PDA

View Full Version : P51D AUX tank and COG



VFA-195 Snacky
04-04-2007, 04:21 AM
I have spent a lot of time with the P51D in IL2 recently and there is something that really concerns me. I am actually surprised this has never been addressed in a patch, but I'm afraid since we have come to the end of any patching that it will go on as is.

Many will say the Mustang in IL2 has been nurfed in some way or does not resemble it's true to life form. I personally feel it is one of the better aircraft in the game is used correctly, but it does have a serious flaw that needs to be addressed.

In the NT and NA versions there is a 25 gal aux tank just as there was in the real thing. As with the real P51D this aux tank shifted the COG of the mustang to the rear. This caused serious issues with pilots in the P51. It was a procedure of P51 pilots to select this aux tank and burn all of the fuel from it as quickly as possible. As with any aircraft you want to burn the fuel in the wings last. Fuel in the wings adds stability and rigidity to the wings. It also helps the COG.

In IL2 the fuel in the center aux burns off last. This causes the P51 to be very unstable once the fuel is emptied from the wings. This equates to 25gal or 150 lbs behind the pilot and COG. No other aircraft in IL2 suffers from this and there is no way to select which tanks to pull fuel from first. There is also no way to slelect which tanks to put fuel in.

My question to those with the power to influence changes is: Can Oleg and his team reverse the fuel order in the P51 so as to draw fuel from the aux tank first? Would this be an easy fix with only a few lines of code? and why has this gone unchallenged?

I don't expect too much help on this since it is an American plane and getting anything with merit fixed on an American plane is like pulling teeth. I feel this is a very legitimate gripe and an easy fix.

Thanks

btw- On the question of whether or not COG is effected by fuel weight in IL2 it most certainly is. I would guess with Flight Models as detailed as this that 150lbs aft of COG would play a huge roll in that aircraft's stability. A lot of the problems with the Mustang can be cured by simply changing the fuel consumption from wings fiorst to aux first.

BBB_Hyperion
04-04-2007, 04:46 AM
Not sure if there are different fuel tanks modeled on any plane . Simple test fire 20 mm round into fuel tank and wait until engine stops. Wouldn't happen when there would be different fuel tanks.

strelnik_Sipi
04-04-2007, 04:54 AM
It was told countless times that Il2 doesnt model diferent fuel tanks. Not for P51 ,not for FW,not for any model. All aircrafts have only one fuel tank located at COG. P51 doesnt suffer from COG shift cuz it cant happen in Il2. All problems you might think p51 got are not COG shift related.

VFA-195 Snacky
04-04-2007, 04:56 AM
Where is the documentation on this? Has Oleg stated this somewhere?

Why is there a fuel gauge for the aux behind the head of the pilot and why does the aircraft become unstable once wings are empty? Am I dealing with a simple weight issue?

strelnik_Sipi
04-04-2007, 06:06 AM
Oleg himself said that on several topics about p51 in ORR. Search and you will find. There are many nonfunctional gauges in IL2 and that fuel gauge is one of them. Its there just for the show. Its easy to test. Shoot fuel leak to p51 or FW and you will loose all of your fuel, p51 and FW have in RL several fuel tanks and so it should be impossible to loose all fuel. So far I didnt noticed any instability with p51. But with that oversensitive control you might just oversteer the plane. Thry to handle it more gently.

edgflyer
04-04-2007, 07:20 AM
It is a dead deal. Anything P51 related will just go by the way side and you will be labled a whiner. I agree that the 51 does not perform to it's real life counter part but then again I have no charts to prove it nor do I have any experience flying a real one. It is pretty much a useless plane in the sim as compared to real life and we have to live with it. It used to be very close to it's real life counter part but then there were to many complaints and then to "BALANCE GAME PLAY" it was changed. Possible the worst plane in the sim if comparing to real life.

leitmotiv
04-04-2007, 07:37 AM
It's funny because the Oleg 51s handle like FS9/X 51Ds with a full fuselage tank. I never use the 51, and I assumed it would behave better at less than 50% fuel. Note: Bud Anderson in TO FLY AND FIGHT wrote that the order in which they used tanks was drop tanks first, fuselage tank, and wing tanks. Thus, as he put it, most 51s on long-range escort were fighting with gas sloshing around in the fuselage tank with severe effects on trim.

