PDA

View Full Version : Bud Anderson on dogfighting in the P51



Pages : [1] 2 3

Texan...
01-25-2006, 10:27 PM
Interviewer: Rapier@zone.com
Pilot: Col. Bud Anderson

Rapier: In terms of tactics, did you feel that pilots employed mostly turn/stall fighting in WWII or did they use energy (climb speed) tactics? How prevalent was dogfighting (a snarl of multiple fighters all engaged in battle) compare to hitting targets of opportunity?

Bud: Tactics varied in the theater you were in. You used the tactic that fits the situation best.

In Europe flying the P-51 we felt that we could outmaneuver the Me 109 and the FW 190 in a turning dogfight. This was probably the dominant tactic. However, if you were in a situation that called for a climb/speed energy tactic we would use it. If you could, the best tactic was to surprise the target by coming in from his six o'clock position to a close range with zero deflection, or angle off and shoot him down in straight-and-level flight.

Rapier: Did the Mustang have what you felt were decisive advantages in combat, characteristics that made it inherently superior to the FW 190s and ME 109s you encountered?

Bud: Yes, I think so, as I never was concerned about either aircraft as long as I could see them. I would not treat the Me 109 or the FW 190 differently in combat.

Rapier: Was there any one maneuver that you felt you could count on to extract you from a sticky situation?

Bud: Maybe there was not just one maneuver but more like a bag of tricks to fit the many different and changing situations. First and foremost you had to be offensively minded.

Rapier: If you could sum up your approach to combat in a tactical sense, how would you describe it? If you wanted to sum up the attitude toward combat you had, what would you say?

Bud: Offense, offense, attack, attack. My attitude to combat was that I wanted to do it. You almost have to have that attitude to be successful and survive.

Rapier: Can you compare the planes you flew to specific enemy aircraft? In combat what techniques/tactics did they use? What techniques/tactics did you use against them? Did you have a favorite tactic or attacks that you preferred in combat? Were there any maneuvers that you stayed away from in the P-51 because of performance issues or just because it didn't do as well as your opponent?

Bud: When comparing the P-51 against the Me 109 or the FW 190 I did not prefer to fight one over the other. I would use the same tactics against either aircraft. The best and favored tactic was to catch them by surprise and close in from the rear to a close range before opening fire. If they saw you and stayed in a turning dogfight I always felt I could outturn them.

Enjoy, and here's hoping for the return of the P51 Mustang to IL2:Forgotten Battles.

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

http://www.planepix.com/resources/photos/P51D.Cripes_04_JMD184.lg.jpg

GR142-Pipper
01-25-2006, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Interviewer: Rapier@zone.com
Pilot: Col. Bud Anderson

Rapier: Can you compare the planes you flew to specific enemy aircraft? In combat what techniques/tactics did they use? What techniques/tactics did you use against them? Did you have a favorite tactic or attacks that you preferred in combat? Were there any maneuvers that you stayed away from in the P-51 because of performance issues or just because it didn't do as well as your opponent?

Bud: When comparing the P-51 against the Me 109 or the FW 190 I did not prefer to fight one over the other. I would use the same tactics against either aircraft. The best and favored tactic was to catch them by surprise and close in from the rear to a close range before opening fire. If they saw you and stayed in a turning dogfight I always felt I could outturn them. Well, there you have it folks. Maybe one day the P-51 as modeled in this game will measure up to its real life counterpart. The good news is that only a few things are required: 50 cals that can actually punch, a nose that doesn't wander, wings that don't separate, an increase in it's turning and acceleration characteristics, and a headrest that isn't the size of an NBA basketball.

GR142-Pipper

La7_brook
01-25-2006, 11:06 PM
i say it be the flyer as i lot to do with this too/ when you books like GRAF @ GRISLAWSKI / they say they could easy out p51 in 109,s

Jetbuff
01-25-2006, 11:13 PM
Will you guys stop with the BS? Just because a pilot felt he could out-turn an opposing plane does not mean we should twist the physics of flight to fit that view. What is the wing-loading of the P-51 and what is the wingloading of the 109? How about power-loading? Let's ignore the altitude and speeds of the engagement, ignore the state of the airframes and pilot-training. Still, when these pilots talk about out-turning their opponents, unless the advantage was huge, (aka Hurricane Versus 190) they were most likely referring to out-turning the enemy pilot. i.e. withstanding more G's.

For turn rate all that matters is G and speed. The plane that could achieve a higher G at a lower speed would outturn the other. (given equal speeds) Now if you throw in different pilot tolerances for G-stresses it becomes obvious that, unless the difference in wing-loading was significant enough to allow a big discrepancy in available G, (particularly at low speeds) that it really is the man and not the machine.

For illustration: Assume, for argument's sake that plane A can produce 6G's at 400kph, plane B can produce 8G's at 400kph, that 400kph is their corner velocity and they meet at or above that speed. If pilot A can take 6G's but pilot B can only take 4G's, guess who's going to win a turn-fight? At lower speeds when the total available G drops, e.g. say to half by 250kph, now who wins?

In-game we all have the same G tolerance so raw aircraft performance data come to the fore and these may easily diverge from pilot accounts. Throw in the myriad of other factors that can influence RL combat, from airframe state and fuel quality, to pilot training and mission parameters and you realize pilot accounts are worth very little (for FM purposes) without detailed context.

Jetbuff
01-25-2006, 11:19 PM
BTW, if things were so dependent on raw performance numbers, why weren't air engagements decided by exchanging EM diagrams? Why don't F-1 races just involve plugging in the performance data for each car into a computer algorithm to determine the winner? etc.

Feathered_IV
01-26-2006, 12:31 AM
Jetbuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And thanks Texan for posting too. Its always good to add a few more pilots snippets to my hard drive.

Now play nice everyone, or I'll be forced to tell the octopus joke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

vanjast
01-26-2006, 01:20 AM
So while you're feeling great maybe you you consider the other sides point of view..

With the B17's attacks Goring directed all attacks to be against bombers and 'ignore' the fighter escort. So it was easy for the escorts.
BUT
then the germans changed their tactics and now the FW190's attacked the bombers and the ME109s attacked the escorts. why, because they knew they can and the allies loss rate increased dramatically in bombers and fighters. But the overwhelming numbers always favoured the Allies.

Note that a larger number of sorties (as flown by the allies thus holding the advantage) does not make the Allied planes better on raw performance.

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

BGs_Ricky
01-26-2006, 02:41 AM
Depends also on the speed. At high speed the P-51 can turn better than a 109 or 190, but in a low speed dogfight the 109 should be able to outturn the Mustang. But that also depends on the pilot's skill, a well-trained Mustang pilot is probably capable to win a low speed dogfight against a 109 flown by a green pilot with just a few hours on the type. In his interview he doesn't tell us at what speed and alt he outturned german planes, and we don't know who the german pilots were.

Friendly_flyer
01-26-2006, 03:01 AM
In a way it€s bout exciting and a bit sad to read this. It€s exciting because it€s a rare glimpse into the past, and it€s sad because it€s very obviously the answers of an old man being asked questions he cannot answer. The interviewer wants to know details of various airplanes relative wing-loading, energy retention etc. Did he really believe a man like Mr. Anderson could answer these questions? He was a combat pilot, not a technician!

Let€s have a look at what Anderson really says:

- The most important thing is to be aggressive, you must want to pull the trigger!

- The best trick is to come unseen in from behind and give the enemy a broadside from close range.

- Messerschmidt or Fock-Wulf didn€t matter, Mr. Andersom knew he was good enough to fight bout.

Now, that€s hardly controversial, is it?

stathem
01-26-2006, 03:15 AM
He also says.

"..in a turning dogfight. This was probably the dominant tactic...."

That may come as a surprise to some people around here.

Friendly_flyer
01-26-2006, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
He also says.

"..in a turning dogfight. This was probably the dominant tactic...."


Does that mean the planes (FW 190, Bf 109, P-51) was best emploied as turn fighters, or does it mean that most pilots knew how to turnfight better than how to fight B&Z-style?

Abbuzze
01-26-2006, 03:18 AM
No doubt that Bud Anderson was a good fighterpilot in a good plane!
And I also believe him that he turned out 109´s and 190´s, but I also believe that the first 109 Pilot who would outturn him, would finish his fightercarreer.
Both 109 and P51 pilots reported that they could outturn the opponent. This pilots were also the one, that survived the war! So a good pilot is the difference between two planes.

stathem
01-26-2006, 03:23 AM
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 stathem:
He also says.

"..in a turning dogfight. This was probably the dominant tactic...."


Does that mean the planes (FW 190, Bf 109, P-51) was best emploied as turn fighters, or does it mean that most pilots knew how to turnfight better than how to fight B&Z-style? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think it's implying that it happened, and quite a lot at that. Many would have us believe that turnfights never occured.

Hristo_
01-26-2006, 03:30 AM
In this sim, if a P-51 comes behind me in 109/190 and starts to turn with me, it takes more than average skill/luck and several seconds or even minutes to fend off that attack. If I survive. I don't see how that is diferent from real life.

In fact, any fighter pressing a turnfight against any other fighter will have couple of seconds to play with, until relative advantage starts shifting towards better plane or pilot.

In this sim, P-51s don't usually die from a plane they just attacked, but from another plane previously unseen. More P-51s go for turnfight (if you are in 190, almost any P-51 will press a turnfight on you). This is where it often goes bad for them. They tangle themselves for too long without slightest thought of an escape route. Usually I get damaged fairly hard but my teammates arrive in time to blast the P-51 with multiple cannons. Luftwaffe planes usually don't press turnfight unless without other options. i consider P-51s as Spits with enough speed to catch you. Mentality is similar too. Just my observation.

"I went around for a while with a Mustang, who had me by the neck. In such cases we often flew in a corkscrew - we spiraled in the sky in the tightest possible circle, with flaps half or quater-extended. A good soul in the form of a German fighter pilot helped me by shooting the Mustang off my tail. Its pilot had not noticed that we had become three - tough luck!"

Unteroffizier Heinz Gehrke, JG 26 - 5 victories

Exactly as it happens in our sim.



http://www.rathergood.com/laibach/

PikeBishop
01-26-2006, 03:46 AM
Dear All,

Please note that it is important to realise that gravity, wing loading and power loading are constants and air density is a variable as you increase altitude. Mathematically this means that turn radii and excess power vary directly with altitude (unless power is compensated for by superchargers).
Therefore aircraft turning ability changes with altitude but always IN PROPORTION. i.e. if aircraft A out-turns aircraft B it will always do it at any given altitude by the SAME proportion. Power availability at altitude will only assist accelleration and counter speed loss or climb in the turn, but you will still stall if you exceed the maximum g.
NB the max g you can pull is speed divided by stall speed and then double it.
eg 400mph
100mph = 4.
4*2 =8g

regards,
SLP

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Will you guys stop with the BS? Just because a pilot felt he could out-turn an opposing plane does not mean we should twist the physics of flight to fit that view. Bud Anderson is a PROVEN fighter pilot who DID out-turn his opponents. You might want to lay off the revisionist history that you're trying to force-fit into the context of this little game. Keep in mind that Oleg's a real programmer and Bud Anderson's a real fighter pilot with real credentials based on real kills. Between Maddox and Anderson when it comes to an understanding of the P-51, my money's on Anderson...every time.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
In-game we all have the same G tolerance so raw aircraft performance data come to the fore and these may easily diverge from pilot accounts. Indeed...because this game is an pale approximation of the real world. It's certainly fun but a rough approximation nonetheless.

Throw in the myriad of other factors that can influence RL combat, from airframe state and fuel quality, to pilot training and mission parameters and you realize pilot accounts are worth very little (for FM purposes) without detailed context. Spoken like someone (take you, for instance) who's never been there and has never done it. It really is amazing how so many here take this little game for gospel. It is so far from that you have no idea...and you never will have any idea.

GR142-Pipper

Texan...
01-26-2006, 04:02 AM
YW Feathered_IV.

I think the main point to take from this is that Mustang pilots didn't have to shy away from combat with 109s. They saw them, they went after them, they turned with them. With the current P51 FM you just kind of fly around in straight lines, and try to steady the nose long enough and hope to get one of those lucky engine hits on somebody.

If you begin to turn in the slightest bit, your moments are numbered. Clearly not what the RL P51 was capable of. Way too many anecdotes out there about P51s and 109s having very long turn fights. These all can't be explained away with "green pilot" or "fluke."

We just need an honest flying P51 please.

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

http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/p51mustang/p51-m005.jpg

Abbuzze
01-26-2006, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Bud Anderson is a PROVEN fighter pilot who DID out-turn his opponents. You might want to lay off the revisionist history that you're trying to force-fit into the context of this little game. Keep in mind that Oleg's a real programmer and Bud Anderson's a real fighter pilot with real credentials based on real kills. Between Maddox and Anderson, my money's on Anderson...every time.

GR142-Pipper
And Barkhorn and other good 109 pilots are unreal fighterpilots?

PikeBishop
01-26-2006, 04:11 AM
Sorry.......not double it but square it.

eg 300mph over 100mph = 3
3 squared = 9g

slp

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
In a way it€s bout exciting and a bit sad to read this. It€s exciting because it€s a rare glimpse into the past, and it€s sad because it€s very obviously the answers of an old man being asked questions he cannot answer. What the heck are you talking about? The guy answered every question with accounts based on what he and his fellow flyers DID...every day for quite a long time. The only thing sad here is the inability of some to understand how truly capable the men and aircraft really were.

GR142-Pipper

AustinPowers_
01-26-2006, 04:13 AM
The P-51 can outturn the BF-109. Just not at 10ft ASL, 150 MPH full flaps down.

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
No doubt that Bud Anderson was a good fighterpilot in a good plane!
And I also believe him that he turned out 109´s and 190´s, but I also believe that the first 109 Pilot who would outturn him, would finish his fightercarreer.
Both 109 and P51 pilots reported that they could outturn the opponent. This pilots were also the one, that survived the war! So a good pilot is the difference between two planes. Not so. The P-51 so far outclassed the 109 it wasn't a matter of debate. These two aircraft are by no means equals. The amount of data that backs this up is monumental.

GR142-Pipper

WOLFMondo
01-26-2006, 04:19 AM
Annecdotal pilot evidence. I don't care who the pilot is, when comparing 2 aircraft you will always find a story which contradicts the other. That is a fact and the only fact when it comes to pilot stories.

Yes, the P51 has a wobble issue but the main problem with the P51 is the guys who fly it in this sim expect to fly it and score in it like Bud Anderson or Chuck Yeager and can't.

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Bud Anderson is a PROVEN fighter pilot who DID out-turn his opponents. You might want to lay off the revisionist history that you're trying to force-fit into the context of this little game. Keep in mind that Oleg's a real programmer and Bud Anderson's a real fighter pilot with real credentials based on real kills. Between Maddox and Anderson, my money's on Anderson...every time.

GR142-Pipper
And Barkhorn and other good 109 pilots an unreal fighterpilots? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>They're certainly real as well but that has no bearing on this discussion which focuses on what the P-51 could do based on actual accounts by someone who (along with many others) regularly did it.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Annecdotal pilot evidence. I don't care who the pilot is, when comparing 2 aircraft you will always find a story which contradicts the other. That is a fact and the only fact when it comes to pilot stories. You must be a current or former real life military fighter pilot, right?

GR142-Pipper

vanjast
01-26-2006, 04:50 AM
I think this, you can liken to competitions and sport contests. The person/team who makes the least mistakes usually wins.

So both sides can say they did this and that and should you believe it?. Maybe so coz the dead guys cannot say anything.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kwiatos
01-26-2006, 05:15 AM
Details are important: P51 outurn Bf109? What altitude, what speed? These 2 things are very important factors. I doubt that P-51 could outturn BF109 at slow speed dogfight expecially at low to medium alt but of ourse at high alt and high speed p-51 could outturn bf.

cawimmer430
01-26-2006, 05:48 AM
I'm not a Mustang expert and I don't know how accurate the P-51 mods are in this sim, but I find the Mustang performs best at HIGH SPEED. Quick turning etc. is all done best when the Mustang is above speeds of 400 km/h, in my experience. To me, the plane doesn't seem to perform well at low speeds at all. Just some observations. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Siwarrior
01-26-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Jetbuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And thanks Texan for posting too. Its always good to add a few more pilots snippets to my hard drive.

Now play nice everyone, or I'll be forced to tell the octopus joke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

nice words Jetbuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wouldn't it be cool if you could somehow model each differnt persons ability to take G's, ie Say online pilot A can only take 6 whereas B can take 8 etc ect, and then it would effect your turning at high speeds ( low too) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


*edit* can i hear the joke..............

guderian_ente
01-26-2006, 05:58 AM
"Wouldn't it be cool if you could somehow model each different persons ability to take G's?"

CFS3 tried something like this, with the pilot having different attributes one of which was G tolerance. I don't think it was a huge success though.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 06:15 AM
Pipper, no one disputes Anderson's comments, but we certainly dispute your ill-informed and rather (characteristically so) biased interpretation. I have disputed even the Faber test report due to the lack of sufficient detail, and that was an actual aircraft performance test! Still, let's review the 'evidence' shall we?

1. The subtype of 109/190 was not defined. Was he talking about out-turning G-6's or K-4's, Doras or Antons? Big difference between the variants let alone between a 109 and 190.

2. At speed, the P-51's better elevator authority would allow him to have more G available inspite of higher wing-loading relative to the 109 and you can always out-turn the Anton at any speed due to much better wing-loading. This is portrayed in-game no? So you can out-turn both the 109 and the 190. correct?

3. The most important factor as I stated earlier was pilot G endurance, at least until speed decayed quite considerably and max available G for both planes decayed below the blackout limit. And it is so in FB too, i.e. if you try to out-turn my K-4 with a P-51 you should be able to, until about 360kph or so where neither plane can pull enough G's to black out the pilots. (probably lower irl, FB's G-limit is 7G's) Below that though, if you stay in the turn you're asking for it as my higher power-loading and lower wing-loading start to tell. In the Anton's, the exact opposite is true and the Dora is a very close match.

There are multiple accounts from the BoB where Emil drivers swore that they could out-turn the spitfire Mk 1. However, we know, beyond a doubt, that the spitfire had better wing-loading and comparable power-loading that suggests that this is highly unlikely based purely on performance numbers. Taking your ridiculous tack, we should all clamour for Emils that can at least turn with spitfires if not out-turn them. Yes, Oleg, please make sure the Emil out-turns the Spitfire in BoB.

Actually, if you come down to it, I am quite certain that, except for obvious cases of wing-loading superiority, most aces would assert that they could always out-turn their opponents. Pilots on every front have said it, yet their opponents said the exact opposite. Thing is, from their perspectives it probably was true - afterall, the ones that get to tell the accounts are the ones that, for whatever reason, lived to do so. The ones that got out-turned are gone or not famous enough to be quoted. In other words, pilots out-turn other pilots, not planes.

Your lack of objectivity with regard to this otherwise interesting account is astonishing and your conclusions beyond flawed. However, given your previous record, they are quite predictable. Don't bother trying to retort with your usual empty bluster; I have more important things to do than to argue with the likes of you.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
"Wouldn't it be cool if you could somehow model each different persons ability to take G's?"

CFS3 tried something like this, with the pilot having different attributes one of which was G tolerance. I don't think it was a huge success though.
Yes, I've always wondered how we could actually model varying G-tolerance without doing it randomly or unfairly. I remember the funniest suggestion (made on SimHQ iirc) was actually inputting height, weight, physical condition parameters for the real you into the sim to come up with a G-tolerance level. If we were truthful, it should make for some interesting fighting with maximum 3G-turns for 99% of us though! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Kurfurst__
01-26-2006, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Not so. The P-51 so far outclassed the 109 it wasn't a matter of debate. These two aircraft are by no means equals. The amount of data that backs this up is monumental.

