImpStarDuece
03-07-2006, 03:48 PM
Just tested the P-51B at sea level and came up with something odd.

In cockpit, the manifold pressure goes up to 67" Hg, suggesting that we have a V-1650-7 engined version.

However, sea level performance is almost identical to a V-1650-3 engined version rated at 60" manifold.

I can get the P-51B up to 558 kph/ 347 mph at sea level, full auto radiators.

It does 532 kph /330 mph at sea level with wing pylons and full auto radiators.

So, there is a 25 kph/ 17 mph penatly for carrying wing racks.

Closest data to this configuration I could find was from tests at Mike Williams site. There is a May 18, 1943 test of a clean P-51B-1 on his site.

The speed graph gives:

348 mph with coolant and oil flaps in 'automatic'
338 mph with coolant and oil flaps fully open.

So, really, all we need to do, for sea-level speeds at least, is to just change the gauge to read 60" manifold.

LStarosta
03-07-2006, 05:09 PM
Oleg plz unpork my 109K4 C3.

kth x