Brain32
04-04-2007, 08:07 AM
Anything P51 related will just go by the way side and you will be labled a whiner.
Maybe, but come on, say it, say what exactly troubles you about the P51. I'm willing to listen without name calling, but be specific.

I agree that the 51 does not perform to it's real life counter part but then again I have no charts to prove it nor do I have any experience flying a real one.
Not having charts etc. is not a good thing here, however, still I would like to know what makes you feel like that, maybe I have charts to show you that it does perform close to it's real life counterpart, and maybe I don't and we can agree, otherwise this is just a one-sided rant...

It is pretty much a useless plane in the sim as compared to real life and we have to live with it.
Useless for what purpose, shooting bad guys down? Naaah it can't be that, every fighter in the game is capable of doing that(even me109), maybe you feel that it's not possible to do it using historical tactics and way of fighting?

It used to be very close to it's real life counter part but then there were to many complaints and then to "BALANCE GAME PLAY" it was changed.
As far as I know, the first complaints about P51 underperforming kicked in right after it stopped to have insane turning performance, what was it 16sec IIRC(better than any Spitfire now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif), now THAT was FAR away from it's real life counterpart performance...

Bearcat99
04-04-2007, 09:09 AM
Cog may not be modelled as far a s drain goes.. but load up a 51 at 100,75,50 & 25%. Do acrobatics.. you will notice better handling at 25%. CFS1 was like that as well..... it may not be cog modelling.. but fuel drain is modelled and as fuel drains handling improves. It is what it is. Snacky AFAIK this will not be changed... we will; see more accurate modelling in BoB but for this series.. it is what it is. What I sometimes do is take 25% and tanks.... aside from the really cool look of dropping your tanks as you go into battle... (I just love hitting the flyby view when rolling in.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) it gives you longer legs.. so to speak. The fuel gauges work too.. but the drain is modeled, at least as far as the gauges go just as Snacky said... so it is easy to see where he might thionk that. I posted almost the same thing in ORR about 2 years ago. You will notice the plane will be more stable with less fuel.

As for the real world Mustang.. from what I understand they used the drop tanks first.. then they used @50% of the fuselage tank... then the wing tanks.... and lastly the rest of the fuselage tank.... the reason being that there was more fuel in the wing tanks.... and they didn't want to land with that much gas if they could avoid it.... if you had a landing gone bad.... thats a lot of gas to burn.

edgflyer
04-04-2007, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Anything P51 related will just go by the way side and you will be labled a whiner.
Maybe, but come on, say it, say what exactly troubles you about the P51. I'm willing to listen without name calling, but be specific.

I agree that the 51 does not perform to it's real life counter part but then again I have no charts to prove it nor do I have any experience flying a real one.
Not having charts etc. is not a good thing here, however, still I would like to know what makes you feel like that, maybe I have charts to show you that it does perform close to it's real life counterpart, and maybe I don't and we can agree, otherwise this is just a one-sided rant...

It is pretty much a useless plane in the sim as compared to real life and we have to live with it.
Useless for what purpose, shooting bad guys down? Naaah it can't be that, every fighter in the game is capable of doing that(even me109), maybe you feel that it's not possible to do it using historical tactics and way of fighting?

It used to be very close to it's real life counter part but then there were to many complaints and then to "BALANCE GAME PLAY" it was changed.
As far as I know, the first complaints about P51 underperforming kicked in right after it stopped to have insane turning performance, what was it 16sec IIRC(better than any Spitfire now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif), now THAT was FAR away from it's real life counterpart performance... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Level flight top end speeds cannot be met
No e-retension, slight turn and all speed is bleed, The P51 had enough power in the engine to sustain speed while turning, other wise why the need for g-suits? (Not turning and burning mind you) and this list goes on. No matter what is said I know there will be about a 100 others to come along claiming to be experts on this matter. They will bring their charts and show them to everyone and say see I told you. Well how about I bring in a bunch of charts to prove their charts wrong, which has been done before. Which one is right? We will never know. So as I said before, we have to live with what we got. Bringing me to ask at what point Brain did I say quote me and prove me wrong in my first post or did I say "we need to live with what we got" Get off the band wagon with your experten comentary and go somewhere else.

flox
04-04-2007, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
What I sometimes do is take 25% and tanks....