GR142-Pipper

Almost as if I'd read LRRP22. Big words, no facts, totally biased, blind and deaf to reason.

These 'Final Word on the Subject' pilot stories are getting a bit boring though. They are all subjective and even more, bore the mark of specific conditions. There were never two equally skilled pilot, with equally good positions, both starting at exactly the same airspeed and energy, simple as that.

PikeBishop
01-26-2006, 06:33 AM
Dear All,

What I don't understand is that the stall speed for both the P51D and the Bf109g6 is the same........95mph. It was probably slightly more for the G6 as the wing loading was 40.1lb/sq ft as opposed to 39lb/sq ft for the P51.
Also the power loading...(don't know the altitude) is 5.4lb/hp for the P51 and 4.8lb/hp for the G6. The G6 has the edge but the P51 has the laminar flow wing which is more streamlined.
So they are pretty much the same at combat weight.
So how can someone say that the P51 could out-turn the G6 not at low but at high altitude when the radius of the turns would be about the same?. This is not accounting for flaps and other devices etc. It seems to me that they must have been quite close except the engine performance may not be the same with regard to the superchargers but that would not affect the stall speed and thus the minimum turn radii.

Best regards,
SLP

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 06:38 AM
PikeBishop, the G-6 is out-turned by the P-51 in-game under most conditions AFAIK. Stall speeds have a lot to do with wing design but I'll defer to someone more versed in aerodynamics to answer you.

gorillasika
01-26-2006, 06:40 AM
Interesting interview, thanks Texan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And just shows how well this simulator (game) is made. The 50's can easily take out enemies when having surprised them and the Mustang can outturn both 109's and 190's, regarding the situation and subtypes.

Somebody brought out the 50's in this discussion. I think they strike like fireballs from he** after they were tuned up some patches ago. But then again, I was perfectly satisfied shooting with them in my Brewster also before.

Abbuzze
01-26-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Details are important: P51 outurn Bf109? What altitude, what speed? These 2 things are very important factors. I doubt that P-51 could outturn BF109 at slow speed dogfight expecially at low to medium alt but of ourse at high alt and high speed p-51 could outturn bf.

I subscribe this! No doubt about this for later 109´s!

With the limitation that 109´s without MW50 are not competive to P51´s. Much worse powerloading than with MW and just a little bit better wingload. I´m pretty sure that such a 109G was like Hartmann discribed it - hopeless.
And I´m also pretty sure that many of the "P51 outturns 109" are a result of this fights. 109 with a DB605 and it´s low rated altitude and the low HP even at sealevel, the mustang is much better. Like it is in this game.

Would be interesting to take a closer look to the date of the "outturning reports", how many of them were written in 1943, when just G6 were around.

PikeBishop
01-26-2006, 07:07 AM
Dear Jetbuff,

I must state that mathematically all the data for aircraft can be worked out........some years ago I did this myself for a project and I can state categorically that the chief factor for calculating the radius of turn is the wing loading. Lift coef does not make a great deal of difference. Regardless of this if you know the stall speed clean at a given altitude you can calculate the minimum turn radius. This of course is the instantaneous maximum and does not take into account the drag against the thrust at the given altitude. However the more inferior aircraft would have to lose speed and/or height to maintain the turn....obviously not speed if he was pulling max g possible for that speed.

Best regards,
SLP

JG53Frankyboy
01-26-2006, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
..........Would be interesting to take a closer look to the date of the "outturning reports", how many of them were written in 1943, when just G6 were around.

nut much, as late the P-51B flew combat missions in europe - as i remember december 1943. but sure till late 1944 the most 109s were also without MW50.

btw, the G6 is far from beeing helpless against the P-51 in GAME !! espacially at lower alts.

Nigel_Woodman
01-26-2006, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
In-game we all have the same G tolerance so raw aircraft performance data come to the fore and these may easily diverge from pilot accounts. Indeed...because this game is an pale approximation of the real world. It's certainly fun but a rough approximation nonetheless.

Throw in the myriad of other factors that can influence RL combat, from airframe state and fuel quality, to pilot training and mission parameters and you realize pilot accounts are worth very little (for FM purposes) without detailed context. Spoken like someone (take you, for instance) who's never been there and has never done it. It really is amazing how so many here take this little game for gospel. It is so far from that you have no idea...and you never will have any idea.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, Pipper, here's a response from someone who has been there and done that. I hesitate to flaunt my "credentials" on-line, but here goes:

Degree in aerospce engineering
U.S. Naval Aviator number V-27827
Carrier Qualified
Two Vietnam era operational tours
Tour in Operational Test and Evaluation
Commercial single and multi-engine license
Sailplane certificate

I've flown combat prop aircraft, including the A-1 and T-28 modified for Viet Nam. I've flown jets including the T-2, A-4 and A-7. I've flown multi-engine including the S-2, S-3 and P-3. I've flown aircraft I can't even remember and have a total of over 3500 first pilot and solo hours, including over 100 hours in sailplanes.

I've owned a company that developed aviation simulation software and built aircraft components.

I think I'm qualified to say I've been there.

Here's what's important:

1. Pilot training, skill and experience.
2. Detecting (seeing) the other guy first.
3. Being higher, faster and in a good position
4. Being able to shoot straight
5. Luck

Relative aircraft performance is way down the list.

The bottom line: Most military pilots are egotistical blowhards (I count myself in that category). The ones who get to give accounts of their exploits are the ones who survived them. Their plane out-turned, out-climbed, out-guned and outran the enemey, because if it hadn't, they wouldn't be around to tell the story.

Their claims concerning aircraft performance don't necessarily make them true, although if you read between the lines in the Bud Anderson interview, you will get a glimpse of the reality. The way to shoot down an enemey is to sneak up behind him and do him in with a close-up non-deflection shot. Something like 80% of the kills in WW-2 were from non-deflection shots.

Your are correct. IL-2 is a game and a pale imitation of real life. Because of its design and implementation, sucess depends much more on aircraft performance than it does in the real world. This fact does not necessarily mean that because certain aircraft do not perform well in the game that they aren't modeled correctly. If you want to fly the P-51 in the game more as it was in real life, fly 8:1 numbers against rookie A/I climbing up from 10,000 feet below and set to attack bombers.

OK...enough of my rant. If you want to try out the P-51 campaign I just finished, you can find it at:

http://www.weston-american.com/incoming/

Press the button that enters the file download area. Disregard the upload window and click on the file p=51Campaign.zip. Once you get the download, just unzip it to your IL-2 FB directory.

I'd like your thoughts on the campaign.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Nigel_Woodman:
Here's what's important:

1. Pilot training, skill and experience.
2. Detecting (seeing) the other guy first.
3. Being higher, faster and in a good position
4. Being able to shoot straight
5. Luck

Relative aircraft performance is way down the list.

The bottom line: Most military pilots are egotistical blowhards (I count myself in that category). The ones who get to give accounts of their exploits are the ones who survived them. Their plane out-turned, out-climbed, out-guned and outran the enemey, because if it hadn't, they wouldn't be around to tell the story.

Their claims concerning aircraft performance don't necessarily make them true, although if you read between the lines in the Bud Anderson interview, you will get a glimpse of the reality. The way to shoot down an enemey is to sneak up behind him and do him in with a close-up non-deflection shot. Something like 80% of the kills in WW-2 were from non-deflection shots.
Thank you sir! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Hawgdog
01-26-2006, 07:33 AM
If you could, the best tactic was to surprise the target by coming in from his six o'clock position to a close range with zero deflection, or angle off and shoot him down in straight-and-level flight.


Ain't that the truth?

Friendly_flyer
01-26-2006, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
What the heck are you talking about? The guy answered every question with accounts based on what he and his fellow flyers DID...


Indeed, Pipper.

He is talking about what he did, what he experienced. The interviewer on the other hand is asking him to formulate something on the relative performance of the aircrafts, and what tactic one should deploy against the one or the other. Mr. Anderson know how to fly and fight, he's not an expert on formulating strategies based on statistical performance of computer generated airplanes.

As Nigel Woodsman pointed our, Mr. Anderson flew in a way that made him a very successful pilot. He pointed that out very clearly: Offense, offense, attack, attack. My attitude to combat was that I wanted to do it. You almost have to have that attitude to be successful and survive.

PikeBishop
01-26-2006, 08:00 AM
Dear Nigel_woodman,
Whilst reading your post, I do see the point about relative aircraft performance being low down on the list. Indeed whoever saw the other first probably killed him before any relative performance could be untilized by anybody. All the relative performance does is determine who attacks whom and under what starting conditions. With regard to RL can we all imagine what its like to be flying for hours, dropping our payload and then coming home again knowing that if we HAD met anything on the way we might not still be alive! Now this game would really not be very popular! So IL-2 takes the 'best bits' and as a result the relative performance factor plays a much more prominent role I think.
Best regards,
SLP

Jumoschwanz
01-26-2006, 08:03 AM
"IL-2 is a game and a pale imitation of real life. Because of its design and implementation, sucess depends much more on aircraft performance than it does in the real world. This fact does not necessarily mean that because certain aircraft do not perform well in the game that they aren't modeled correctly. If you want to fly the P-51 in the game more as it was in real life, fly 8:1 numbers against rookie A/I climbing up from 10,000 feet below and set to attack bombers."

[/QUOTE]

This is why I am such a big fan of full-real settings for online servers, because on them, as in real-life pilot accounts in WWII, the same rules apply.

ON full real servers, if you employ historical tactics, plane performance does not mean didley-squat. You get to alt in your area and look for dots, if you spot them first you have an advantage, if you are higher you have another advantage, and the best way things can go is if you hit them hard before they know you were ever there, just as in 80% of the actuall kills in WWII.

Dogfighting is a lot of fun, but when some one cannot out-turn their opponent and gets shot down, the first thing they do is scream that their craft is undermodeled and should fly like a 700km/hr Zero that shoots 500lb bombs out of it's cannons. If the same dum my employed historical tactics, he would surprise and enemy, shoot him full of holes with little drama, and fly home and land. Not much fun and boring to the turn and burn crowd.

More than once I have heard turn and burners like Pipper and others call those employing historical tactics cowards online simply for staying out of their reach and not comming down to turn fight with their Yak-3 in a fw190a5 or some other interceptor type craft.

On kiddie-style arcade/wonder woman servers, where every craft around has a big blue or red arrow pointing at it, and a billboard with the planes type and distance away attached to it, then plane performance means much more than it did in real life or on any realistic server.
If you don't like how your favourite plane flies on your kiddie server in IL2, then go try out flying a Microsoft CFS on "the Zone" where you can have that Mustang that turns like a Zero, is as fast as a jet, and shoots battleship rounds.

I don't personally like Chuck Yeager, but he was a good pilot, and he said and proved that it is the pilot that makes the difference and not what he is flying. Some as swipe doing mock combat with Chuck in jets whined about how his plane was responsible for him doing badly, so Chuck switched planes with him, they went up again and Chuck still cleaned his clock for him.
This is why many times, I have shot down fighter aircraft with a Stuka B-2, yes using the guns in the wings, not the tailgun, becuase some mo ron in a P-40, P-39, or Lagg, instead of knowing and using his planes strengths, will stay right by me trying to do all kinds of fancy slow-flying stalls and turns to get on my tail, instead of just making a fast pass at me in his much faster and more well armed craft and shooting me down. I have a good laugh every time this happens....

Jumoschwanz

WOLFMondo
01-26-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Nigel_Woodman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
In-game we all have the same G tolerance so raw aircraft performance data come to the fore and these may easily diverge from pilot accounts. Indeed...because this game is an pale approximation of the real world. It's certainly fun but a rough approximation nonetheless.

Throw in the myriad of other factors that can influence RL combat, from airframe state and fuel quality, to pilot training and mission parameters and you realize pilot accounts are worth very little (for FM purposes) without detailed context. Spoken like someone (take you, for instance) who's never been there and has never done it. It really is amazing how so many here take this little game for gospel. It is so far from that you have no idea...and you never will have any idea.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, Pipper, here's a response from someone who has been there and done that. I hesitate to flaunt my "credentials" on-line, but here goes:

Degree in aerospce engineering
U.S. Naval Aviator number V-27827
Carrier Qualified
Two Vietnam era operational tours
Tour in Operational Test and Evaluation
Commercial single and multi-engine license
Sailplane certificate

I've flown combat prop aircraft, including the A-1 and T-28 modified for Viet Nam. I've flown jets including the T-2, A-4 and A-7. I've flown multi-engine including the S-2, S-3 and P-3. I've flown aircraft I can't even remember and have a total of over 3500 first pilot and solo hours, including over 100 hours in sailplanes.

I've owned a company that developed aviation simulation software and built aircraft components.

I think I'm qualified to say I've been there.

Here's what's important:

1. Pilot training, skill and experience.
2. Detecting (seeing) the other guy first.
3. Being higher, faster and in a good position
4. Being able to shoot straight
5. Luck

Relative aircraft performance is way down the list.

The bottom line: Most military pilots are egotistical blowhards (I count myself in that category). The ones who get to give accounts of their exploits are the ones who survived them. Their plane out-turned, out-climbed, out-guned and outran the enemey, because if it hadn't, they wouldn't be around to tell the story.

Their claims concerning aircraft performance don't necessarily make them true, although if you read between the lines in the Bud Anderson interview, you will get a glimpse of the reality. The way to shoot down an enemey is to sneak up behind him and do him in with a close-up non-deflection shot. Something like 80% of the kills in WW-2 were from non-deflection shots.

Your are correct. IL-2 is a game and a pale imitation of real life. Because of its design and implementation, sucess depends much more on aircraft performance than it does in the real world. This fact does not necessarily mean that because certain aircraft do not perform well in the game that they aren't modeled correctly. If you want to fly the P-51 in the game more as it was in real life, fly 8:1 numbers against rookie A/I climbing up from 10,000 feet below and set to attack bombers.

OK...enough of my rant. If you want to try out the P-51 campaign I just finished, you can find it at:

http://www.weston-american.com/incoming/

Press the button that enters the file download area. Disregard the upload window and click on the file p=51Campaign.zip. Once you get the download, just unzip it to your IL-2 FB directory.

I'd like your thoughts on the campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nice post. Regardless of your credentials...WORD! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Abbuzze
01-26-2006, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
..........Would be interesting to take a closer look to the date of the "outturning reports", how many of them were written in 1943, when just G6 were around.

nut much, as late the P-51B flew combat missions in europe - as i remember december 1943. but sure till late 1944 the most 109s were also without MW50.

btw, the G6 is far from beeing helpless against the P-51 in GAME !! espacially at lower alts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right! It should be 43, early-mid 44. In this game- we are lucky that most Pony pilots don´t use their plane correct. In a 1vs1 situation if you fly a P51 and you are doing all the right way, it´s like Mark Hanna said:
[/QUOTE]
At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. [/QUOTE]

Joilet_Xray
01-26-2006, 09:13 AM
~S! All, good thread!

lrrp22
01-26-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Not so. The P-51 so far outclassed the 109 it wasn't a matter of debate. These two aircraft are by no means equals. The amount of data that backs this up is monumental.

GR142-Pipper

Almost as if I'd read LRRP22. Big words, no facts, totally biased, blind and deaf to reason.

These 'Final Word on the Subject' pilot stories are getting a bit boring though. They are all subjective and even more, bore the mark of specific conditions. There were never two equally skilled pilot, with equally good positions, both starting at exactly the same airspeed and energy, simple as that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm....

That's an interesting statement considering the fact I've told you repeatedly that I believe the 109 could generally out-turn the P-51 at low speeds. I've also said that pilot skill would be the deciding factor in most engagements.

You, on other hand, have said (screamed) repeatedly that the 109 enjoyed total superiority over the P-51 (and anything else) all the while claiming that any advantages enjoyed by the P-51 were nothing more than 'myths'- including high speed handling and rear visibility with regards to the bubbletop canopy vs. the Erla Haube!?

Hmmmm....

LRRP

vanjast
01-26-2006, 10:13 AM
P51 out-turn a FW190... hah hah hah In your dreams.
Online offline.. me and my FW190 are always inside a P51, even when it's on my six http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
01-26-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
That's an interesting statement considering the fact I've told you repeatedly that I believe the 109 could generally out-turn the P-51 at low speeds. I've also said that pilot skill would be the deciding factor in most engagements.

That wasn't my impression. I remember you working up yourself even when some drag specs were posted about 109 gondies when someone asked about them, in a thread that doesn't remotely touched the P-51, guess what, LRRP22 comes in and starts yelling that even the Mustang's wing racks were much superior, LOL.



You, on other hand, have said (screamed) repeatedly that the 109 enjoyed total superiority over the P-51 (and anything else) all the while claiming that any advantages enjoyed by the P-51 were nothing more than 'myths'- including high speed handling and rear visibility with regards to the bubbletop canopy vs. the Erla Haube!?

Oh, sure I did. Care to quote me saying that?

Sintubin
01-26-2006, 10:34 AM
@GR142_Pipper

Your a joke A BIG ANOYING JOKE

With stupid arguments LIKE ALWAYS

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Texan...
01-26-2006, 11:09 AM
Of course the P51 shouldn't out turn 109s at slow speeds, and I don't see where one person has mentioned wanting that.

Very interesting, the list of folks here not wanting the P51 to receive realistic modeling.

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

http://www.popcultureparadise.biz/tv/laughin.jpg

StellarRat
01-26-2006, 11:11 AM
I don't know. I find the P-51 to be a very good plane. Even I on the deck I've been pretty successful with it. I drop the combat flaps and I can pretty much keep anyone in front of me. But, it's really good at B and Z maybe better then the P-47 at medium alt. on the zoom out it seems to hold it's speed better plus you can make a tighter turns to adjust for target evasion on the run in. Usually, I'm shot down not by my target, but by someone else. The guns work fine for me. But, I get real close before I shoot (under 200 meters.)

Texan...
01-26-2006, 11:13 AM
The current FB P51 does seem to have the ability to turn rather well at speeds, but with the CoG problems that ability is completely unavailable. As soon as you try to engage and take advantage of the high speed turn the plane departs and you're on your back.

Seems reading some words from someone who was actuall there and is the real deal, has struck some nerves with a certain group of folks.

Xiolablu3
01-26-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:


On kiddie-style arcade/wonder woman servers, where every craft around has a big blue or red arrow pointing at it, and a billboard with the planes type and distance away attached to it,
Jumoschwanz

As opposed to the 'real men' playing the computer game on different settings?

You need to stop taking this game so seriously, mate.

Grey_Mouser67
01-26-2006, 11:33 AM
It is obvious to me from the various combat reports, wingloading specifications, gun cam film etc...that while we could debate endlessly about which plane out turned which plane; it looks to me that in real life, they were very very close.

In game, they are not very, very close. I know there are a lot of 109 fans that would have a cow if a Mustang followed them in their turns and the planes had strong, desync'd weapons and the stability to deliver them with high accuracy.....there is plenty of room for improvement.

I find that there is always, for any plane, an interest group of people who want aircraft to be improved in one way or the other....and there is opposition to those changes...almost exclusively from people who are fans of the plane in question's historical opposition....special interest groups battling away.

The Mustang was a great plane in real life, it is not in this game. The Mustang was dominant from early 44 till the end of the war. It needs to be improved. I'm not trying to bash 109's...I could...there are questionable attributes for certain....so how about trying to restore a little order.