I do that too when I'm flying online: That way once I see some action I can drop the tank and have a nice light 25% fuel load. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Brain32
04-04-2007, 12:38 PM
Level flight top end speeds cannot be met
Strange last time I tested P51D either matched perfectly or was actually slightly faster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If you have a chart that shows much better speeds than this one( http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342-level.jpg ) I'm sure we would all love to see it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


No e-retension, slight turn and all speed is bleed, The P51 had enough power in the engine to sustain speed while turning, other wise why the need for g-suits?
Are you claiming that P51 can't go fast enough for the pilot pulling max deflection to black out? Or do you expect 6G+ sustained turning? As for E retention of all the planes in the game I had opprtunity to test or to see test results, after a dive it was exactly the P51 that kept excessive speed built up in a dive longest.

...and this list goes on.
List of what? Things real P51 could and our can't, or things YOU CAN'T DO with our P51?


No matter what is said I know there will be about a 100 others to come along claiming to be experts on this matter.
It does not matter what they claim, if they can't back up their claims with something solid, they can go play hide and f*** themselfes, nobody will even listen to them as I tried to listen you.

They will bring their charts and show them to everyone and say see I told you. Well how about I bring in a bunch of charts to prove their charts wrong, which has been done before.
I say bring it on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and no, it was not done before, atleast not here, I am however interested in new data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bringing me to ask at what point Brain did I say quote me and prove me wrong in my first post or did I say "we need to live with what we got" Get off the band wagon with your experten comentary and go somewhere else.
Yes m8, that's because you don't even want to accept the possibility that somebody might prove your points to be wrong because then you would have to look for solution to your problems somewhere else, and you don't want that, because a one sided rant is a much easier task
I say pass that data you have around and let's solve it once and for all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

edgflyer
04-04-2007, 12:43 PM
Hey Brain, If I want anymore **** out of you I will squeeze you head. I posted my point so leave it be. I have the right to my opion without soemone like you claiming to be a expert on everything dickwad

Brain32
04-04-2007, 12:44 PM
Well truth hurts it seems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

edgflyer
04-04-2007, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Well truth hurts it seems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Truth hurts about what dickwad. That I think that something is wrong with it like so many others in the game. I could care less about what I can or cannot do with the P51 in the game. I do just fine in it and yet still I think something is wrong. So what are you doing. Trolling around and hijacking threads for your own amussment *******. I made my post in relation to the original poster and not at you ****-for-brains so ****off

Bearcat99
04-04-2007, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
Hey Brain, If I want anymore **** out of you I will squeeze you head. I posted my point so leave it be. I have the right to my opion without soemone like you claiming to be a expert on everything dickwad

edgeflyer you need to chill out man. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif


The P-51 is a good plane in this sim. It could be better in some respects.... but it is decent. I still think it accelerates a little too slowly.. but it will get fast... and if you fly it right the wings will stay on and it wont stall as easily.... and the bottom line is this.... 1)The 4.08m P-51 is better than the previous ones.... and 2)It is what it is.... so instead of crying about it learn to fly the thing to it's sttrengths as it is. If you shoot right a 2 second burst can cripple just about any plane in the sim.

edgflyer
04-04-2007, 01:42 PM
As I already said before BC, I do fine in it in the game and as stated in the above posts I have also said except what we got. This I do not have a problem with. What I have a problem with is guys who feel they need to come in here and pick apart a post someone makes because it goes against what they believe. He could as easily came in here and said "I feel the plane is fine" but instead he went on a attack on what I wrote. So flippin what if I think something is wrong. I feel the gunsight on the FW is all screwed up to. Will I get attacked on that as well? I also think the FW does not handle as good as it should. Will I get attacked on that also? Am I not allowed to agree with the original post? I know that nothing is perfect when it comes to programming but I am allowed my opion. So theres to your chillout.

fordfan25
04-04-2007, 01:44 PM
i would not take 25% and drop tanks bear. i tested in QMB and even after you drop the tanks you loose ALOT of top speed compaired to just takeing 50%. if you would like i'll retest and give numbers. on this i am 100% sure as i did the test about a week ago because a wingman in warclouds recommend the drop tanks ect and i found the stang to be roughly 20mph slowr in low alt level flight.

Bremspropeller
04-04-2007, 01:51 PM
Guys, the P-51 is a flying gastruck.

You won't even need half of it's tank capacity on a normal DF-server.

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

WarWolfe_1
04-04-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by flox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
What I sometimes do is take 25% and tanks....


I do that too when I'm flying online: That way once I see some action I can drop the tank and have a nice light 25% fuel load. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats what I do.


i found the stang to be roughly 20mph slowr in low alt level flight.
Th P-51 wasn't a great low alt preformer, it was better that the P-47 but not by a great deal. Both were designed from the outset as HighAlt fighters, the better of the two being the P-47 if you discount range.

Bearcat99
04-04-2007, 01:55 PM
Well what I have a problem with is the name calling and it needs to stop now.

WarWolfe_1
04-04-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Well what I have a problem with is the name calling and it needs to stop now.

what wouldya do if I called you cubcat instead???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

edgflyer
04-04-2007, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Well what I have a problem with is the name calling and it needs to stop now.

Well it will if dickwad keeps his opion an opion instead of attacking others

WarWolfe_1
04-04-2007, 02:00 PM
IBTL

I don't think you sould have done that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

p-11.cAce
04-04-2007, 02:05 PM
i would not take 25% and drop tanks bear. i tested in QMB and even after you drop the tanks you loose ALOT of top speed compaired to just takeing 50%. if you would like i'll retest and give numbers. on this i am 100% sure as i did the test about a week ago because a wingman in warclouds recommend the drop tanks ect and i found the stang to be roughly 20mph slowr in low alt level flight.

I used to take 25% and drop tank - but then someone pointed out that the drop tank option adds the racks and they DO slow you down! So now I either go with 25% if the action is near and try to get high and in the fight quickly before I run dry (not easy in my lovely -109's) or 50% if I will need some time to hunt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Brain32
04-04-2007, 02:10 PM
The posts of the (nerves on the)edgeflyer are exactly what I think ruined many of the threads here at ubi. I just asked what does he think it's wrong, and all I got was a rude reply.
Instead it could go much nicer, like what is wrong? Is it level speed...nope I tested that. Let's look further now and maybe we will find something, maybe we will learn something and in the end we just may have it corrected, but no let's go with the insults and make it a flame fest.

You see this is a valid opinion about a possible problem:

I still think it accelerates a little too slowly..
No charts or BS about that, powerfull engine, smooth lines, heck it might just as well indeed accelerate too slow, the point is a normal, nice comment like that leaves a possibility to try to obtain some data about it and possibly determine and ultimatively solve the problem and make us all happy(ier). Where can the grumpy, rude behaviour take us? I'll answer that, to the ton of things we beat each and every day about this or that plane that were never solved. If we all went a bit easier on each other in the past I believe we would have much less topics like FW's this, P51's that, Spitfires this etc.
Just my 2c.

BTW about the fuel loadout: I always fly P51 with 50% fuel and slight nose down trim, I found it to be perfect harmony of fuel reserve and handling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat99
04-04-2007, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Well what I have a problem with is the name calling and it needs to stop now.

Well it will if dickwad keeps his opion an opion instead of attacking others </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I don't think you sould have done that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Originally posted by Brain32:

If we all went a bit easier on each other in the past I believe we would have much less topics like FW's this, P51's that, Spitfires this etc.
Just my 2c.

BTW about the fuel loadout: I always fly P51 with 50% fuel and slight nose down trim, I found it to be perfect harmony of fuel reserve and handling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I don't think your first point will ever happen..... Too many opinions.... as for the second part.. yeah thats what I do. I also use PP. It will accelerate.... it just does it slowly IMO. And no I don't have any charts or graphs or tracks... to me it is what it is and I fly it because I want to fly it... period. Complaining about it is only going to detract from my time flying it or doping other things that Id rather be doing other than complaining.