One last note...if a good pilot can out turn an average pilot in real life, should a good pilot be able to out turn an average one in this sim? I would think yes, and I would say the reality is otherwise.

Soon we will see if Oleg is listening.

BaronUnderpants
01-26-2006, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Both 109 and P51 pilots reported that they could outturn the opponent. This pilots were also the one, that survived the war! So a good pilot is the difference between two planes.

Spot on.....if not u would wonder why Mr.Andersson prefered to approach enemy fighters ( Bf and Fw in this case ) from its 6 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Texan...
01-26-2006, 11:49 AM
Good points Mous.

There does seem to be a rather large contingent of special interest groups who are "interested" in this thread.

"I know there are a lot of 109 fans that would have a cow if a Mustang followed them in their turns and the planes had strong, desync'd weapons and the stability to deliver them with high accuracy.....there is plenty of room for improvement."


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

BaronUnderpants
01-26-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
In-game we all have the same G tolerance so raw aircraft performance data come to the fore and these may easily diverge from pilot accounts. Indeed...because this game is an pale approximation of the real world. It's certainly fun but a rough approximation nonetheless.

Throw in the myriad of other factors that can influence RL combat, from airframe state and fuel quality, to pilot training and mission parameters and you realize pilot accounts are worth very little (for FM purposes) without detailed context. Spoken like someone (take you, for instance) who's never been there and has never done it. It really is amazing how so many here take this little game for gospel. It is so far from that you have no idea...and you never will have any idea.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dito.

Texan...
01-26-2006, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
some stuff

Well pants, that's what every fighter pilot prefers to do, regardless of his plane type.

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

lrrp22
01-26-2006, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
That's an interesting statement considering the fact I've told you repeatedly that I believe the 109 could generally out-turn the P-51 at low speeds. I've also said that pilot skill would be the deciding factor in most engagements.

That wasn't my impression. I remember you working up yourself even when some drag specs were posted about 109 gondies when someone asked about them, in a thread that doesn't remotely touched the P-51, guess what, LRRP22 comes in and starts yelling that even the Mustang's wing racks were much superior, LOL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it wasn't your impression. Nonetheless, I've said that very thing over and over and over again. As for the gonolas, I simply said the Mustang's wing racks would be considerably less draggy than the 109's MG151/20 gondolas. They were. You were the one that started yelling, not me. You've since been banned from that forum for some truly reprehensible behavior. You've been banned from these fora once or twice, as well.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You, on other hand, have said (screamed) repeatedly that the 109 enjoyed total superiority over the P-51 (and anything else) all the while claiming that any advantages enjoyed by the P-51 were nothing more than 'myths'- including high speed handling and rear visibility with regards to the bubbletop canopy vs. the Erla Haube!?

Oh, sure I did. Care to quote me saying that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be disengenuous, Isegrim. You spent pages of posts telling us that the Erla Haube had better rear visibility than the P-51D. You used in-game screen shots to prove your point. Every six months or so you start one of your patented "Was P-51 High Speed Handling a Myth?" threads in which you claim that the P-51 and 109 had similar high speed handling.

LRRP

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
It is obvious to me from the various combat reports, wingloading specifications, gun cam film etc...that while we could debate endlessly about which plane out turned which plane; it looks to me that in real life, they were very very close.
and...?

In game, they are not very, very close.
You is wrong, be sure...

I know there are a lot of 109 fans that would have a cow if a Mustang followed them in their turns and the planes had strong, desync'd weapons and the stability to deliver them with high accuracy.....there is plenty of room for improvement.
Definitely. Some people need to learn to fly, sort out their controls or whatever because I regularly encounter P-51 aces. Have they hacked the game?

I find that there is always, for any plane, an interest group of people who want aircraft to be improved in one way or the other....and there is opposition to those changes...almost exclusively from people who are fans of the plane in question's historical opposition....special interest groups battling away.
I haven't seen you weigh in on the other side either, what makes you different?

The Mustang was a great plane in real life, it is not in this game.
You is wrong, be sure...

The Mustang was dominant from early 44 till the end of the war. It needs to be improved. I'm not trying to bash 109's...I could...there are questionable attributes for certain....so how about trying to restore a little order.
Dominant? How do you model that exactly? Where do you plug in the numbers for 'dominant' behaviour?

One last note...if a good pilot can out turn an average pilot in real life, should a good pilot be able to out turn an average one in this sim? I would think yes, and I would say the reality is otherwise.
I think I'm a good pilot and at speed am easily out-turned by P-51 pilots. Does that mean it is overmodelled?

Soon we will see if Oleg is listening.
Don't worry, he isn't... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

BaronUnderpants
01-26-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:

Bla bla bla


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


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

Texan...
01-26-2006, 12:13 PM
Somebody around here is definitely worried.

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

BaronUnderpants
01-26-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Somebody around here is definitely worried.

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

I get that way when someone replyes after reading half a post, choosing to dissregard whats actually said ( That P-51 was superior to Bf and Fw in every sence, shape and form, and should be so in the game to, all because 1 real life pilot said so ). Prediceble and tedious. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Philipscdrw
01-26-2006, 12:41 PM
The moral of the story is: Fly full real with historical tactics, and silly threads like this become irrelevant. Plus it's a lot more fun.

JtD
01-26-2006, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:

some stuff


I do fly the P-51 on occasion and happen to do quite well in it, still can't turn with 109's, have poor stability and synced guns. Just because you get killed by one from time to time, it doesn't mean it's a great plane or a delight to fly.

In a sustained level turn at low altitude all 109's I tested will outturn the P-51, some of them quite easily.

LilHorse
01-26-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
The current FB P51 does seem to have the ability to turn rather well at speeds, but with the CoG problems that ability is completely unavailable. As soon as you try to engage and take advantage of the high speed turn the plane departs and you're on your back.

Seems reading some words from someone who was actuall there and is the real deal, has struck some nerves with a certain group of folks.

It seems to me that I've been reading alot about people complaining about the P-51 departing in the manner described above. I think that what you are experiancing is an accelerated stall, which was indeed a big problem on Mustangs because of the laminar flow wing design. Yes, the Mustangs handling at high speeds was terrific. But if you attempted to turn too violently at high speed you very well could experiance an accelerated stall. Which would flip you onto your back. If you attempt to correct for this too soon (before laminar flow is re-established) you would keep flipping over. In this respect the FB P-51 is probably properly modeled. With the Mustang one should think in terms of high speed handling not high speed turning. Smooth inputs are the order of the day. Not yanking on the stick.

Oh, and terrific post Nigel Woodman.

Brain32
01-26-2006, 01:04 PM
Guys, if you're talking about FLAT turn there is more to it than just yanking the stick, If you expect to outturn a plane by sheere raw performance caracteristics of your plane you are delusional. Also IMHO P51 SHOULDN'T turn better than 109 atleast not on all altitudes and speeds. Find me a real data about that being true and I (and by far more importantly Oleg) will believe it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Because by reading all what some of you said it seems that you want a Spitfire with FW190 speed and Me109 climb, that is my friends what we call clown wagon. Now flame on...

luftluuver
01-26-2006, 01:08 PM
There is more than one way to turn with the EA besides doing the merry-go-round thingy.

I believe I read in "Long Reach" that the EA was not to be followed in a turn for more than 1/2 a turn.


@ LRRP22, I have noticed that Kurfurst has troubles with his memory and interpretation of what has been said.

Tator_Totts
01-26-2006, 01:11 PM
What I find amuzing is this. A few patches ago remember the big hype about real pilots giving imput on FM. Then people where shouting fowl no way the Mustang is this good. Then It got nerfed. I guess all those real pilots must be wrong. Arm chair pilots win again.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I do fly the P-51 on occasion and happen to do quite well in it, still can't turn with 109's, have poor stability and synced guns. Just because you get killed by one from time to time, it doesn't mean it's a great plane or a delight to fly.
I'm glad you picked up on how weak an argument that was. That's precisely what's wrong with the original post and many subsequent ones. Highly subjective 'evidence' is used to have the plane made 'better'.

In a sustained level turn at low altitude all 109's I tested will outturn the P-51, some of them quite easily.
Well then, the question is, should it be out-turned or not and I'm open to discussing the possibility. However, using anecdotal evidence as the proof of this is rather naive. There is not enough detail, context or objectivity in most pilot accounts to make a definitive conclusion that can actually be parlayed into FM changes.

It's just as poor an argument as when 190-drivers hop on to complain that their planes are not realistically modelled because they can't 'dogfight' spits as pilot reports indicated they did.

Show me (or rather Oleg) numbers that indicate that the P-51 could out-turn the better 109 models (G-2, G-10, K-4) and I will back you 100%. I have before and will again, provided I am convinced. e.g. I was one of the first to complain against the ridiculous dive-limitations imposed on VVS planes a few patches back. (2003 thread (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004876;p=2#000 069)) Come in with this ludicrous and subjective interpretation of a pilot account though and naturally I am suspicious.

LilHorse
01-26-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
There is not enough detail, context or objectivity in most pilot accounts to make a definitive conclusion that can actually be parlayed into FM changes.

Which brings us to the overall point in all of this ie. How true to actual numbers are these planes modeled? The numbers are not subjective. They are the mathematical componants that the computer crunches to physically model the aircraft. If you have all the physical attributes of Old Crow accurately modeled and all the attributes of say a Bf-109G2 modeled correctly then it doesn't matter what Bud Anderson has to say. If you fail to win such a matchup in your Mustang then you aren't flying/fighting with it properly. Or maybe the 109 flyer is better than you. Either way, you ain't Bud Anderson.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 01:27 PM
Egg'sactly!

Texan...
01-26-2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
What I find amuzing is this. A few patches ago remember the big hype about real pilots giving imput on FM. Then people where shouting fowl no way the Mustang is this good. Then It got nerfed. I guess all those real pilots must be wrong. Arm chair pilots win again.

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

danjama
01-26-2006, 01:29 PM
Im not gonna comment on what he said he felt the plane could do, im just gonna say thankyou for posting, im very grateful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Just because you get killed by one from time to time, it doesn't mean it's a great plane or a delight to fly.
Let's take this from another perspective. You are more than willing to discount my account of in-game performance (and rightfully so) even though I have flown more sorties in this game than most WWII pilots ever did. Why are their accounts not held to the same level of scrutiny?

Mr. Anderson says that he "felt [he] could outturn [the 190/109]" and it is taken as a blanket statement, gospel truth that says that no P-51 shall ever be out-turned in-game by either plane. It is amazing what we can overlook when we want so desperately to believe.

JtD
01-26-2006, 01:37 PM
Jetbuff, I am quite happy with the relative performance of the P-51 and the 109's in sustained level turns.

LilHorse
01-26-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
What I find amuzing is this. A few patches ago remember the big hype about real pilots giving imput on FM. Then people where shouting fowl no way the Mustang is this good. Then It got nerfed. I guess all those real pilots must be wrong. Arm chair pilots win again.

That or perhaps the modeling changed for all planes across the board to more accurately reflect real flight characteristics and people used to being able to make their Mustangs sit up and beg discovered that they were actually applying neanderthal-like iputs that would not be forgiven in a more realistic FM.

Lots of things changed for ALL the planes and many people found it quite disconcerting that they were no longer able to jump into their favored ride and perform as well as before.
Too many people want the P-51 to behave like a Zero on steroids and that just isn't reality.

BTW, I would have thought after the bizatch slapdown of a post by Nigel Woodman that all this stuff would have stopped. Of course I'm not helping in that regard http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. But It's still pretty funny to watch.

|CoB|_Spectre
01-26-2006, 01:52 PM
What a crowd! Due to our interest in WWII air combat, we gravitate to any interview or article exerpt by somebody who was really there and we hang on every word. Then the armchair quarterbacking starts. It torques my jaws when someone denegrates the recollections "of an old man", as if it's the ravings of a lunatic. Chances are, you wouldn't have survived under the circumstances he recollects. Anecdotal evidence obviously has no value herewhatsoever, as if Reynolds numbers and coefficients can tell us all we need to know.

I was disappointed in the interview itself, not for Bud's responses, but for the question upon question, nested in another question, asked by the interviewer rather than a succinct query to which the man could respond.

No fighter pilot could emerge successful if he didn't have faith in the machine he rides to war, therefore it should not be surprising Allied and Axis pilots felt their ride was more than a match for the other side. In the end, it is largely experience and no small amount of luck that determines victor or vanquished.

jds1978
01-26-2006, 01:54 PM
Philipscdrw
Posted Thu January 26 2006 11:41
The moral of the story is: Fly full real with historical tactics, and silly threads like this become irrelevant. Plus it's a lot more fun.


rgr that.

my two cents: 1. P51 turn rate is fine
2. Wing snap is questionable
3. Wobbly nose is a joke
4. De-synch tracers
5. Anderson is my hero

the idea of a Mustang regularly out-turning a Gustav is just wrong

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Pipper, no one disputes Anderson's comments, Baloney. That's absolutely what you're doing. Don't backpeddle now.
but we certainly dispute your ill-informed and rather (characteristically so) biased interpretation. More baloney.
I have disputed even the Faber test report due to the lack of sufficient detail, and that was an actual aircraft performance test! Who cares what you do or don't dispute. You've got no actual experience in anything so your endorsement is absolutely meaningless. Sorry to burst your little bubble.
Still, let's review the 'evidence' shall we? Yes, let's do. Anderson was willing to engage 190s and 109s on ANY terms.


Your lack of objectivity with regard to this otherwise interesting account is astonishing and your conclusions beyond flawed. However, given your previous record, they are quite predictable. Don't bother trying to retort with your usual empty bluster; I have more important things to do than to argue with the likes of you. Good thing because it's clear you simply have no idea what you're tallking about and won't accept the word of experience by those who have been there and done it. If it's between you (the never-been)/Maddox (the programmer) on one side and Anderson (the real deal with a first-hand proven track record) on the other, once again my money's on Anderson...everytime.

GR142-Pipper

vanjast
01-26-2006, 01:58 PM
HERE is the undeniable proof that the FW190 OUT-TURNS the P51...

Case Closed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
UberFW (http://www.vanjast.com/images/FWvsP51.avi)

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

luftluuver
01-26-2006, 02:06 PM
GR142-Pipper = the American version of Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Not so. The P-51 so far outclassed the 109 it wasn't a matter of debate. These two aircraft are by no means equals. The amount of data that backs this up is monumental.

GR142-Pipper

Almost as if I'd read LRRP22. Big words, no facts, totally biased, blind and deaf to reason.

These 'Final Word on the Subject' pilot stories are getting a bit boring though. They are all subjective and even more, bore the mark of specific conditions. There were never two equally skilled pilot, with equally good positions, both starting at exactly the same airspeed and energy, simple as that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaking from my own first-hand experience, if you said that in any fighter squadron's ready room you would be laughed straight out of the place. Fighter pilots listen to each other very carefully and take seriously what is said. We particularly look for trends. Know why? What you dismiss is mere subjectivity we view as very inexpensive life insurance. Our way works.

GR142-Pipper

rnzoli
01-26-2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
my money's on Anderson...everytime.

Buy a flightsim from him then.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
GR142-Pipper = the American version of Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Yeah, I should have known better than trying to engage him in a meaningful debate. He's already resorted to mudslinging, slander and point-dodging. Typical of someone who no longer has an argument. C'est la vie...

Spectre, disregard others' perceptions of what I said and re-read my posts. I never denegrated Anderson's comments and certainly did not imply he was senile. Indeed, I have used his quotes before to argue that trim use in-combat was actually employed.

I do however question the conclusion some people derived from them. Like you said, these guys trusted their machines and thought highly of them. He may have felt that he could, and obviously did, out-turn any 109/190 he encountered but that does not automatically mean that the raw performance numbers warrant that the P-51 could outturn them.

LilHorse
01-26-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Speaking from my own first-hand experience, if you said that in any fighter squadron's ready room you would be laughed straight out of the place. Fighter pilots listen to each other very carefully and take seriously what is said. We particularly look for trends. Know why? What you dismiss is mere subjectivity we view as very inexpensive life insurance. Our way works.
GR142-Pipper

I assume by your above comment that you are/were a fighter pilot? If that is the case I'm curious as to what your response is to Nigel Woodmans post.

I find it interesting that there would be two RL military pilots on opposite sides of this issue.

Tator_Totts
01-26-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
What I find amuzing is this. A few patches ago remember the big hype about real pilots giving imput on FM. Then people where shouting fowl no way the Mustang is this good. Then It got nerfed. I guess all those real pilots must be wrong. Arm chair pilots win again.

That or perhaps the modeling changed for all planes across the board to more accurately reflect real flight characteristics and people used to being able to make their Mustangs sit up and beg discovered that they were actually applying neanderthal-like iputs that would not be forgiven in a more realistic FM.

Lots of things changed for ALL the planes and many people found it quite disconcerting that they were no longer able to jump into their favored ride and perform as well as before.
Too many people want the P-51 to behave like a Zero on steroids and that just isn't reality.

BTW, I would have thought after the bizatch slapdown of a post by Nigel Woodman that all this stuff would have stopped. Of course I'm not helping in that regard http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. But It's still pretty funny to watch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can changes since then to reflect more correct flight characteristics when the real pilots gave the ok to the FM back then and now it has changed alot. Like I said The real pilots are wrong armchair is right.

P.S. I have not heard of any one claiming that the P-51 should turn like a Zero. Just some cant stand the fact that an American plane could be good not the best I said but good.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
BTW, I would have thought after the bizatch slapdown of a post by Nigel Woodman that all this stuff would have stopped. Of course I'm not helping in that regard http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. But It's still pretty funny to watch.
Nah... Bud Anderson himself could pop in here to correct any misinterpretation and they would still whine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Nigel_Woodman:
Degree in aerospce engineering
U.S. Naval Aviator number V-27827
Carrier Qualified
Two Vietnam era operational tours
Tour in Operational Test and Evaluation
Commercial single and multi-engine license
Sailplane certificate

I've flown combat prop aircraft, including the A-1 and T-28 modified for Viet Nam. I've flown jets including the T-2, A-4 and A-7. I've flown multi-engine including the S-2, S-3 and P-3. I've flown aircraft I can't even remember and have a total of over 3500 first pilot and solo hours, including over 100 hours in sailplanes.

I've owned a company that developed aviation simulation software and built aircraft components.

I think I'm qualified to say I've been there. Excellent credentials, no doubt.


Here's what's important:

1. Pilot training, skill and experience.
2. Detecting (seeing) the other guy first.
3. Being higher, faster and in a good position
4. Being able to shoot straight
5. Luck Yes, all very important.


Relative aircraft performance is way down the list. No it's not. If you know your aircraft as well as that of your opponent, you'll know when, how and even if you're able to exploit his weaknesses. Relative performance is a very big piece of this decision making.


The bottom line: Most military pilots are egotistical blowhards (I count myself in that category). The ones who get to give accounts of their exploits are the ones who survived them. Their plane out-turned, out-climbed, out-guned and outran the enemey, because if it hadn't, they wouldn't be around to tell the story. Given the aircraft types you have listed, I'm not sure if you came from the VA, VS or VP communities as your primary warfare specialty. In the VF community, knowledge is shared openly and in as objective manner as possible because our lives are on the line in a first-hand, non-academic air-to-air manner.


Their claims concerning aircraft performance don't necessarily make them true, although if you read between the lines in the Bud Anderson interview, you will get a glimpse of the reality. But collectively aircrew claims establish trends and the opinions based on these trends are nearly always determined to be true.
The way to shoot down an enemey is to sneak up behind him and do him in with a close-up non-deflection shot. Something like 80% of the kills in WW-2 were from non-deflection shots. True enough but the trouble is, in many cases it doesn't work out that way and you find yourself in an engagement, either by choice or by circumstance.