PBNA-Boosher
04-04-2007, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
As I already said before BC, I do fine in it in the game and as stated in the above posts I have also said except what we got. This I do not have a problem with. What I have a problem with is guys who feel they need to come in here and pick apart a post someone makes because it goes against what they believe. He could as easily came in here and said "I feel the plane is fine" but instead he went on a attack on what I wrote.

Um, that's not what I see. I see a well balanced (except for the expletive) post rationalizing opinions in general and making a good statement about necessary evidence to prove a point. Yes, this game's FM is limited in some ways. Yes, we all have different data. Most, if not all of us, have never and probably will never fly a P-51. Even if we did, our claims about its performance would cause skepticism on this forum.

Your opinion will be just as valued as anyone else's, so long as you defend it with proper statistics and resolve not to make it a battle of personal squabbles. The same goes for anyone else.

Viper2005_
04-04-2007, 03:10 PM
People often talk about the P-51 being unstable in the game, but they never say what they mean by this.

Here is a rather nice explanation of stability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_%28aircraft%29

Despite all the heat and light seen in the forums, the P-51 exhibits a damped short period oscillation; therefore it is stable in pitch. Apart from anything else, it trims out quite nicely, which an unstable aircraft will not (unless you use some form of stability augmentation system).

I think that 90% of the handling issues people complain about are associated with their joysticks rather than the game.

TheBandit_76
04-04-2007, 03:52 PM
Brems has it right. If you can't accomplish what you need to with 25% fuel in the Mustang, you're flying off the map or something.

VFA-195 Snacky
04-04-2007, 04:24 PM
There is no need to fight over anything. I am not whining about the Mustang. I realize it could be a lot worse.

I merely was curious about the fuel load and whether it played a factor in the COG. If you guys say there is no aux tank then I'll take your word for it.

One of the things i have noticed with the Mustang, which contridicts everyone so far, is that the more fuel I carry internally the more stable the P51 is. I usually take a full tank or 75% and as soon as I hit 25% I head home. The plane just seems to get very squirrely once it runs low on fuel.

Another thing that is really wierd is once you go into a departure the plane does not seem to handle the same after that. It seems to want to depart much easier after you have spun out for the first time.

Many talk about stats and numbers. We are fortunant to have Lt. Col. Monroe Williams with us in the 353rd and he is a wealth of knowledge on these aircraft. Monroe doesn't fly IL2 much anymore because of the instability in the American planes. One of his main complaints is the ease at which planes like the P47 and P51 spin, flip, and flat spin.
This is a small part of an interview Monroe gave back in 2003:


"I have never understood why Sim developers think, if you do a 360 degree turn in a steep bank, you are suppose to stall out, flip into a flat spin, and crash. I think this may be a factor in the pilots coming from IL2 not liking the planes in cfs 3. I have flown with the 353rd Virtual Fighter Group for about two and half years. When IL2 came out, most of the 25 pilots moved over to IL2. I preferred to stay in Janes WW2 and fly American planes. On occasion , some of the pilots come back to Janes to fly with me.....They find it weird and different. So, if you fly the "harder to fly" , "Easy to stall and spin", type Aircraft , it becomes the norm. But, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE REALISTIC. These planes are much more stable than that. In 22 years of flying Airforce planes, I never personally knew of one plane that went into a flat spin."

Monroe has tried to correspond with oleg on many occasions, but he flat out blew off Monroe and other actual WWII pilots who offered their knowledge. From what I understand Oleg just does not put merit on actual pilot accounts. He is a numbers guy, but the problem is he has detailed numbers on certain aircraft and "Educated Guesses" on others.