Your are correct. IL-2 is a game and a pale imitation of real life. Because of its design and implementation, sucess depends much more on aircraft performance than it does in the real world. This fact does not necessarily mean that because certain aircraft do not perform well in the game that they aren't modeled correctly. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on why they don't perform well.
If you want to fly the P-51 in the game more as it was in real life, fly 8:1 numbers against rookie A/I climbing up from 10,000 feet below and set to attack bombers. Respectfully disagree on this point but no matter. This statement sidesteps the underlying issues that are being discussed here and in other threads regarding the P-51 in this game (to wit: wings coming off, 50's being weak, weak energy retention/acceleration relative to opponents, etc.) and how it differs from it's real world counterpart.


OK...enough of my rant. If you want to try out the P-51 campaign I just finished, you can find it at:

http://www.weston-american.com/incoming/

Press the button that enters the file download area. Disregard the upload window and click on the file p=51Campaign.zip. Once you get the download, just unzip it to your IL-2 FB directory.

I'd like your thoughts on the campaign. Sounds interesting and I'll have a look.

GR142-Pipper

Slickun
01-26-2006, 02:53 PM
One thing that is almost never mentioned on these discussions about wing loading etc is the Mustang's ability to drop flaps at speeds of up to 400 mph indicated.

There is a ton of anecdotal evidence where a Mustang pilot would be going round and round, no advantage, drop 10 degrees for an instant, pull lead, and blast the E/A, raise flaps before speed dropped too far. The flaps dropped for a short time allowed tighter turns, but dropped energy quicker. Judicial use was required.

My Dad said that some pilots used flaps, others chose to never slow down any more than necesary.

I've never seen any data that shows what the Mustang's wing loading was with combat flaps.

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
What I find amuzing is this. A few patches ago remember the big hype about real pilots giving imput on FM. Then people where shouting fowl no way the Mustang is this good. Then It got nerfed. I guess all those real pilots must be wrong. Arm chair pilots win again. Soooo true.

GR142-Pipper

LilHorse
01-26-2006, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
What I find amuzing is this. A few patches ago remember the big hype about real pilots giving imput on FM. Then people where shouting fowl no way the Mustang is this good. Then It got nerfed. I guess all those real pilots must be wrong. Arm chair pilots win again.

That or perhaps the modeling changed for all planes across the board to more accurately reflect real flight characteristics and people used to being able to make their Mustangs sit up and beg discovered that they were actually applying neanderthal-like iputs that would not be forgiven in a more realistic FM.

Lots of things changed for ALL the planes and many people found it quite disconcerting that they were no longer able to jump into their favored ride and perform as well as before.
Too many people want the P-51 to behave like a Zero on steroids and that just isn't reality.

BTW, I would have thought after the bizatch slapdown of a post by Nigel Woodman that all this stuff would have stopped. Of course I'm not helping in that regard http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. But It's still pretty funny to watch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can changes since then to reflect more correct flight characteristics when the real pilots gave the ok to the FM back then and now it has changed alot. Like I said The real pilots are wrong armchair is right.

P.S. I have not heard of any one claiming that the P-51 should turn like a Zero. Just some cant stand the fact that an American plane could be good not the best I said but good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with the P-51 being as good in the sim as it was IRL. Quite frankly I think it's still pretty dang good.
I just have difficulty in believing that the programmers who went throught the trouble of soliciting the opinions of real pilots would, after whining from sim flyers, pork the P-51 to mollify them. Isn't it possible that they solicited the opinions of pilots on this go-around? I don't know.

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Just because you get killed by one from time to time, it doesn't mean it's a great plane or a delight to fly.
Let's take this from another perspective. You are more than willing to discount my account of in-game performance (and rightfully so) even though I have flown more sorties in this game than most WWII pilots ever did. Why are their accounts not held to the same level of scrutiny? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy. Because they flew REAL aircraft in REAL combat against REAL opponents for YEARS in a kill-or-be-killed environment and their opinions are based on what REALLY worked and what didn't. Their views (unlike yours) aren't based on little computer games by Oleg the programmer.

GR142-Pipper

VW-IceFire
01-26-2006, 03:18 PM
Great quotes....I think the thing is that a Mustang CAN turn with a 109 and a 190 fairly well as long as a certain speed was kept. I'm sure Bud Anderson knew what that sort of speed was (and maybe just assumes everyone else knows this as part of standard WWII fighter combat) and how he could get the best out of his plane at that speed.

The Mustang in the game, despite all of its other problems, can hold a 109 into a turn at a decent speed level with combat flaps deployed. You can even gain advantage if the 109 pilot isn't a grizzled online veteran and shoot him down. Sounds like the real one actually.

The problem with the Mustang is not in its turn rate. The problem is a COG problem that affects several aircraft...the problem is that this patch has introduced a level of controller problems that some experience and others don't (I have it to varrying degrees)...the problem is that the elevator is too effective...it was not as effective before and then it was made too effective. This is part of the FM balancing process but 4.02 is probably the worst for this in a while.

But if were talking strictly turning in circles...the Mustang actually holds one fairly well as long as the speeds are right (in my book, anything above 320kph IAS), the rudder is co-ordinated, and the nose is pointed the right way. This is made much harder by a severly wandering nose...

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Speaking from my own first-hand experience, if you said that in any fighter squadron's ready room you would be laughed straight out of the place. Fighter pilots listen to each other very carefully and take seriously what is said. We particularly look for trends. Know why? What you dismiss is mere subjectivity we view as very inexpensive life insurance. Our way works.
GR142-Pipper


I assume by your above comment that you are/were a fighter pilot? If that is the case I'm curious as to what your response is to Nigel Woodmans post. Yes, I was. Based on his stated credentials, Nigel is an experienced aviator with comments worth consideration.


I find it interesting that there would be two RL military pilots on opposite sides of this issue. There are some areas in which he and I clearly agree and others in which our views differ. It appears likely we came from different warfare communities in the USN. I did post a response to his.

GR142-Pipper

rnzoli
01-26-2006, 03:24 PM
on little computer games by Oleg the programmer.
"Oleg Maddox, the lead designer and the driving force behind the Il-2 series of flight sims, has always been fascinated with aviation. He always dreamt of being an aircraft designer, and at the age of 16 he entered Moscow Aviation Institute €" the most prestigious Soviet school for aviation engineers. By the time he graduated with top honors in his class, his passion for WWII aviation grew even stronger.

While still in institute he was hired by one of USSR€s top aerospace technology research design bureaus. He was promoted time and again over everybody else in his department until he became one of the youngest department managers in the bureau€s history."

Oleg the programmer & this little game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Man, your zelous drive is leading nowhere. Even if you are right, you sound completely wrong. If the situation is so bad, please boycott the porked P51 & boycott this little game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

crazyivan1970
01-26-2006, 03:26 PM
Oh boy...here we go again. Maybe it`s time for Fish to post his movie about sweeping WC in the P-51D and taking names. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

There are couple things are different IRL from flight simulation. Best LW aces might not have as many hours in 109 or 190 as some of the people here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Cant say much about others...but i think i have like 3-4 thousends hours in 109s.
Odds are very different, objectives....etc etc. This is great interview, dont get me wrong and thanks for posting it... but come on guys, how can you analize performance of aircraft on this? He did not specify alt, speed, numbers, mission type...ect, ect. And already conclusions made. Tsk tsk tsk. I have nothing but respect to WW2 pilots, but making assumptions based on their memoirs is a bit too far fetched, dont you think?

crazyivan1970
01-26-2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
GR142-Pipper = the American version of Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best line of today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Texan...
01-26-2006, 03:29 PM
I think the turn rate is probably close at high speeds and a bit too weak at slower speeds. Yes, the main issues are:

Unstable/CoG problem

Bobbling nose

Synch'ed guns

You just cannot push this plane like I've read pilots doing IRL.

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 03:30 PM
You can poke and prod me all you want Pipper, I'm not going to respond in kind to your pitiful insults. My point has been made and your agenda exposed. Nothing further is necessary. Enjoy... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Texan...
01-26-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
GR142-Pipper = the American version of Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best line of today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor example of Mod leadership Ivan.

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

Kurfurst__
01-26-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Of course it wasn't your impression. Nonetheless, I've said that very thing over and over and over again. As for the gonolas, I simply said the Mustang's wing racks would be considerably less draggy than the 109's MG151/20 gondolas. They were. You were the one that started yelling, not me.

Like a child. 'I didn't did it, HE did it!' I am right, you are wrong'!
Make claim, fail to back it up, deny everything and repeat the same.



Don't be disengenuous, Isegrim. You spent pages of posts telling us that the Erla Haube had better rear visibility than the P-51D. You used in-game screen shots to prove your point. Every six months or so you start one of your patented "Was P-51 High Speed Handling a Myth?" threads in which you claim that the P-51 and 109 had similar high speed handling.

Oh, sure. Quote me. What else can you make up?

To Quote LRRP22:


"lrrp22 Posted 05-09-10, 23:15
Obviously, Holtzhauge, you haven't read through most of this thread.

The P-51 was controllable up to .85 mach. The trim tabs weren't required to pull out of high speed dives because the elevators were effective enough to well exceed the aircraft's structural limmits. Same with the Fw 190- plenty of control authority to pull out at will with just the stick.

You're comments regarding the 109's 'excellent' high-speed characteristics are patently ridiculous. Even Isegrim/Kurfurst admits the 109 was extremely heavy in pitch at high speeds. The trim wheel was the 109 pilot's only real option for very high speed dive recovery."


Funny how you claim something, and next time, the exact opposite, depedning on your needs.... You should better decide what I am claiming... Pinocchio. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And you wonder why you don't have any credibilty around here?

crazyivan1970
01-26-2006, 03:34 PM
Anyone got popcorn smiley? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

On the side not, dont get personal or this thread will not last long, ok?

VW-IceFire
01-26-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
GR142-Pipper = the American version of Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best line of today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor example of Mod leadership Ivan.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh its true...they are all pretty much the same in their devotion. They just have different points of view. Everyone accepts them as being outspoken and largely reliant on their own very opinionated perspective and since they cannot really be convinced of anything else what really is the point.

The rest of us just let them go on. I mean its not too terribly bad because at least its an academic discussion and some good may come out of it for the rest of us...

They also seem to rarely flame each other in any significant way. We don't see too many vulgar insults tossed about or anything...hopefully that keeps up. At least its something...you want to see real chaos visit some Real Time Strategy game forums or a FPS game forum. Thats way different http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
01-26-2006, 03:38 PM
Ah come on Texan, i am human too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Texan...
01-26-2006, 03:38 PM
But I will say it's awesome how much emotion this beauty evokes after 60+ years.

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

http://www.aafo.com/gallery/1999/missam/slideshow/images/12.jpg

Texan...
01-26-2006, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Ah come on Texan, i am human too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Yes, the main issues are:

Unstable/CoG problem

Bobbling nose
I have noticed that both the spitfire and P-51 have a little more abrupt roll/yaw/pitch coupling than other planes. Whether this is realistic or not I have no idea. It does not show up as drastic nose-wobble/bobble on my machine though that others have complained about. OTOH, it does require more multi-control-inputs when initiating/stopping any maneuver. Without those, the best I can describe it is it feels similar to what the 190 experienced a while ago - the feeling of balancing on the tip of pin except this time it's around the longitidunal axis. That was traced to an oversensitive roll-rate, perhaps the over-responsive elevator on both planes is also the cause here?

Synch'ed guns
While I'm afraid that I did not follow the exploration of the synchronization issue to its conclusion, I do know that with my guns set to two buttons, I have rarely experienced "missing" the target with 0.50 cals even at 90? deflection angles.

fordfan25
01-26-2006, 03:54 PM
Enjoy, and here's hoping for the return of the P51 Mustang to IL2:Forgotten Battles.
yea good luck with that dream. dont you know every thing recorded by history is propaganda? be sure.

crazyivan1970
01-26-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
yea good luck with that dream. dont you know every thing recorded by history is propaganda?

Unfortunately alot of those recordings are propaganda fordfan, and every side is quilty of it in different degree. And even that you meant to crack a joke...there is alot of truth in it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Texan...
01-26-2006, 04:16 PM
Wow, you really just said that.

lrrp22
01-26-2006, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Of course it wasn't your impression. Nonetheless, I've said that very thing over and over and over again. As for the gonolas, I simply said the Mustang's wing racks would be considerably less draggy than the 109's MG151/20 gondolas. They were. You were the one that started yelling, not me.

Like a child. 'I didn't did it, HE did it!' I am right, you are wrong'!
Make claim, fail to back it up, deny everything and repeat the same.



Don't be disengenuous, Isegrim. You spent pages of posts telling us that the Erla Haube had better rear visibility than the P-51D. You used in-game screen shots to prove your point. Every six months or so you start one of your patented "Was P-51 High Speed Handling a Myth?" threads in which you claim that the P-51 and 109 had similar high speed handling.

Oh, sure. Quote me. What else can you make up?

To Quote LRRP22:


"lrrp22 Posted 05-09-10, 23:15
Obviously, Holtzhauge, you haven't read through most of this thread.

The P-51 was controllable up to .85 mach. The trim tabs weren't required to pull out of high speed dives because the elevators were effective enough to well exceed the aircraft's structural limmits. Same with the Fw 190- plenty of control authority to pull out at will with just the stick.

You're comments regarding the 109's 'excellent' high-speed characteristics are patently ridiculous. Even Isegrim/Kurfurst admits the 109 was extremely heavy in pitch at high speeds. The trim wheel was the 109 pilot's only real option for very high speed dive recovery."


Funny how you claim something, and next time, the exact opposite, depedning on your needs.... You should better decide what I am claiming... Pinocchio. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And you wonder why you don't have any credibilty around here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Excellent- we'll just take this as your admission (finally) that the 109 was in-fact extremely heavy at high speeds, and that you finally accept the obvious truth that the P-51D featured much better all-around vision! Now, was that so hard?

I see you used the search function- good thing for you it doesn't go back very far, huh?

LRRP


EDIT: Uh oh, Isegrim...I guess the search does go back that far. This is where you posted in-game screen shots as your 'proof'. The original pics aren't available anymore, but your claim is very clear:


<Vo101_Isegrim>

Posted Fri October 24 2003 12:22
Here`s the good reason why Blutarski and the rest of the clowns didn`t posted the rear view from P-47 :

P-47D w. Bubble canopy :



Here`s a picture of a Yak. Should be very similiar to the view from a P-51D :



And here`s the Erla haube :



<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Clearly the Erla provided a better rear view.</span>


As sorry Blussy-Puss, it doesn`t really matter how many time you parrot it. The Carson clown never flew a 109, ANY verion, and has no idea of it. He`s qouting an old British evaluation for 109E.

tomtheyak
01-26-2006, 04:48 PM
In the year or two that I have been visiting these forums I have had some rather abrupt, well I was about to say 'reverses', but it would be more accurate to say 'reappraisals' of historic facts that up until I had been here I had regarded as set in stone.

I have absorbed absolutely everything I can find on WW2 aviation, particlarly Allied fighters.
A say this without shame and with honesty; It's a glamour boy thing - I grew up with the concepts of 'evil' Nazis (notice I say NOT germans here) and noble, heroic chisel jawed and sardonic RAF/USAAF men with the situational awareness and reactions of a fly and the best fighter aeroplanes in the business.
Even as the reading material matured because most of my it's from the allied perspective I took it as gospel.

Having seen much evidence here in passed months my view is not, as I say, reversed; but I am willing to change or at least hold my views open to modification.

These things aren't black and white.

For example I always believed till my late teens that the Spitfire was the best fighter, ever, period. In truth however as a short-range air superiority fighter in its many guises it was near the top of the list versus its contemporaries but still had short comings - range, marginal longitudal stability, high nose (deflection shooting problem), lack of aileron trim.
I was also I firm believer that no bf109 could out-turn a spit! I'll say that I am willing to believe that they could have been very close in this regard - not from the game but from the stats and evidence I have seen both here and elsewhere.

The Mustang needs work - I find it difficult and downright unpleasant to fly - but Pipper, mate you gotta understand that until you or I or someone else gets hold of a *real* wartime condition and trim (that is guns, ammo, radio, oxygen, fuel and pilot) P-51 and flys it in mock combat with a *real* bf109(whatever variant) in exactly the same condition, and does a series of scientific measures at various altitudes and airspeeds, WE ARE NEVER GONNA KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IT WAS REALLY LIKE.

I've read the books by Yeager and Anderson; even met Anderson at an airshow over here in Duxford UK. Couldnt bring myself to say much to him I was so humbled and in awe.

But the anecdotal evidence is virtually meaningless. It gives no clues to altitude, airspeeds, trim, just a fellows 60 year old memory.

If I ask you about a memorable dogfight online from only a year ago I doubt you'd be able to give an accurate second by second blow. Hell i can't from one I did on monday night, and I'm 25.

I agree, some of the Mustangs handling characteristics need assessment, but given the data suplied here with regards to wing- and power- loadings, I dont know how you can come to the conclusion that the 51 should be some sort of lowspeed turn & burner supremo.

The 109 is an excellent fighter (but not the greatest) that is underestimated thanks to Allied superiority in numbers and training, and of course the ultimate victory of the allied airforces. Its easy to dismiss it as a loser plane if sheer losses are taken into account. A well flown Jagdwaffe aircraft of any variant during the war is a dangerous opponent period. Its prudent to remember this.

jds1978
01-26-2006, 04:54 PM
Texan...
Posted Thu January 26 2006 14:29
I think the turn rate is probably close at high speeds and a bit too weak at slower speeds. Yes, the main issues are:

Unstable/CoG problem

Bobbling nose

Synch'ed guns

You just cannot push this plane like I've read pilots doing IRL.


1000% True!.........rate of turn is not porked.
I've stated this before and will again: 4.03 should look into these FM goofs with the main offender being the P51D....oddly enough i have little trouble controlling the MK III http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

telsono
01-26-2006, 05:21 PM
There are certain things that this game cannot simulate and those are the special abilities of certain pilots. From what I read about Anderson and Yeager, they had besides great piloting skills, exceptional eyesight, both of them. They would spot enemy formations first and position themselves for the kill. Every pilot in this sim has the same eyesight because of the way the game is designed. That's not a bad thing, just technical limits.
It all boils down to "its the pilot".

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
You can poke and prod me all you want Pipper, I'm not going to respond in kind to your pitiful insults. My point has been made and your agenda exposed. Nothing further is necessary. Enjoy... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif What has been exposed is you have no point and know nothing about the topic. Your emptiness will be missed.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
The Mustang needs work - I find it difficult and downright unpleasant to fly - but Pipper, mate you gotta understand that until you or I or someone else gets hold of a *real* wartime condition and trim (that is guns, ammo, radio, oxygen, fuel and pilot) P-51 and flys it in mock combat with a *real* bf109(whatever variant) in exactly the same condition, and does a series of scientific measures at various altitudes and airspeeds, WE ARE NEVER GONNA KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IT WAS REALLY LIKE. Sure we are and we do as the information is amply available. There are volumes of anecdotal evidence that describe the P-51 by the men who flew it. Furthermore, there are former military flyers like BSS_Vidar with actual P-51 time who play this game. His view is that the P-51 as modeled in this game is just plain weak. This aside, the sheer amount of P-51 information (both technical and anecdotal) tell us what a first-rate aircraft this was. Those who flew it did so with complete confidence...and they have the war record results that reinforces this view.

Your point made above would (IMHO) be more valid if we didn't have so much information already available on the P-51. But we do.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
01-26-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
GR142-Pipper = the American version of Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Kurfurst has insults and charts. Pipper just has insults.

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
But the anecdotal evidence is virtually meaningless. It gives no clues to altitude, airspeeds, trim, just a fellows 60 year old memory. I think herein lies some of the confusion. The remarks regarding the P-51 and those who think it's quite weak in this game (count me among them) aren't simply based on the views of one WWII fighter pilot. Information on the P-51 was established from its first combat use through today. That's over a continuous 60 year time line. This aircraft by all leading historian's measure was a superb fighting aircraft and arguably the finest of the WWII fighters. I point this out because there are some here who think that solely because "Anderson said so" that it's so. That's not the case and no one is arguing it. Anderson's voice is but one of many, many aviators who know first-hand what the P-51 could do...and his voice is in synch with what his collegues have said.

GR142-Pipper

lrrp22
01-26-2006, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:Furthermore, there are former military flyers like BSS_Vidar with actual P-51 time who play this game. His view is that the P-51 as modeled in this game is just plain weak.


Weren't you just implying in a previous post that *you* were a fighter pilot VF-type? Which is it?

LRRP

GR142-Pipper
01-26-2006, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:Furthermore, there are former military flyers like BSS_Vidar with actual P-51 time who play this game. His view is that the P-51 as modeled in this game is just plain weak.


Weren't you just implying in a previous post that *you* were a fighter pilot VF-type? Which is it?

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I was a fighter pilot in the USN. BSS_Vidar was also a Navy flyer who also has real P-51 flight time.

GR142-Pipper

Tator_Totts
01-26-2006, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Anyone got popcorn smiley? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

On the side not, dont get personal or this thread will not last long, ok?

Here you go

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/popcorn.gif

Grey_Mouser67
01-26-2006, 06:19 PM
There are those here, in their easy chairs, who in their own minds know more than real pilots.

No plane in this game is completely accurate, only degrees of inaccuracy. Some more than others. There is no argument that will be strong enough to convince those who already know better, through their own mind and no experience, that they must be correct....so no bother fighting it, arguing it, debating it as logic holds no value to people such as this.

The only person worth talking to and convincing is Oleg....somehow, I think he knows...I think he does read these forums...but his decision is one of economics and popularity...how to satisfy the Mustang group who want to see a more accurately modelled aircraft without ticking off the crew that love to fly the 109. They protect their territory vigorously as they spout off how good of pilots they are, but they are out turned by Mustangs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif or fear being out turned by Mustangs...amazing!

Tator_Totts
01-26-2006, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
There are those here, in their easy chairs, who in their own minds know more than real pilots.

No plane in this game is completely accurate, only degrees of inaccuracy. Some more than others. There is no argument that will be strong enough to convince those who already know better, through their own mind and no experience, that they must be correct....so no bother fighting it, arguing it, debating it as logic holds no value to people such as this.

The only person worth talking to and convincing is Oleg....somehow, I think he knows...I think he does read these forums...but his decision is one of economics and popularity...how to satisfy the Mustang group who want to see a more accurately modelled aircraft without ticking off the crew that love to fly the 109. They protect their territory vigorously as they spout off how good of pilots they are, but they are out turned by Mustangs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif or fear being out turned by Mustangs...amazing!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 06:25 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Texan...
01-26-2006, 06:34 PM
I think Vidar was a RIO.

Also, he did say that the FB P51 is nothing like the real plane.

Texan...
01-26-2006, 06:38 PM
So yah, maybe at least the game developers are interested in an accurate P51, even if some players are not.

http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P51/AM-p51_04.jpg

Xiolablu3
01-26-2006, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
This aircraft by all leading historian's measure was a superb fighting aircraft and arguably the finest of the WWII fighters.

GR142-Pipper

I htink you should change this to in 'US Historians' measure.

People from Britain/Canada are sure the Spitfire is the best (and it WAS a superior close in dogfighter/Interceptor, but it couldnt carry as much fuel), just like people in Russia are sure the La7 is better, German people would think the Me262 better... etc etc.

You can't just say it should be the best, cos HE said so, I htink most of your quotes about the P51 being the 'best' come from your own country.

I do however think that the P51 has some glaring faults in this sim which should be corrected.

Kettenhunde
01-26-2006, 07:18 PM
What I thought was very interesting is the fact there are more similarities than differences between the veterans.

Bud Anderson relates "I feared no fighter as long as I could see him."

Oscar Boesch says "In my Focke Wulf, I feared no fighter I could see."

Bud Anderson says ""..in a turning dogfight. This was probably the dominant tactic....""

Oscar Boesch says "I turned with everything."

Oscar Shot down a P51 over the Ardennes Forest by outturning it in an FW-190A8. He then looked back and counted 5 P51's in the turning circle with him.

He dove for the tree tops, hit "Erh¶hte Notleistung", and gradually pulled away from all 5 P51's in pursuit. Finally they turned back and Oscar got away. 8 of his comrades were killed in the initial bounce.

Heinz Orlowski in an FW-190F8 also outturned a Mustang III from 65 Squadron after a dogfight going from high altitude down to the treetops.


A single Mustang (HB836) tried to help out, and attacked the German fighter. A long aerial duel developed. The Mustang finally caught fire, and made a wide turn out the fjord. Perhaps he will try to get away and make a crashlanding. But then the British pilot turned back. According to eyewitnesses the pilot must have been badly wounded, but instead of bailing out he continued the fight. But to no avail. The Mustang crashed in the green pine forrest being the only Mustang loss of this battle. W/O Cecil Claude Caesar was dead.

http://www.white1foundation.org/history_blackfriday.htm


Friendly_flyer says:
In a way it€s bout exciting and a bit sad to read this. It€s exciting because it€s a rare glimpse into the past, and it€s sad because it€s very obviously the answers of an old man being asked questions he cannot answer. The interviewer wants to know details of various airplanes relative wing-loading, energy retention etc. Did he really believe a man like Mr. Anderson could answer these questions? He was a combat pilot, not a technician!

Let€s have a look at what Anderson really says:

- The most important thing is to be aggressive, you must want to pull the trigger!

- The best trick is to come unseen in from behind and give the enemy a broadside from close range.

- Messerschmidt or Fock-Wulf didn€t matter, Mr. Andersom knew he was good enough to fight bout.

Now, that€s hardly controversial, is it?

Good post.

All the best,

Crumpp

Tator_Totts
01-26-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
So yah, maybe at least the game developers are interested in an accurate P51, even if some players are not.

http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P51/AM-p51_04.jpg

Man that is sexxxy.

danjama
01-26-2006, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
GR142-Pipper = the American version of Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Best line of today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor example of Mod leadership Ivan.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

booooo@u http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-26-2006, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear All,

Please note that it is important to realise that gravity, wing loading and power loading are constants and air density is a variable as you increase altitude. Mathematically this means that turn radii and excess power vary directly with altitude (unless power is compensated for by superchargers).
Therefore aircraft turning ability changes with altitude but always IN PROPORTION. i.e. if aircraft A out-turns aircraft B it will always do it at any given altitude by the SAME proportion. Power availability at altitude will only assist accelleration and counter speed loss or climb in the turn, but you will still stall if you exceed the maximum g.
NB the max g you can pull is speed divided by stall speed and then double it.
eg 400mph
100mph = 4.
4*2 =8g

regards,
SLP

There is another altitude effect possible: lack of power to meet maximum g.

Thus the Hurricane I that turned poorly to the 109E at 5km did outturn the same at 2km
and below. Parity was I think around 8,000 ft, understandably the Hurri pilots would
try and take the fight well lower. At least the ones I read from did and no, not all
who did won the fight even then which was witnessed by one who had won his fight but
saw a squadmate go down at equal or less alt. The Hurri I didn't breathe so well high
up.

BfHeFwMe
01-26-2006, 10:23 PM
When I can point the nose down trim neutral in every 1940 mono-wing fighter in the game, yank back the stick holding it with recovery at 540Kph, than do the same in a 44' P-51 which can't do this simple manouver, that tells me it's gotten the 'special treatment'.

Don't need no chart or pilot to tell me that.

When a Fiat G-50 ect. can pull out at 640 achieving blackout with full wham on the neutral trimmed stick, and a 44 D model with slightest nursing sheds wings, I'd say a nasty little game by whiners has been played on it with nothing reality related.

Will proudly use a Spitfire to pay them back in kind, so go ahead and get that castrated if you can.

Be sure, be four was wrong patched. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The fudging for game play is so flipping obvious patch to patch, why even bother with charades.

Data / archieval sources < crying ******s = PF

Jetbuff
01-26-2006, 10:57 PM
BfHeFwMe, just an FYI, that's due to increased elevator authority. Unlike the G-50, at neutral trim, the P-51 still has the full range of motion available on the elevators. To verify this take UDP G readings in both situations and compare the results. I guarantee you the P-51 will be generating more Gs.

vanjast
01-26-2006, 11:09 PM
The other side of RL combat..

As the one guy put it, that pilots (inlcuding himself admittingly) have a tendency to be braggarts, instant heroes..etc. I also had another guy here on our local forums who is the same as above.
I've done a very small amount of RL flying and enjoyed it, and don't consider myself a wannbe hero, but I like the words of Don Blakesee (I think it was)... "You show me a pilot that is full of S.H.1T one moment, and he'll be full of holes the next moment"
Maybe you guys are lucky to be alive! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PikeBishop
01-27-2006, 02:20 AM
Dear MaxGuntz,

Effectively what you are saying is that the power drops off to such an extent that the speed required to pull a certain 'g' is not there, whereas another aircraft may still be able to reach the speed required at that altitude. Note that we are touching on the reason why an aircraft has an 'operational' and 'absolute' ceiling. Where the absolute ceiling is where the max speed and the stall speed meet,and the operational is where it has a little reserve power remaining and can still climb and turn.(500 ft/min I think). Here the P51 with its operational ceiling of (I think 41,000 ft) would have an edge over the 109G, but obviously combat never took place at these altitudes. Its just that the P51 would usually have an altitude advantage when attacking.
Best regards SLP.

PS the above answer is incorrect - the 'g' is the number squared not doubled.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
When I can point the nose down trim neutral in every 1940 mono-wing fighter in the game, yank back the stick holding it with recovery at 540Kph, than do the same in a 44' P-51 which can't do this simple manouver, that tells me it's gotten the 'special treatment'.

Don't need no chart or pilot to tell me that.

When a Fiat G-50 ect. can pull out at 640 achieving blackout with full wham on the neutral trimmed stick, and a 44 D model with slightest nursing sheds wings, I'd say a nasty little game by whiners has been played on it with nothing reality related.

Will proudly use a Spitfire to pay them back in kind, so go ahead and get that castrated if you can.

Be sure, be four was wrong patched. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The fudging for game play is so flipping obvious patch to patch, why even bother with charades.

Data / archieval sources < crying ******s = PF

http://www.cigarlight.com/store/images/R%20&%20J%20Humidor%20Gift%20Pack.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-27-2006, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
There are those here, in their easy chairs, who in their own minds know more than real pilots.

No plane in this game is completely accurate, only degrees of inaccuracy. Some more than others. There is no argument that will be strong enough to convince those who already know better, through their own mind and no experience, that they must be correct....so no bother fighting it, arguing it, debating it as logic holds no value to people such as this.

The only person worth talking to and convincing is Oleg....somehow, I think he knows...I think he does read these forums...but his decision is one of economics and popularity...how to satisfy the Mustang group who want to see a more accurately modelled aircraft without ticking off the crew that love to fly the 109. They protect their territory vigorously as they spout off how good of pilots they are, but they are out turned by Mustangs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif or fear being out turned by Mustangs...amazing! Concur completely. Where I differ from you somewhat is that I'm convinced that Oleg really doesn't know yet meddles with the flight models anyway for the very reasons you cite.

GR142-Pipper

WOLFMondo
01-27-2006, 02:44 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 luftluuver:
GR142-Pipper = the American version of Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Kurfurst has insults and charts. Pipper just has insults. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-27-2006, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
This aircraft by all leading historian's measure was a superb fighting aircraft and arguably the finest of the WWII fighters.

GR142-Pipper


I htink you should change this to in 'US Historians' measure. Maybe not just U.S. historians but some may have a case for an aircraft other than the P-51. The Spitfire is clearly a worthy candidate as you cite. That's why I included the word "arguably" in my quote above.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
01-27-2006, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
The fudging for game play is so flipping obvious patch to patch, why even bother with charades. Interesting too that Maddox doesn't provide exactly what was touched upon with each patch. This, of course, is exactly what no other reputable software company does when they release their patches/upgrades.

GR142-Pipper

rnzoli
01-27-2006, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
The fudging for game play is so flipping obvious patch to patch, why even bother with charades. Interesting too that Maddox doesn't provide exactly what was touched upon with each patch. This, of course, is exactly what no other reputable software company does when they release their patches/upgrades.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How long are you going to continue your vigorous attacks on this game, the developers and Oleg?

Why don't you realize that it's not your sim. Take it back to the store and buy something else.

There are quite a room for improvements with the P51 and the game in general, but telling nasty things about the devs is doing a great disservice to a good cause. I also want the P51 to be better in many respect, but the more you attack the devs, the less hope, got it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You are not in your fighter right now. You are not Bud Anderson to attack all the time. The devs are humans and will prioritize civilized and well argumented requests in ORR. That's the way to go.

carguy_
01-27-2006, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
No plane in this game is completely accurate, only degrees of inaccuracy. Some more than others. There is no argument that will be strong enough to convince those who already know better, through their own mind and no experience, that they must be correct....so no bother fighting it, arguing it, debating it as logic holds no value to people such as this.

You`re a nice example http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif




The only person worth talking to and convincing is Oleg....somehow, I think he knows...I think he does read these forums...but his decision is one of economics and popularity...how to satisfy the Mustang group who want to see a more accurately modelled aircraft without ticking off the crew that love to fly the 109.

By your definition Oleg doesn`t care bout ppl who fly USAAF as if he had to satisfy German and Russian markets.If he really didn`t you wouldn`t be even able to whine about the P51 not being modelled up to what your mommy and daddy told you bout WWII.



They protect their territory vigorously as they spout off how good of pilots they are, but they are out turned by Mustangs... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif or fear being out turned by Mustangs...amazing!

I`ve said many times what I think is wrong with P51.It needs lots of work just like the FW190.Both cannot apply real life WWII tactics which DE FACTO WERE`NT TURNING WITH THEIR OPPONENTS.


Of all online users USAAF players are those who whine about every single USAAF plane in the game.

I understand though.You guys are given bs everyday on Discovery.Nothing unusual about being manipulated by TV.


Ofcourse Bud Anderson`s accounts are true and oppostie LW pilot accounts are false!DOH!

You read Rall outturning the P51,then you read Bud Anderson outturning Me109 then obviously Rall must be wrong!

All I can say is,apart from USAAF flyers,those who fly LW don`t fight with communists,imperialists and they aren`t trying to win the war for 3rd Reich.Those filthy no good lying nazis!


I`ve met few,that`s a single digit number,pilots who were simply safe in P51 when they scored 2-3 Me109/FW190 kills.They were unreachable and they kept shooting LW fighters down.Online.They give out what a good plane v4.02 P51 is.


Anyways,those who try to keep things historically accurate always have fun watching you frustrated horizontal-talented n00bs get owned in a P51 and getting back here trying to force Oleg to make up for their lack of proper tactics and advantages usage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


BTW I think I`m gonna have to email Oleg to make those Emils outturn SPits in BoB.Just to be sure I won`t be owned in horizontal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

robban75
01-27-2006, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by Texan...:
I think Vidar was a RIO.

Also, he did say that the FB P51 is nothing like the real plane.

A PC sim still has a long way to go before it will be like the real thing. Let's be honest. Even flying a Cessna 152 in real life beats flying any plane in any PC sim.(I'm not bashing the 152 here, it's a great little plane). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

However, the P-51 in-game can pretty much reach charted top speeds, the roll rate seems to match that of real Mustangs.
Climbrate seems fairly accurate, with an exception at the higher alts, were it is too low.
Dive acceleration and zoom performance is superior to any other fighter in the game.
It can easily turn with the Fw 190 at any speed, and will outturn the Bf 109 at all but the lowest speeds.
Cockpit visibility is outstanding, as it was in real life! The most important thing that needs to be corrected is the sensitive elevator. And the wobbles(which is present on many other planes as well, and differ from computer to computer).

I believe that the Mustang has never been better in this game than it is right now. And I believe Oleg has done a good job trying to replicate the real Mustangs performance attributes into this game.

But of course, there is always room for improvements. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AustinPowers_
01-27-2006, 05:18 AM
Suspended

crazyivan1970
01-27-2006, 05:59 AM
Great post robban, as usually.

Hristo_
01-27-2006, 06:30 AM
Err, Ivan, may I say something ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
01-27-2006, 06:41 AM
I can't believe you people have sucked me back in.


MUSTANG TURN PERFORMANCE -

The issue here is SUSTAINED turn ability versus INSTANTANEOUS turn ability. Different animals.

Any a/c which holds a speed advantage at a given altitude will also hold an advantage in SUSTAINED turn. At altitudes where a particular mark of Mustang was faster than a particular mark of 109, it could also outturn it at high speeds. Wartime USAAF technical intelligence docs which I have seen and read (but do not possess) stressed the point of high speed. Interestingly, it described as a demonstrative example an engagement in which Bud Anderson participated.

It is all about excess available energy. Take the following case. Assume aircraft A can achieve 440 mph and aircraft B can only achieve 400 mph in level flight at a given altitude. Aircraft A can translate excess energy from straight and level flight at 440 mph to a sustained level turn @ 400 mph. Aircraft B, with a maximum speed of 400 mph in straight and level flight, cannot match the speed and the turn radius of aircraft A without surrendering altitude. Therefore aircraft A holds the advantage in SUSTAINED turning ability under those conditions.

Power loading by itself is not a reliable indicator of either turning ability or maximum speed. It is only a reliable measure of maximum acceleration potential.


COCKPIT VISIBILITY

I see that Kurfurst/Isegrim is once again up to his old denial tricks. I was present at the multi-hundred post car crash which was Kurfurst's attempt to argue that the 109 fitted with an Erla Haube possessed equivalent or better all-round visibility than a Mustang D with a blown plexi bubble canopy. Assuming that the Ubi archives are finally accessible, anyone with an interest can verify this by simply key-wording "Erla Haube" in an archive search.


50CAL

Anyone who thinks that synchronized fire is realistic, please report for psychiatric observation immediately.

As for the target effects of 50cal fire. After analysing 150 8AF after action fighter pilot reports (the results of which analysis can also be found in these archives) the most common results were engine disablement, smoke from either fire or severance of oil lines, loss of control of target a/c as a result of either pilot incapacitation or damage to flight controls. Hollywood style explosions and gross dismemberment of wings and other major airframe components were very uncommon.

Average open fire ranges were typically </= 300 yards. Fire was very frequently continued down to ranges as short as 50 yards.



Blutarski

crazyivan1970
01-27-2006, 06:58 AM
http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/popcorn.gif

jds1978
01-27-2006, 07:25 AM
Anyone who thinks that synchronized fire is realistic, please report for psychiatric observation immediately.

Dead on target!

as for the turning issue i successfully evaded a human flown 109 in a Mk III during last night's squadron practice by turning. there is nothing wrong w/ the P51's turning capability. trim correct. trim often.