I'm not trying to start a riot and I understand that it is what it is and wont be fixed. I just thought it was important to put that out there in hopes that Oleg will "Listen" to those who know before it's too late with BOB.
Thats all I'm going to say because i dont want this turning into a 20 page flame fest.

thanks

flox
04-04-2007, 04:25 PM
I don't know about others, but what I said about 25% fuel + droptanks was a general practice; I don't do it in the P-51 because well, I almost never fly the darn thing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think it's more useful in a 109 or another fighter that's a bit short on range. But then again, I haven't flown online in a while and have not tested the top speed of any aircraft in a "clean" configuration compared to with racks. So the point may very well be moot.

TheBandit_76
04-04-2007, 04:27 PM
Monroe has tried to correspond with oleg on many occasions, but he flat out blew off Monroe and other actual WWII pilots who offered their knowledge.

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

Bearcat99
04-04-2007, 10:58 PM
Monroe is a treasure in this community....

badatit
04-04-2007, 11:09 PM
P51-20NA ROCKS!

But your not going to learn its pro's and con's in a few hours....Or a few days...Or a few weeks...Or a few months. I basically fly nothing else (since the release of AEP), unless it's not available to fly.

Load 100% fuel, climb to 25K, and trim for speed...Think of 16K as the hard deck... be sure.
And be sure to take along a compatant wingman, with the same config.

badatit
04-04-2007, 11:19 PM
As for the COG/Fuel tank(s)... I vaugely remember a heated debate over the subject, Oleg stepped in and said COG was just that...COG. It did not/could not (game engine limitation) change. That was the last word.

badatit
04-04-2007, 11:58 PM
Use 30-40 gallons from the fuselage tank, before you start in on the main wing tanks. Look at the illustration, and imagine what that that would do to the "real" aircrafts COG.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/Badatit/F51DPOH019.jpg http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/Badatit/F51DPOH020.jpg

badatit
04-05-2007, 12:13 AM
As for acceleration...push the stick forward with 100% fuel onboard. You will see accelleration.

I once had the honor to talk to a B17 pilot.
He relayed his one experience with the P51...He checked out a P51 for a mechanic that had worked on it all night (the pilot was nowhere to be found, and the mechanic wanted to go to bed).
The thing that really stuck with him,all these years, was the power, and speed that airplane had.
He said he got it heading down the runway. He eased the throttle forward, and when he did that, his entire body was slammed back into the seat and headrest. He couldnt believe the power it had, he was nowhere close to using full power on takeoff.
He flew a couple of turns around the pattern and set her down.
At the end of his recollection, he looked at me and said, "Yup, Mustang was scarey fast."

Waldo.Pepper
04-05-2007, 12:24 AM
I looked all through this thread and still could not find a PONY! Despite all the MANURE that has been shovelled around. Ironic given the subject matter - Mustang.

"It was a procedure of P51 pilots to select this aux tank and burn all of the fuel from it as quickly as possible."

THIS IS FALSE: They were told to select it first then run it half dry. (But even this old chestnut varied depending upon the mission.)

Now for some truth.

All points taken from America's Hundred Thousand.

Fuel Systems and Management.
(NOTE: the complexity that is likely impossible to model in a GAME!) Also note how wrong comments that poster have made are.

The Allison powered airplanes had two protected internal fuel tanks each of 90 US gallon capacity located inboard between the main and rear wing spars. The left tank included a supply designated as reserve (31 gallons of the 90) using the high and low standpipe system. There were no provisions for external drop tanks on the P-51, but the P-51A and the A-36A provided for a 75 or 150 US gallon drop tank on a bomb rack under each wing. The 75 gallon size was a combat drop tank; the 150 gallon tank was a slipper-type for long range ferry operation. An engine-driven fuel pump powered the system with a manually -controlled electrical booster pump also provided in the engine compartment, as was a fuel strainer. The engine primer system picked fuel off from the strainer. A main fuel selector valve was located in the cockpit, and an auxiliary fuel selector valve connected the fuel lines running across the wing to drop tank positions to the rest of the system. The two selector valves and the boost pump switch were on a center console just ahead of the control stick. A fuel quantity gage was included.