BTW Ivan: is that kettle corn or regular popcorn? (LOL)

Kurfurst__
01-27-2006, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Excellent- we'll just take this as your admission (finally) that the 109 was in-fact extremely heavy at high speeds, and that you finally accept the obvious truth that the P-51D featured much better all-around vision!


How come? You mean that because you can't decide wheter to accuse KF with thing he never said or use claim that KF support your ridiculusly biased partisan point of view? How does that prove the 109 had 'extremely heavy' elevator?

To me it seems it only proves you have no credibility, and when you say something on monday, you'll deny you ever said it on tuesday. You should run for President. I mean, you have the qualities of both Bush and Kerry in one, both incompetent and incoherent.


Oh BTW, what were your sources for the stickforces on the Bf 109 again? What? Sorry I can't hear. NOTHING you say? You mean you keep making claims, more claims, and never back them up with anything...


Uh oh,

I thought you'd say that. Emberassing isn't it?
I mean, you made a pretty big noise, gathered the crowd, and now you can't give an answer?


Isegrim...

Don't Isegrim to me, answer the question. You made a number of claims here, as usual, arguing the infinite superiority of the P-51 every respect... you said it had superior stick forces, superior bombracks, superior this, superior that... from what sources did you derieve that, or did you just made it up?

I think you just made it up.



This is where you posted in-game screen shots as your 'proof'. The original pics aren't available anymore, but your claim is very clear:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><Vo101_Isegrim>
Posted Fri October 24 2003 12:22
Here`s the good reason why Blutarski and the rest of the clowns didn`t posted the rear view from P-47 :

P-47D w. Bubble canopy :

Here`s a picture of a Yak. Should be very similiar to the view from a P-51D :

And here`s the Erla haube :

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Clearly the Erla provided a better rear view.</span>

As sorry Blussy-Puss, it doesn`t really matter how many time you parrot it. The Carson clown never flew a 109, ANY verion, and has no idea of it. He`s qouting an old British evaluation for 109E.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I don't see where I am claiming here the historic Erla was better than the historic P-51 to the rear.

Appearantly I compared the bubble P-47, and Yak cocpits in the game to the Erla, and said it's better than them in the game. Which is true.

I said that IF the P-51's cocpit will be similiar to the Yak's, then it won't be as good as the Erla. Appearantly the conditions was wrong, so is the conclusion, as the P-51's cocpit is different from the Yaks to the rear.

What I claimed apart that, well, that Blutarski makes an excellent clown, what's wrong with that, it's a bare fact.

Cajun76
01-27-2006, 07:40 AM
Got any more corn, Ivan? Kurfurst is tap dancing, but badly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Slickun
01-27-2006, 07:44 AM
The P-51 could pull 8 G's down to about 260 mph indicated, without stalling (P-51 Pilot's manual).

We're all aware of the roll performance of the Mustang at high speeds.

P-51 pilots had the option of 10 degrees of flaps up to 400 mph indicated to decrease wing loading and increase G's available, traded for an increase in drag .

We're all aware of the Mustang's dive and zoom capabilities.

With a g-suit provision, the P-51 had the potential to out-maneuver any opponent at high speeds.

Add in the fact that the Mustang was very controllable at high altitudes and speeds, had the range to hunt the enemy over their place, it adds up to a very effective "bounce" plane. And, as noted earlier, it is estimated that 2/3 to 3/4, or even higher % of planes are downed by the unobserved bounce.

The fact that one plane arrives over your place at a higher altitude than you, forcing you to climb up to engage, thus putting you at a disadvantage from the start, isn't cheating. It's using a superior quality of one A/C to defeat another.

The point being that a set of attributes designed for close in "dogfighting" can be argued to not be as effective as a set of attributes that maximised "bouncing".

We, as simmers (me included) sure LIKE that "close in dogfighting" stuff. We get caught up in arguments about which plane was better at it, thinking that made it a superior fighter.

What we are actually arguing about is which plane was more effective at "dogfighting" (and some here don't include the dive and zoom as dogfighting), which became a sideshow.

As Anderson said, blasting the enemy before he sees you is what its all about. The P-51 was really good at that, was really good at maneuvering at high speeds.

Xiolablu3
01-27-2006, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
This aircraft by all leading historian's measure was a superb fighting aircraft and arguably the finest of the WWII fighters.

GR142-Pipper


I htink you should change this to in 'US Historians' measure. Maybe not just U.S. historians but some may have a case for an aircraft other than the P-51. The Spitfire is clearly a worthy candidate as you cite. That's why I included the word "arguably" in my quote above.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I just think maybe if you were a little less histerical about it and brought a balanced view to the table, then more people would believe you .

If everyone has the opinion that you are biased, noone will beleieve a word you say, dont get a reputation like Kurfy.

Its like 'the Boy who cried wolf' story, when you really do have a proper greivance, like the Mustang, which I agree has glaring faults, people still think that you are being biased.

Especially if you say things like 'The Mustang was arguably the best fighter in the world', which is such a genral statement that people can shoot holes in it straight away. ('best at what?' for example)

Most people believe someone like Grey Mouser, because he doesnt get wound up about stuff, flies for both sides (flies ALL planes), and just seems to want correct models, not just their favourite ride to 'own' (rule number one, be suspicious of anyone wanting the plane in the sig to be bettered)

I dont mean to lecture you, but its sometimes easier from somone on the outside looking in to see the problems that someone is having. DOn't let the idiots in here wind you up so much, just ignore the idiots, they arent worth your time, so dont bother replying to them.

PikeBishop
01-27-2006, 08:13 AM
Dear slickum,
The 'g' pulling ability......8'g' at 260mph is interesting....especially as I make it a max of 6.5'g' "at loaded weight". But then you mention 10 deg of flap which may have been enough to bring it to 8 'g'. However there is no mention of the weight of the aircraft at the time of test.
Best regards,
SLP

Friendly_flyer
01-27-2006, 08:22 AM
The Hurricane arguably won the Battle of Britain, yet in this game it flies like a brick and is out-turned by 109's. Douglas Bader repeatedly fought enemy pilots, who at that stage of the war were no doubt all aces with it. This only show how Oleg€s rampantly sides with the Axis and has nerfed my favourite, world war-winning plane. It needs to be corrected now!

- The turning radius on the Hurricane must be halved!

- The regularly shot down He 111's, I can't. The Brownin's are under modelled, and we deserve an 8 x .303 configuration that can take out bombers at 400 yards!

- The engine cut out in Mk. I is unrealistic because valves was installed in the later parts of BoB!

- The in-game Mk.I runs at much to low boost level, it should have another 30-40 km/h!

- When I turnfight with 109s I sometimes stall out, despite the Hurricane being renown for its stability, this must be fixed!

- Hurricanes where used until 1942, even 1943, which means they should be able to fight 190ies at equal terms. I am not able to do that, which only goes to show how the Lufwhiners have forced Oleg into nerfing capable allied aircrafts!

Oleg, do you hear me? Fix my ride!

(sorry, couldn€t help myself)

Low_Flyer_MkII
01-27-2006, 08:27 AM
And he totally ignored the Westland Whirlwind.

Are you Gotha and 109Z 'fanbois' happy now?

What more proof do you need?

geetarman
01-27-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Tator_Totts:
What I find amuzing is this. A few patches ago remember the big hype about real pilots giving imput on FM. Then people where shouting fowl no way the Mustang is this good. Then It got nerfed. I guess all those real pilots must be wrong. Arm chair pilots win again.

Yes - this is a correct statement! Makes me wonder too.

Tator_Totts
01-27-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/popcorn.gif

Ivan I see you got your popcorn very good.

HuninMunin
01-27-2006, 09:04 AM
1.
No propper flown Hurry will be out-turned by any 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
2.
Brownins are indeed undermodelled.
(But hence you let yourself get out-turned by 109s I may question your gunnery skill as well)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
3.
Valves wont do the job.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
4.
Emils to slow since FB 1.0
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
5.
The 109 hardly stalled out ever.
So the first to stall should be the hurry.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
6.
Never ever was any hurry equal to any Focke190.
(Or did you mean 109?)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
7.
No, he cant hear you and wont.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
8.
Clouldnt help myself either
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
9.
This is a Amywhiner, not a Britwhiner thread.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
10.
Dont take me seriously.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
11.
Im German. I have to defend the 109, even if you have a point.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Kurfurst__
01-27-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear slickum,
The 'g' pulling ability......8'g' at 260mph is interesting....especially as I make it a max of 6.5'g' "at loaded weight". But then you mention 10 deg of flap which may have been enough to bring it to 8 'g'. However there is no mention of the weight of the aircraft at the time of test.
Best regards,
SLP


Hmmm, it was suspicious to me as well a bit. If I recall the rule of thumb for stall speed under g, it increases with cube, and IF I recall the rule correct, that would mean that 8G/260mph IAS would mean 86mph IAS stall speed at 1G.

PikeBishop
01-27-2006, 09:20 AM
another point is, with regard to bombers over Germany, that do you not think that for example if the B17's were at a set altitude - say 20,000ft the escorts ie P51's would have to be fairly close to protect them. This would mean having to juggle positioning with height advantage so this would limit how far away they could be. This might mean that the 109's and 190's would have the height advantage unless the P51's traded distance from B17's for height advantage. Also, I recall reading that over Japan the B29's etc. often bombed from only 10,000ft but I don't know whether they had or required any escorts much.
best regards,
SLP

Slickun
01-27-2006, 09:29 AM
8G at 260 mph.

Per the Pilot's manual, Gentlemen. Easily checked.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-51/P-51OLL.gif


There's a nice black, white, and red chart plainly showing it, as well as max G's available before stalling at lower speeds.

It is how many G's the plane will pull before stalling. In other words, it will turn about as hard as anyone could stand, in WW2, at high speeds, before stalling.

PikeBishop
01-27-2006, 09:29 AM
sorry I stand corrected its, 7.5'g' and plus the 10deg you spoke of it probably is right:
260/95= 2.73 sqared= 7.49'g'......brains not working at the moment.

PikeBishop
01-27-2006, 09:37 AM
But this would also apply the the 109G having the same stall speed of 95mph - presumably at ground level??? Unless the airframe was not capable of withstanding it or the max speed was less than that required to pull 8'g' but I sincerely doubt it. Also this stall speed would increase with height so it is only absolutely accurate at whatever altitude the stall speed was recorded at.

lrrp22
01-27-2006, 09:48 AM
Kurfurst/Isegrim,

It's alway so obvious when you're on the ropes- your accusations of bias and insults become more and more shrill, and your normally quite good English deteriorates.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Appearantly I compared the bubble P-47, and Yak cocpits in the game to the Erla, and said it's better than them in the game. Which is true.


Here's the thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/76810265/p/9


...and you have the audacity to call me 'Pinnochio'?

LRRP

John_Wayne_
01-27-2006, 10:05 AM
LMAO

D'you want some soda with that popcorn, Ivan?

horseback
01-27-2006, 10:08 AM
Normal bombing altitudes were generally 22,000 to 25,000 ft, with the escorts usually 5,000 ft or more above; this varied from group to group, though. Some units liked keep one squadron high and a little back, with other units flanking the stream, others found that sending one squadron sweeping ahead could catch enemy fighters while they were still forming up. In any case, combats at up to 30,000 ft were fairly common.

Contemporary accounts indicate that Mustang and Lightning operators firmly believed that they could climb at least as well as the opposition at those altitudes, and would not hesitate to climb into an attack. P-47 drivers generally knew that except for climb, at those higher alts, they held all the cards as well. Check Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #31, Long Reach, for confirmation. There are other sources, but I'm at work, and can't read off my bookshelf from here.

Remember that the FW 190A got anemic pretty quickly above 7500m (approximately 22,000 ft), and that the RL gunners in the twin engined zerstorer type aircraft (which were far less capable than the 190 at any alt) were rarely able to hit anything that wasn't flying in formation with them, unlike the laser beam deathray wielding AI gunners of this sim, so they were considered for good reason to be easy meat.

The 109G-5/6 were much more of a threat IF they lacked the bomber killing 20mm wing gondolas, but they were less frequently encountered during the critical February-May 1944 period, when the flower of the jagdewaffe was lost. Even so, at 25,000 to 30,000 ft, they lacked the handling and excess power advantages they might have at 18,000ft; there are plenty of accounts of 109s being 'caught' from below by Mustangs at 30,000+ ft, and being unable to maneuver themselves into position, being just short of falling out of the sky at that point.

While the handling of the in-game Mustang is suspect (yes, I know it 'hits its numbers', but it is far too sensitive to fly as accurately as an almost unanimous collection of pilot memoirs indicated it could-and by the way, I suspect that the FW 190A is similarly off, though somewhat less so), I think that the in-game 109 is suspect to the same degree, only in the opposite direction.

You can't, for instance, convince me that any model of the real 109 was actually easier to land than any model of the FW 190, as it is in this game. The 'slotting' of aircraft handling and performance with this last patch is suspect, at the very least.

cheers

horseback

Texan...
01-27-2006, 10:12 AM
Tried out the P47D late on some online servers last evening. MUCH more capable at what I call limited dogfighting. Turning in larger circles and keeping the speed high. Not this zoom down from 6k, try to back-door somebody and then zooming off to infinity.

Turning at all in the P51 is dodgy.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 10:13 AM
" While the handling of the in-game Mustang is suspect (yes, I know it 'hits its numbers', but it is far too sensitive to fly as accurately as an almost unanimous collection of pilot memoirs indicated it could-and by the way, I suspect that the FW 190A is similarly off, though somewhat less so), I think that the in-game 109 is suspect to the same degree, only in the opposite direction.

You can't, for instance, convince me that any model of the real 109 was actually easier to land than any model of the FW 190, as it is in this game. The 'slotting' of aircraft handling and performance with this last patch is suspect, at the very least."

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

GR142-Pipper
01-27-2006, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
[quote]There are quite a room for improvements with the P51 and the game in general, but telling nasty things about the devs is doing a great disservice to a good cause. I also want the P51 to be better in many respect, but the more you attack the devs, the less hope, got it? You mean like the truth that the contents of the updates aren't disclosed, that serious aircraft attributes have remained unfixed and that confidence in his intellectual honesty is increasingly in question? If Maddox and company can't take those sorts of truths (like any other product manufacturer) then they're in the wrong business.

GR142-Pipper

Texan...
01-27-2006, 11:27 AM
Software stuff goes wrong sometimes. Recall the infamous missing P47 horsepower bug? Someone at 1C comitted a typo and I think it was down 200 or 300 horsepower. When that was rectified, that aircraft was absolutely transformed. Ask Diablo.

Maybe there was a typo and the P51 is missing 25% of its wing area.

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

http://engrish.com/image/engrish/on-the-verge.jpg

crazyivan1970
01-27-2006, 11:28 AM
Tator, thanks for popcorn, any chance of getting a coke too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I am thusrty!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GR142-Pipper
01-27-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[quote]If everyone has the opinion that you are biased, noone will beleieve a word you say, dont get a reputation like Kurfy. Xiolablu3, I call them like I see them. I'm not here to compromise what I think are the facts just to make some here feel good. Meritless compromise has never served me well.


Especially if you say things like 'The Mustang was arguably the best fighter in the world', which is such a genral statement that people can shoot holes in it straight away. ('best at what?' for example) Best at being the best fighter of its time, very straightforward. Again, even a casual search for P-51 information will produce ample data for this claim to be legitimately made, in spades.


Most people believe someone like Grey Mouser, because he doesnt get wound up about stuff, flies for both sides (flies ALL planes), and just seems to want correct models, not just their favourite ride to 'own' (rule number one, be suspicious of anyone wanting the plane in the sig to be bettered) To be clear, that's all I want as well...correct models...no more, no less. In addition and just for the record, the P-51 is by no means my favorite ride as I far prefer Yaks.

Anyway, I appreciate the spirit in which you have made this post. S!

GR142-Pipper

Friendly_flyer
01-27-2006, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
This is a Amywhiner, not a Britwhiner thread.

That's not fair! The Amywhiners hijacked the nice thread about Spitfires, so I can bloody well whine about the Hurricane here!

... and the Whirlwind which appear to be nerfed into oblivion!

Kurfurst__
01-27-2006, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
You can't, for instance, convince me that any model of the real 109 was actually easier to land than any model of the FW 190, as it is in this game. The 'slotting' of aircraft handling and performance with this last patch is suspect, at the very least.

cheers

horseback


There's nothing wrong about the FM, it's just parts of the physics are missing. Until touchdown, the 109 should be easier to handle, and was in RL, ie. the FW 190s had great mass and wingload, and their landing, stall speed was higher, making the approach somewhat more difficult. Slatophobia is getting boring.

Here comes in the parts we miss : in real life, heavy planes tended to stay on the ground after touchdown, while lighter ones bounced back - not really well simulated. And what would make he 109 more tricky to land than a FW? Answer, directional stability on the ground. The friction of the tires on the ground, and sudden assymetrical increases from bumps which a bigger tyre or track would compensate better, are absent. When did you groundloop on the ground with a 109? with any plane in the sim? It's just a missing component. We have the part modelled which makes nice air handling planes (such as the 109 was) until touchdown, but the ground physics are missing which would make the heavier, wider tracked planes like the 190, P-47 etc. handle better after touchdown.

The air physics are quite OK, it's the ground physics that we miss.

vanjast
01-27-2006, 12:07 PM
You know what we probably need is a unbiased view, and it's there sitting in front of your faces all this time - Kurfurst's 'footer note'.

To think maybe that the obvious is front of so many poeple yet they never see it, probably shows why the military makes so many mess-ups and many people die, just to boost for yours and my ego...

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

Texan...
01-27-2006, 12:10 PM
It's almost like we are experiencing a flight sim politcal correctness. The Mustang has been hyped up over the years, especially with the advent of TV programs like Discovery Wings and The Hysterical Channel. So, we seem to have this climate of immediate opposition: "Gee I'm so sick of hearing how the P51 won the war." So now the pendulum has swung and some people want to believe that not only was the Mustang not the greatest fighter of the war, but it was actually very mediocre in reality.

No way. Too much evidence exists to point to the facts: The P51 was an outstanding performer and its pilots did not feel like they were at some disadvantage vs German a/c. Quite the contrary.

1 - give it some stability
2 - desynch the guns
3 - stop the wobble-bobble

For fun, some shots of "Da Man."

http://www.leisuregalleries.com/aaandersonB.jpg
http://www.achievement.org/achievers/yea0/large/yea0-028.jpg
http://www.acesandautographs.com/images/Anderson.jpg

http://images.andale.com/f2/103/126/10920756/1099617146980_Bud_Photo1.jpg

http://usfighter.tripod.com/images/People/budanderson2.jpg
http://www.assonetart.com/1peacemaker.jpg

rnzoli
01-27-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
[quote]There are quite a room for improvements with the P51 and the game in general, but telling nasty things about the devs is doing a great disservice to a good cause. I also want the P51 to be better in many respect, but the more you attack the devs, the less hope, got it? You mean like the truth that the contents of the updates aren't disclosed, that serious aircraft attributes have remained unfixed and that confidence in his intellectual honesty is increasingly in question? If Maddox and company can't take those sorts of truths (like any other product manufacturer) then they're in the wrong business.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. I meant that you are no crusader, you don't have enough power to force any change, so the more **** you throw at them, the more you antagonize them. They take the truth, but they will ignore your package if you wrap it up in your ****-talk and insults.

After all, who do you think you are to tell them they are in the wrong business? In a market economy, their revenues will tell this, not you.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Unless you vote with your feet in masses, they ARE in the right business.

Slickun
01-27-2006, 12:16 PM
BTW, folks. It appears that Oleg is asking for information about 25 pound boost Spitfires.

It's over on OMRR, one of the stickies.

Good news.

ploughman
01-27-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
BTW, folks. It appears that Oleg is asking for information about 25 pound boost Spitfires.

It's over on OMRR, one of the stickies.

Good news.

Thankyou. Thankyou Oleg.

horseback
01-27-2006, 12:28 PM
There's nothing wrong about the FM, it's just parts of the physics are missing. Until touchdown, the 109 should be easier to handle, and was in RL,... I have to disagree, in part, with the air handling issue; it was universally agreed that the Bf-109 was very much more demanding to fly than the FW 190 or Spitfire or any other 'great' fighter with the possible exception of the P-38. This became more and more a factor as the aircraft left it's peak at the 109F-4/G-2 models, even according to German sources.

I am NOT saying that the capability wasn't there; I am saying that it took a more skilled and acclimated pilot to obtain its' full potential. A Rall or Hartmann might have had few problems with it in the air, but a young pilot with less training was less aware of its nuances, and these could jump up and bite you at very inconvenient times.

It is this quality that is not reflected in the FM, and yet is exaggerated in the Mustang and the FW, among others. That is what I mean by 'slotting'; if we are dicussing the ease at which a virtual aircraft is flown to its fullest capabilities, then the 109 should be somewhat more difficult to fly and win with than the Spit, Mustang, or FW sereis fighters.

If "any idiot could fly a Spitfire", then one might suspect that the Merlin Mustang was easily mastered by monkeys, because the aircraft had similar high performance capabilities to its contemporaries, and units converting to it directly from other types took next to no time to master it and become successful.

The first unit to fly it in combat trained up in P-39s, for Pete's sake!

cheers

horseback

edgflyer
01-27-2006, 12:30 PM
The mustang does have its problems. But all of the mud slinging will actually go no-where. Just wait for the next patch and see what happens. If the problems are not corrected then, maybe it will be time to give up on the game if you are not happy with it. Or you can go back to the patch where you think the mustang is correct. One thing everyone is failing to look at, keep the speed up and the plane is great. Start to turn and the energy bleads fast. Perhaps the programming has a bug that bleads off the energy to fast. Just a thought. How would we go about testing e-retension.

Xiolablu3
01-27-2006, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
The P51 was an outstanding performer

So give us some numbers about turning circles, speeds, climb rates etc. I think when you actually examine these things and compare them to other aircraft, you will find out that it certainly wasnt the best aircraft of the period, but It was very good at some things.

The Bf109 could outmanouvre the Bf109 only in a low, slow speed turning dogfight. Mark Hanna stated that this was 'definitely' the case, and he had flown Spit, 109 and p51 a lot and put them thru their paces. The p51 has the upper hand at speed, and at higher altitudes, 6000m+

About the 109 - 'It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. ' - Mark Hanna

http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

I agree with your faults which need fixing.

Brain32
01-27-2006, 12:34 PM
Edit:OMG
Edit2: Just so you know Mustang3 is overmodelled in regards to speed but I don't here you discussing that.

Slickun
01-27-2006, 12:38 PM
What sort of performance numbers do you want?

"Performance" usually refers to speed stuff, not maneuverability.

I posted a link to the P-51's stall speeds at different speeds and G loads. 8 at 260 mph IAS. I can also post its stall speed at 3 G's, but I will have to get home to do it. All the above is with no flaps.

We know its roll rate, super at high speeds, mediocre at others.

We know its climb rate at 67" hg..mediocre, and at higher boosts...pretty good.

We know it dove exceptionally well, stayed controllable at mach .83.

We know that most who flew and commented on it felt it was the best zoom climber in the AAF.

We know that its combination of attributes enabled it to shoot down and blow up an amazing amount of stuff, from WW2 until the 70's.

Not really much we don't know about it.

Xiolablu3
01-27-2006, 12:43 PM
I was jus wondering about turning circles, climbing ability, top speed etc vs other planes of the same period, Spitfire 14, FW190D9, Me109G10, La7, Yak3 etc.

Xiolablu3
01-27-2006, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Edit:OMG
Edit2: Just so you know Mustang3 is overmodelled in regards to speed but I don't here you discussing that.

I am sure most people here would gladly give up the 'overmodelled' speed of the Mustang III for a non wobbling, unsyched, non wing breaking P51D.

Just how much faster IS the Mustang III in the game compared to the real life plane?

Slickun
01-27-2006, 12:48 PM
The P-51 started combat ops in Dec 1943.

Slickun
01-27-2006, 12:51 PM
Mustang III went 405 on the deck, pulling 25 pounds/81" hg. This is a well known test. I really don't know if this is overmodelled in the sim or not.

Go to the spitfirepreformance site posted earlier in the thread and you can get a TON of performance stuff about the P-51, Spitfire, and now the P-47.

It's a great site whether you like the planes or not.

Brain32
01-27-2006, 12:58 PM
Go to the spitfirepreformance site posted earlier in the thread and you can get a TON of performance stuff about the P-51, Spitfire, and now the P-47.
Believe me m8 I'm often at that site and it doesent say 405mph deck speed but rather 388mph http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Look again...

Texan...
01-27-2006, 01:10 PM
If the MkIII is too fast, bring it down slower.

<S>

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
1 - give it some stability
2 - desynch the guns
3 - stop the wobble-bobble
While it may surprise you, I'm all for all 3. That said, I know I (and many others) have been able to solve all 3 issues on my (our) machine(s) without a patch.

Brain32
01-27-2006, 01:19 PM
If the MkIII is too fast, bring it down slower.
Hehe, not enough guns so it's not interesting?
Anyways Texan acorrding to what you posted:

1 - give it some stability
2 - desynch the guns
3 - stop the wobble-bobble

I agree 66,6% I only find #1 strange due to the fact that I don't have stabilty(if we're talking about stall/spin behaviour) issues. If that is what all of you are talking about, then GREAT we all want that, the wrong thing abou this thread is then the fact that we're only discussing P51 there are other planes that suffer from that issues too.

edgflyer
01-27-2006, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Edit:OMG
Edit2: Just so you know Mustang3 is overmodelled in regards to speed but I don't here you discussing that.

How about your prop pitch thing on the BF109. You see, we can go back and forth throwing dirt left and right. What are we accomplishing. You like a third grader saying my dad is bigger than your dad. Why not try to be constructive.

Xiolablu3
01-27-2006, 01:35 PM
I would also add to that list, the 'easy to break off' wing.

In a fighter which excells at high speed, it should not shed the wings so easily.

I am not sure what the fix is, whther its the hi elevator authority or what, but it simply should not be this easy to rip the wings off.

darkhorizon11
01-27-2006, 01:36 PM
Somebody posted on here awhile ago that P51 and the bf 109 stall at the same IAS, 95kts. But thats the power off stall speed, but if you add full power the stall speed will actually be slower than what is published, in fact this stall speed is (at least as far as I know) unpublished. So the airplanes are stalling out slower than published.

The Mustang has a tapered/Hbar planform while the bf109's planform is more tapered and elliptical at the tips (at least the F, G, and K models) the Mustang's planform has better stall characteristics because of this and thats why you read of bf109s stalling out just before Mustangs in combat.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 01:43 PM
Brain32, apparently I cannot win with your style of argumentative posting. Again, if the MkIII is too fast, bring it down. Doesn't matter if I fly it or not.

I am very confident that what we are down to here is actual FM issues. Yes, it does exist in other planes, but with the staggering number of flyables we have I cannot lead some crusade to figure out what is wrong with all the various a/c.

For me, the boosted P47D flies pretty smooth an stable. The F6F seems OK and the P38J is terrific. However, the F4U, Spitfire and P51 are not stable for me. Maybe this is one of those X45 + certain Athlon Processor + (x)% of dust bunnies = disaster, but I think not. Lots of folks here with different configs, also talking about unstable Spits and Mustangs.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
The Mustang has a tapered/Hbar planform while the bf109's planform is more tapered and elliptical at the tips (at least the F, G, and K models) the Mustang's planform has better stall characteristics because of this and thats why you read of bf109s stalling out just before Mustangs in combat.

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

That certainly meshes up with this:

=============================================
The other two Messerschmitt pilots have pulled away now, and they're nervous. Their airplanes are twitching, the fliers obviously straining to look over their shoulders and see what is happening. As we take up the chase again, two against two now, the trailing 109 peels away and dives for home, and the leader pulls up into a sharp climbing turn to the left. This one can fly, and he obviously has no thought of running. I'm thinking this one could be trouble.

We turn inside him, my wingman and I, still at long range, and he pulls around harder, passing in front of us right-to-left at an impossible angle. I want to swing in behind him, but I'm going too fast, and figure I would only go skidding on past. A Mustang at speed simply can't make a square corner. And in a dogfight you don't want to surrender your airspeed. I decide to overshoot him and climb.

He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and he peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, he can fly!--and he comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.

This is what I see all these years later. If I were the sort to be troubled with nightmares, this is what would shock me awake. I am in this steep climb, pulling the stick into my navel, making it steeper, steeper . . . and I am looking back down, over my shoulder, at this classic gray Me 109 with black crosses that is pulling up, too, steeper, steeper, the pilot trying to get his nose up just a little bit more and bring me into his sights.

There is nothing distinctive about the aircraft, no fancy markings, nothing to identify it as the plane of an ace, as one of the "dreaded yellow-noses" like you see in the movies. Some of them did that, I know, but I never saw one. And in any event, all of their aces weren't flamboyant types who splashed paint on their airplanes to show who they were. I suppose I could go look it up in the archives. There's the chance I could find him in some gruppe's log book, having flown on this particular day, in this particular place, a few miles northwest of the French town of Strasbourg that sits on the Rhine. There are fellows who've done that, gone back and looked up their opponents. I never have. I never saw any point.

He was someone who was trying to kill me, is all.

So I'm looking back, almost straight down now, and I can see this 20-millimeter cannon sticking through the middle of the fighter's propeller hub. In the theater of my memory, it is enormous. An elephant gun. And that isn't far wrong. It is a gun designed to bring down a bomber, one that fires shells as long as your hand, shells that explode and tear big holes in metal. It is the single most frightening thing I have seen in my life, then and now.

But I'm too busy to be frightened. Later on, you might sit back and perspire about it, maybe 40-50 years later, say, sitting on your porch 7,000 miles away, but while it is happening you are just too damn busy. And I am extremely busy up here, hanging by my propeller, going almost straight up, full emergency power, which a Mustang could do for only so long before losing speed, shuddering, stalling, and falling back down; and I am thinking that if the Mustang stalls before the Messerschmitt stalls, I have had it.

I look back, and I can see that he's shuddering, on the verge of a stall. He hasn't been able to get his nose up enough, hasn't been able to bring that big gun to bear. Almost, but not quite. I'm a fallen-down-dead man almost, but not quite. His nose begins dropping just as my airplane, too, begins shuddering. He stalls a second or two before I stall, drops away before I do.

Good old Mustang.

He is falling away now, and I flop the nose over and go after him hard. We are very high by this time, six miles and then some, and falling very, very fast. The Messerschmitt had a head start, plummeting out of my range, but I'm closing up quickly. Then he flattens out and comes around hard to the left and starts climbing again, as if he wants to come at me head on. Suddenly we're right back where we started.

A lot of this is just instinct now. Things are happening too fast to think everything out. You steer with your right hand and feet. The right hand also triggers the guns. With your left, you work the throttle, and keep the airplane in trim, which is easier to do than describe.


So the Messerschmitt is coming around again, climbing hard to his left, and I've had about enough of this. My angle is a little bit better this time. So I roll the dice. Instead of cobbing it like before and sailing on by him, I decide to turn hard left inside him, knowing that if I lose speed and don't make it I probably won't get home. I pull back on the throttle slightly, put down 10 degrees of flaps, and haul back on the stick just as hard as I can. And the nose begins coming up and around, slowly, slowly. . .

Hot damn! I'm going to make it! I'm inside him, pulling my sights up to him. And the German pilot can see this. This time, it's the Messerschmitt that breaks away and goes zooming straight up, engine at maximum power, without much alternative. I come in with full power and follow him up, and the gap narrows swiftly. He is hanging by his prop, not quite vertically, and I am right there behind him, and it is terribly clear, having tested the theory less than a minute ago, that he is going to stall and fall away before I do.

I have him. He must know that I have him.

I bring my nose up, he comes into my sights, and from less than 300 yards I trigger a long, merciless burst from my Brownings. Every fifth bullet or so is a tracer, leaving a thin trail of smoke, marking the path of the bullet stream. The tracers race upward and find him. The bullets chew at the wing root, the cockpit, the engine, making bright little flashes. I hose the Messerschmitt down the way you'd hose down a campfire, methodically, from one end to the other, not wanting to make a mistake here. The 109 shakes like a retriever coming out of the water, throwing off pieces. He slows, almost stops, as if parked in the sky, his propeller just windmilling, and he begins smoking heavily.

=============================================

I cut out the midsection where he talks about torque and trim. I have no problem that the FB Mustang requires almost constant trimming. Torque doesn't seem either gross or underdone. The point is, these Mustang guys got in there with these Bfs and Fws and MIXED it up with confidence.

Yes I know he was flying a B during this encounter. Most pilot accounts say the B was a little bit nicer to fly than the D, but not but some cavernous margin.

horseback
01-27-2006, 02:03 PM
My rig is a P4, 3GHz with a 9800Pro/128Mb and 1Gb of DDR Ram, and I have the wobbly Mustang, FW 190A, Spitfire and Corsair (among others) too.

My controllers are all CH Products, and my sensitivities have been cranked waaay down to alleviate SOME of the wobbles.

Wobblers Unite! Post your rig's specs, and let's see if that is really the problem...

We're not seeing a lot of fulltime Mustang drivers posting that they aren't getting wobbles, so if the airplane FM is remotely like the real thing, there should be some very happy online killers out there.

They should be posting their specs, sensitivities, controller setups, and special techniques for getting real-life handling so that we poor Ami-whiner noobs can learn the error of our ways.

cheers

horseback

Allied_Killer
01-27-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Somebody posted on here awhile ago that P51 and the bf 109 stall at the same IAS, 95kts. But thats the power off stall speed, but if you add full power the stall speed will actually be slower than what is published, in fact this stall speed is (at least as far as I know) unpublished. So the airplanes are stalling out slower than published.

The Mustang has a tapered/Hbar planform while the bf109's planform is more tapered and elliptical at the tips (at least the F, G, and K models) the Mustang's planform has better stall characteristics because of this and thats why you read of bf109s stalling out just before Mustangs in combat.

The power off stall and the accellerated stalls are the two common forms of stalls to measure an aircraft's performance. What you were referring to was minium controllable airspeed at slow flight. It has more to do with power to weight ratio. Once you get behind the power curve, you'd have to sacrifice altitude to maintain airspeed, if you didn't, then you'd stall out, period. These are the basics taught to every student pilots.

Everyone seems to be forgetting about the leading edge slats on the 109s. The slats increases lift and keeps the wing from separating from the air flow (stall) a lot longer and better than the one without (Mustang).

Where did you read of 109s stalling out before the Mustangs by the way?

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
In a fighter which excells at high speed, it should not shed the wings so easily.

I am not sure what the fix is, whther its the hi elevator authority or what, but it simply should not be this easy to rip the wings off.
You said it yourself, high elevatory authority is the culprit. No other plane in the game, not even the spitfire, can generate as much Gs as the Mustang at high speed due to limitation of elevator effectiveness. Still, it may be worthwhile for you to use UDPSpeed to check the G's generated.

As to 'easily', I have yet to shed a wing in the Mustang without specifically setting out to do so. So the term is a bit subjective.

Bremspropeller
01-27-2006, 02:18 PM
He reverses his turn, trying to fall in behind us. My wingman is vulnerable now. I tell Skara, "Break off!" and he peels away. The German goes after him, and I go after the German, closing on his tail before he can close on my wingman. He sees me coming and dives away with me after him, then makes a climbing left turn. I go screaming by, pull up, and he's reversing his turn--man, he can fly!--and he comes crawling right up behind me, close enough that I can see him distinctly. He's bringing his nose up for a shot, and I haul back on the stick and climb even harder. I keep going up, because I'm out of alternatives.



There's no magic involved. The overtakes the german - therefore he has the higher speed and will zoom up higher than the 109.

Later, they are at about the same speed (Anderson might have been a tad faster since he claimed that he was closing). The Mustang zooms better (higher initial speed and better aerodynamics) and he comes in for the kill.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Allied_Killer:
Everyone seems to be forgetting about the leading edge slats on the 109s. The slats increases lift and keeps the wing from separating from the air flow (stall) a lot longer and better than the one without (Mustang).

Where did you read of 109s stalling out before the Mustangs by the way?

I think it's well known that slat-equipped aircraft in this game are exhibiting some UFO type behavior in 4.02. Watch a fight between a LaGG3 and 109G2 sometime....it's hillarious.

Oh, and I read about 109s stalling out before Mustangs from a certain guy who used to fly Mustangs for a "living."

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

Slickun
01-27-2006, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Go to the spitfirepreformance site posted earlier in the thread and you can get a TON of performance stuff about the P-51, Spitfire, and now the P-47.
Believe me m8 I'm often at that site and it doesent say 405mph deck speed but rather 388mph http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Look again... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brain, sorry if the test I'm talking about isn't on the site. I promise, however, that there was a test run by the RAF between a Tempest, Spit Mark 14, and a Mustang III, all at high boost, to see what would happen.

They re-did the paint on the squadron example Mustang's leading edges, and voila....405. I'll see if I can find a web site. I KNOW someone on these threads can post this thing. BTW, all three screamed along on the deck within a few mph of each other.

Edit: Ahh, here you go:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/rae1501.html

Kwiatos
01-27-2006, 02:41 PM
These story is strange. I wonder how P-51 pilot could get these Bf109 in climb spiral? Probably 109 pilot made something wrong casue 109 should be much better then P-51 in climb turn. I suppose 109 pilot must make mistake and make not so step climb during left turn. I think if he made correctly spiral climb P-51 should be dead meat. Or probably fight was at very high altitude where Bf109 have not adventage in climb over P-51?

Slickun
01-27-2006, 02:44 PM
From what I understand the spiral climb was best when started at low speeds.

The fight Anderson describes is a high speed fight. The Mustang is an outstanding zoom climber.

Kwiatos
01-27-2006, 02:49 PM
Hmm its possible that 109 pilot went too much in zoom instead make harder turn with climb. It was difficult situation beacuse P-51 was close.

anarchy52
01-27-2006, 02:51 PM
Walter Wolfrum, 137 victories:

Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, because the plane shook violently at the moment when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

Erwin Leykauf, 33 victories:

The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

Adolf Galland:

"Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance"

AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7:

No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 mph, IAS, with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible.

Easily found quotes

Slickun
01-27-2006, 03:14 PM
Good reads, anarchy.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 03:49 PM
X45
Athlon 64 Processor
Nvidia Ti4200 Card

crazyivan1970
01-27-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
X45
Athlon 64 Processor
Nvidia Ti4200 Card

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

Slickun
01-27-2006, 04:00 PM
One note on the latest Anderson account.

IIRC, he frames this fight as the only time he thought the Mustang made a difference. You know, out-zooming the 109 and all.

The rest of his kills he attributes to the pilot. Or, himself.

Tator_Totts
01-27-2006, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Tator, thanks for popcorn, any chance of getting a coke too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I am thusrty!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sorry I like beer with my popcorn.