The later Merlin powered aircraft had two protected internal fuel tanks each of 92 US gallons in the inboard wing locations. The P-51B-5 aircraft became B-7 types (and P-51C-ls became C-3s) after installation of an 85 US gallon protected fuselage fuel tank aft of the cockpit area. Kits were made available for fuselage tank installation on earlier B models, and all subsequent production Merlin powered aircraft had the 85 gallon fuselage tank except for some P-51C-5 reconnaissance aircraft. Filling the fuselage tank sent the aircraft center of gravity aft and resulted in stability and control problems, so various restrictions were set up at various times, depending on the combat situation as to how much fuel was placed in that tank. Late models were sometimes placarded at a 65 gallon limit.

The system was powered by an engine-driven pump, but in addition each of the main wing tanks had its own gravity-fed submerged type of booster pump powered by the electrical system. The drop tanks provided had no boost pumps, but fuel was forced out of them by a controlled pressure of five PSI from the exhaust side of the vacuum pump. If this pressure failed the engine-driven fuel pump could draw fuel from the drop tanks up to about 10000 feet altitude.

Priming and oil dilution components were also part of the system, as was a strainer, fuel pressure and fuel quantity gages, and a fuel shut-off valve. Cockpit controls included the shut-off lever, tank selection switch, boost pump switch, and mechanical drop tank salvo levers which provided selective release of the tanks as a backup for electrical release of bombs or tanks.


Some additional comments from wartime pilots. (note what they say about stalling ... which is what the game P-51 has - and what people keep *****ing about!

The P-51 flew beautifully if the fuselage tank was emptied of at least half its fuel.

I don't recall a Mustang as having high stick force per g.

A P-51 was a different matter from a P-40. With its sensitivity and wing design, an insensitive pilot could have spin trouble.

I am sure a P-51 didn't have as much stall warning as I like to have. But I don't recall it being a problem.

The P-51 was different from a P-40 because Mustang pilot laxity could more easily cause a spin.

NOW DID OLEG GET IT RIGHT ON NOT!?

One other thing that Oleg omitted is also mentioned in America's Hundred Thousand on page 346 Inverted flying was limited to 10 seconds on early Allison powered models. Good thing he missed that or imagine the howls of bias.

HayateAce
04-05-2007, 12:24 AM
You guys that think the use of this OlegStang, where you fly up to the strat and do photo recon on the dogs below is realistic.....let's just say actual Mustang pilots weren't afraid to come downstairs and mix it.

They had one of the best fighter aircraft of all time and they knew it.

Waldo.Pepper
04-05-2007, 12:39 AM
let's just say actual Mustang pilots weren't afraid to come downstairs and mix it.

...with a numerical advantage, height advantage and a training advantage I wonder why!!?

OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCED THEIR DECISION!

P.S. I also forgot - mechanical reliability advantage over the engines in the Luft planes being rebuilt numerous times.

badatit
04-05-2007, 12:43 AM
And lets not forget the higher octane fuel that the late war Mustang pilots had in their tanks.
That we will (most likely) never get to test.

Brain32
04-05-2007, 04:55 AM
let's just say actual Mustang pilots weren't afraid to come downstairs and mix it.
Neither am I in the game, actually I rarely fly it above 3000m, only if I can find some opposition there, but there are already other P51 pilots up there who think you can't fight down low http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
My last victim said: "Suits me right looping on the deck with the Dora..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
If you can't fight ANYWHERE with the P51D in the game, then you also can't in more than half of the planes in the game.
The only thing I don't like about P51 and that I don't know is it realistic or not is extreme pitch sensitivity.

Viper2005_
04-05-2007, 08:16 AM
The P-51D in game is quite capable of getting down on the deck and mixing it in much the same way as the Fw-190 is capable of mixing it.

It's a shame it doesn't have cannon, but you can't blame Oleg for that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

However, it might be worthwhile investigating the belting for the .50s...

DKoor
04-06-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
What I sometimes do is take 25% and tanks....


I do that too when I'm flying online: That way once I see some action I can drop the tank and have a nice light 25% fuel load. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats what I do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If max speed is not that important than I guess that isn't a bad idea. Otherwise be awared that even with released drop tanks you lose approx. 30km/h because of the drag. Due to racks drag.
So your Pony with racks only (after tanks are released) is 30km/h slower than P-51 with default load. With tanks on, it creates even more drag so it is even more slower.