Can I have some of what you are smoking? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Grey_Mouser67
01-27-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
These story is strange. I wonder how P-51 pilot could get these Bf109 in climb spiral? Probably 109 pilot made something wrong casue 109 should be much better then P-51 in climb turn. I suppose 109 pilot must make mistake and make not so step climb during left turn. I think if he made correctly spiral climb P-51 should be dead meat. Or probably fight was at very high altitude where Bf109 have not adventage in climb over P-51?

A couple of things I picked up out of the story...it looks like the Mustang preserved his energy, but more importantly when they ended their first climb, they were "six miles up"...that is over 31,000 ft. It is well known and documented that the Mustang was superior above 20,000 ft and there is a similar story I read about Chuck Yeager out spiral climbing a 109...now which 109 is the question...it is also obvious that the pilot is describing a mk 108 cannon likely...the G6 had those cannons, but they were rare, so there is a pretty good chance this encounter was with a G10 or G14 maybe??? I wonder which one? The latter have much better performance than the former.

I'd fully expect a Mustang to outperform a 109 in speed, climb and turn radius above 20,000 ft....there are often important details left out, but this example looks pretty descriptive except for the model 109 that was being fought.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
X45
Athlon 64 Processor
Nvidia Ti4200 Card

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Abbuzze
01-27-2006, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Somebody posted on here awhile ago that P51 and the bf 109 stall at the same IAS, 95kts. But thats the power off stall speed, but if you add full power the stall speed will actually be slower than what is published, in fact this stall speed is (at least as far as I know) unpublished. So the airplanes are stalling out slower than published.

The Mustang has a tapered/Hbar planform while the bf109's planform is more tapered and elliptical at the tips (at least the F, G, and K models) the Mustang's planform has better stall characteristics because of this and thats why you read of bf109s stalling out just before Mustangs in combat.

And whats about the foil? The P51 had a low drag, low lift foil. These foils are known for harsh stall behavior. And the shape of the wing is not that important, there are things like washout at spits and slats at 109´s.




Originally posted by Texan...:


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

That certainly meshes up with this:

=============================================
He is falling away now, and I flop the nose over and go after him hard. We are very high by this time, six miles and then some, and falling very, very fast. The Messerschmitt had a head start, plummeting out of my range, but I'm closing up quickly. Then he flattens out and comes around hard to the left and starts climbing again, as if he wants to come at me head on. Suddenly we're right back where we started.

I have to admit, I´m impressed, not that much that the 109 stalled earlier, but about the fact at at 6 miles, 9656m ,or 31680ft a 109 with a single stage charger put a P51 pilot under such pressure!
Both were zoomclimbing, so power is the key, british test rated the Spitfire XIV and the G6 (without MW50) as equal in zoomclimb - in idle! With power the XIV was clearly better.

So the P51 had just such small advantage against a plane with just around 1150HP at 7800m and much less at 9500m? :P I would say luck for the Mustang pilot that this kind of fight didn´t begin much lower where the 109 offerd much better flight and engine performance.

Hristo_
01-27-2006, 04:26 PM
If you are overtaking a plane, you are obviously faster. If he evades by turning, he has lost even more speed relative to your plane.

Now you both zoom. Zoom altitude is, AFAIK, proportinate to the square of travelling speed before zooming. There is quite a difference in zoom altitudes between a plane travelling 450mph to that travelling 400mph (which we may assume were speeds of Anderson's P-51 and the 109):

- in vacuum, an object travelling at 450 mph will convert this speed into 2063 meters of zoom climb
- an object travelling at speed of 400mph in same conditions will zoom "only" 1630 meters

So, 450mph - 400mph = 50mph speed difference.
But, 2063m - 1630m = 433m of zoom climb difference (about the effective gun range of WW2 planes).

IMO, it is strange how that 109 could even be pointing its nose at Anderson's plane while both were stalling out. That isn't even possible in our sim and apparently happened in real life.

Maybe we need to improve 109 zoom climb here ?

BaronUnderpants
01-27-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by vanjast:
HERE is the undeniable proof that the FW190 OUT-TURNS the P51...

Case Closed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
UberFW (http://www.vanjast.com/images/FWvsP51.avi)

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

Wery nice clip....a real ballet of the sky, almost religious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Texan...
01-27-2006, 04:43 PM
Welcome special agenda lobbyists. Please take a seat while you wait.

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

And yes, P51 zoom climb should probably be improved.

BaronUnderpants
01-27-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
The Mustang needs work - I find it difficult and downright unpleasant to fly - but Pipper, mate you gotta understand that until you or I or someone else gets hold of a *real* wartime condition and trim (that is guns, ammo, radio, oxygen, fuel and pilot) P-51 and flys it in mock combat with a *real* bf109(whatever variant) in exactly the same condition, and does a series of scientific measures at various altitudes and airspeeds, WE ARE NEVER GONNA KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IT WAS REALLY LIKE. Sure we are and we do as the information is amply available. There are volumes of anecdotal evidence that describe the P-51 by the men who flew it. Furthermore, there are former military flyers like BSS_Vidar with actual P-51 time who play this game. His view is that the P-51 as modeled in this game is just plain weak. This aside, the sheer amount of P-51 information (both technical and anecdotal) tell us what a first-rate aircraft this was. Those who flew it did so with complete confidence...and they have the war record results that reinforces this view.

Your point made above would (IMHO) be more valid if we didn't have so much information already available on the P-51. But we do.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Just one question, u say "weak"....weak in comparisson to what? Im not 100% sure here but i havent read anywhere that nither Bud Andersson or BSS_Vidar ( reluctant to bring Vidar into this dabate ) ever flew Bf 109 or Fw 190 making them able to do a accurate comparison...am i right? How do u know that all the other aircraft in the game isnt as weak compared to its RL counterpart as the P-51 obviously is ( according to some )

Why is it so hard to agree on the fact that regardless of WWII pilot or his ac of choise he will tell u that his darling outflew and outgunned everything in the sky....hell, its the truth isnt it, otherwice he wouldnt be alive to tell about it.

The fact that the ones screaming loudest is P-51 fans ( Books, TV, u name it ) doesnt mean its true ALL the time regardless if situation.

Maby u forget...there where more than 1 Mustang that got shot down during combat.

Although i understand the points u and others are trying to make, the question is: should we have a number of ac in game that have almost IRL FM ( from info given by thoose who actually flown them reasently, like P-51 and Spit ) and another group of ac based on numbers and computer generated FM ( simply because the ac doesnt exist in flyble condisions anymore ) To me that doesnt seem like a fair solution, now does it?

Hristo_
01-27-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Welcome special agenda lobbyists. Please take a seat while you wait.

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

And yes, P51 zoom climb should probably be improved.

Numbers, please...

Or at least try to challenge numbers I provided above.

robban75
01-27-2006, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
And yes, P51 zoom climb should probably be improved.

I can't agree with that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-27-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Welcome special agenda lobbyists. Please take a seat while you wait.

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


You've GOT to be joking and that's what the smiley is about, right?
Yes the other special agenda lobbyists should take a seat as you're not done yet!

Re-read that account of the dogfight. Both times the 109 did an energy bleed maneuver
just before the zoom. Both times, he needed to. I've also seen video where the whole
thing was laid out and while those bleeds were shown they never got discussed.

Hristo, the speed differences are more like 20-30 kph than 50 mph (80 kph). At the ranges
and angles they flew, that's significant enough for tactics.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 05:23 PM
How 'bout 74.


Originally posted by Hristo_:

Numbers, please...

Or at least try to challenge numbers I provided above.

http://www.issprops.com/business/images/take-number.jpg

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

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 05:28 PM
I'm starting to think this was just a trolling attempt and we all swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker. No one could be this arrogant.

Brain32
01-27-2006, 05:40 PM
Heh, it seems you guys have been busy wihle I played http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
OK then:

Brain, sorry if the test I'm talking about isn't on the site. I promise, however, that there was a test run by the RAF between a Tempest, Spit Mark 14, and a Mustang III, all at high boost, to see what would happen.
I just saw it, indeed it says 405MPH, although the plane was specially prepared for the test, but you have a point.

How about your prop pitch thing on the BF109.
What, the fact I did not know how it's done(proppitch cheat)? Feel free to dig out whatever you wan't I'm not ashame of anything I said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Brain32, apparently I cannot win with your style of argumentative posting. Again, if the MkIII is too fast, bring it down. Doesn't matter if I fly it or not.
Well, m8 I don't really care is it too fast or not, I was just a bit cranky because last few days you can not enter the forum without P51 popping out of everywhere, and with no real data or interesting material(although I enjoyed reading Bud Anderson's story). The truth is that P51 has issues a very strange issues, for example I find D5NT much stable(regarding wobbles) than D20 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif. But like I said P51 is not the only one with the issues, and what irritated me most is Pipers fanatic interpretation of P51's issues, it's like P51 is the worst plane in the game.
There are no ace-maker planes in the game because there were no such in RL either and it should stay that way.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 05:49 PM
Nope.

No trolling, just a member of the community that would like an accurate P51.

I have no need to get sucked into this numbers comment on an aspect of the FM where few numbers of real meaning can be attached: Handling!

Nice attempt to sidetrack/derail/devalue the thread though.

<S>

Grey_Mouser67
01-27-2006, 05:51 PM
Does anyone other than me find it odd that most threads discussing the performance of allied planes tend to be overrun by folks with pictures of Luftwaffe aircraft in their signatures, names and call signs with some German context or JG number etc????

I am pretty certain most of their agenda's do not include making the Mustang more accruate...there are exceptions such as Faustnik, but come on guys its getting a little old.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 05:56 PM
Here's something:

Climbing to 15,000 feet, Lieutenant Brown saw four fighters in the distance, heading west. Maybe they were members of his group. As he closed on them, he discovered that they were Bf-109s--difficult to tell from P-51s at a distance. In perfect firing position but out of ammunition, he reduced power and slid into their blind spot at six o'clock low. Why had they not seen him? Then he spotted two Mustangs ahead and below. The -109s were so intent on hunting the Mustangs that they had not seen him.

Brown called a warning to the Mustangs, which broke sharply to the left with the -109s now almost in firing range. He told the Mustang pilots he would try to disrupt the enemy formation. At that moment, the Luftwaffe pilots picked up on Brown as he closed on their tails, not knowing he was out of ammunition. Henry Brown didn't pause to calculate his chance of survival. He saw what needed to be done, and he did it.

There followed a 20-minute engagement in which Brown outturned his four adversaries, who held all the aces, forcing them one by one to roll out of a Lufbery circle and dive for the ground. While Lieutenant Brown hovered constantly on the verge of a high-G blackout, the two Mustangs he had saved disappeared to the west, leaving him alone in an unfriendly sky.

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
I have no need to get sucked into this numbers comment on an aspect of the FM where few numbers of real meaning can be attached: Handling!
Ah! But that was hardly your initial premise. You posted the excerpt and essentially demanded that the plane out-turn all versions of the 109 and 190. Handling is indeed hard to quantify and if you look for my post from a short while ago you will find that I did not dispute the handling issues, just that they seemed to be sporadic and that perhaps the solution lies within the sensitivity settings. The question is why do people experience wobble, instability and poor 0.50 cal performance while others don't?

Texan...
01-27-2006, 05:59 PM
================================================== =====
"You posted the excerpt and essentially demanded that the plane out-turn all versions of the 109 and 190."
================================================== =====

And where did I do this exactly?

I did find this:

================================================== =====
"I think the turn rate is probably close at high speeds and a bit too weak at slower speeds. Yes, the main issues are:

Unstable/CoG problem

Bobbling nose

Synch'ed guns

You just cannot push this plane like I've read pilots doing IRL."
================================================== =======

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

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 06:08 PM
Again, let's analyze this second account:

- How experienced were the 109 pilots?
- How many G's could they withstand?
- What type of 109's?
- What loadout? If they were carrying the R-6 loadout (wingpods) they would most definitely stall out of the luffberry first.
- Considering Brown had to throttle down to slide behind them, it looks like he had an E advantage on them and therefore could have out-lasted them in the turn even if they were not carrying gunpods through the use of lag pursuit/high yo-yo's.
- Being on the verge of blackout suggests that the turns were performed at high speed where the Mustang does have an advantage, one that is present in-game.
- What exactly does 'roll out' mean? did they stall or did they decide the turn fight was too dangerous to continue? Perhaps they were low on fuel, 20 minutes is a long time for a 109.

Contrary to what you may believe, I am indeed after accurate portrayal of every last aircraft in the sim. All I am saying is, it is very hard to arrive at that portrayal just based off pilot accounts which often lack detail, context, clarity and/or objectivity. And no, they are not useless, we just have to appraise them without the rose-tinted goggles.

Texan...
01-27-2006, 06:08 PM
Urban L. Drew squares off with a 109:

Flying at about 23,000 feet, he saw a flight of P-38s fall prey to Bf-109s. The Germans dived past Drew and his wingman, and Drew pulled a hammerhead stall to come around behind one Messerschmitt. The German pilot saw him, went into a Lufbery, and Drew followed, the two aircraft in a tight cork screw down to 10,000 feet. That's when Drew asked himself, "Is this guy better than you? I had to put it out of my mind immediately, because if you don't, the wrong mother's son is going to come home that night."

Spiraling closer to the ground, Drew kept some altitude on the Messerschmitt, until the German pulled out. The G forces in the Lufbery (about 7Gs) had jammed five of his six guns, but the one gun proved enough to down the Bf-109. Drew says this was the one time in his combat career he felt remorse over a victory. "I felt very bad, because I said, Drew, there was one of the great fighter pilots of all time. Who ever was flying that 109, he almost got you. And I was the best, as far as I was concerned. Maybe he was a big ace and maybe he wasn't, but by God he could fly that Messerschmitt."

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 06:09 PM
My mistake then, I must have you confused with Pipper. He certainly seems to think the Mustang should outturn any mark 109 or 190.

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 06:13 PM
To pull anywhere near 7G's requires considerable speeds, speeds at which the 109 elevator would be nowhere near as effective as the P-51's. Furthermore, in a dive, engine thrust differences have a negligible effect. Try this maneuver online and see who wins.

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 06:22 PM
For a change of pace let's shoot holes in excerpts from across the fence, shall we?
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Walter Wolfrum, 137 victories:

Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, because the plane shook violently at the moment when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
Perhaps the spitfire, LaGG and Yak pilots out-turned were similarly inexperienced and hesitated to ride the edge of the envelope?

Erwin Leykauf, 33 victories:

The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."
This 'egg-shaped' turn and 'entering the turn properly' is highly suggestive of an engagement started with E advantage where the attacker starts off with lag pursuit preserving his E while the defender bleeds of his and then tightening it. The numbers simply do not support the 109 having a better turn-rate or radius than the spitfire.

Adolf Galland:

"Novice pilots tended to be thinking they should back off their turn when they deployed, but really it was just a booster to turn-performance"
This says nothing about relative performance, just that the slats provided a little extra lift according to Galland and that holds water - they allow a higher angle of attack and therefore more lift. Still how much is a 'boost'?

AFDU 28 October 1941: TACTICAL TRIALS Me.109F AIRCRAFT- 7:

No manoeuvrability trials were carried out against other aircraft but the Me.109F was dived up to 420 mph, IAS, with controls trimmed for level flight and it was found that although the elevators had become heavy and the ailerons had stiffened up appreciably, fairly tight turns were still possible.
'Fairly tight' what's that in meters?


And therein is my point. There is simply not enough precision in most of these accounts to model anything off of them.

WWMaxGunz
01-27-2006, 06:32 PM
So when Gunther Rall told the Finns in his interview that when the slats deployed in a
turn the thing to do was back the stick off slightly... that just proves he was a novice?

The slats do not change the lift coefficient whatsoever. Yes they can be used but also
take into it that drag will increase with the square of AOA change and the square of speed.
Is it really so smart to get a plane with higher wing loading into such extra drag producing
practices during combat? I guess it can work if you're sure to get the kill and there's
no one around who will find you a slow and easy target. It also depends on how much speed
your thrust is capable of replacing. 109's had what, 2 or 3 G's thrust? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 06:35 PM
I'm sorry Neal, what are you talking about?

Slickun
01-27-2006, 06:37 PM
Hey Brain.

Specially prepared, I guess. They stripped and repainted the wings' leading edge, and rubbed down the rest of the plane.

They did something to the base of the antenna. They removed the wing racks. The modified the engine so it could be run at 25 pounds boost.
They also put bigger stacks on it, from a Spitfire, and squeezed maybe a couple more mph out, but the main cause of the speed increase was smoothing out the paint job on the wings. And the added HP.


Not really that much modification. Not enough to argue about. Anyone can read the report and judge for themselves. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bottom line was the 25 pound/81" hg Mustang could haul butt on the deck.

Hristo_
01-27-2006, 06:44 PM
"...I then saw an entire Schwarm of Mustangs curving in on us from the rear, with myself as the first in the line of fire. No one said anything, and Number 3 remained fixed to the Old Man, who kept turning at a constant rate. It didn't occur to me to use the radio; we had had it drummed into our heads to keep our traps shut. The Mustangs banked more tightly. When I could see the leader's gun barrels I had had enough, and pulled up sharply in a half-loop, passing inverted over the enemy aircraft. I could see the pilot of the Number 1 Mustang staring at me. I had lost speed, and now fell in behind the last Mustang. I immediately had yet another Schwarm of Indians on my tail. I turned as before, and when I again saw the gun's mouths, I dove steeply, and the Mustangs passed above me. I zoomed up at high sped, and at that moment a Mustang passed right in front of my nose from my left, at about 300 meters range. I turned right immediately, aimed, and fired. I fired until I almost rammed him, and then passed above him to the right. Flames erupted from the Mustang. It dove away and I saw it crash. "

Ottomar Kruse, Fw 190 pilot, Aug 16th, 1944 - his first victory. The engagement took place at alt of 3500 meters. Interestingly, Kruse forgot to switch on his outer cannons and only used 25% of ammunition of his inner guns. Kruse started combat flying only a month earlier, in July 1944.

Oleg, please make our 190 able do to that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Jetbuff
01-27-2006, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Hristo_:
"... I could see the pilot of the Number 1 Mustang staring at me..."
Well, I guess we'll be seeing him on the forum shortly complaining, "BS! NO WAY A 190 COULD HAVE OUT-TURNED ME!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Relax people, j/k...

GR142-Pipper
01-27-2006, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
My mistake then, I must have you confused with Pipper. He certainly seems to think the Mustang should outturn any mark 109 or 190. Wrong again. I never made such claim.

GR142-Pipper

horseback
01-27-2006, 07:40 PM
Where in the story does Kruse say that the Mustang he shot down was turning?

From my reading of the account, there's no indication that the pilot of the Mustang ever saw him until he was taking hits; there's no clear description of their relative positions. If Kruse was climbing as the Mustang crossed his nose, he might well have been beneath the Mustang, hidden under his nose or wing at the closest point of approach.

This is more of a "I snuck up on the poor bastage and clubbed him to death" victory than a "I jerked my stick back into my belly, pulling tighter and tighter turns as we death spiraled..." type of victory, dontcha think?

cheers

horseback

GR142-Pipper
01-27-2006, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Unless you vote with your feet in masses, they ARE in the right business. First, this is a niche market (on a good day) so there are no "masses". Second, companies that don't listen to reasonable issues about their products from their customers go away...some sooner, some later...but they all go away. Business 101.

GR142-Pipper

Kuna15
01-27-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Still, when these pilots talk about out-turning their opponents, unless the advantage was huge, (aka Hurricane Versus 190) they were most likely referring to out-turning the enemy pilot. i.e. withstanding more G's.

I think this is the big difference between game and real life enviroment.
Oh yes, agreed 100%, after all that is why they say "it's the pilot not the machine". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif