PDA

View Full Version : P51 data/discussion



FA_Whisky
08-05-2005, 02:54 AM
Is there anyone here that has some real data on the P51 series. I find the P51d a dog to fly these days. The P51c(mustangIII) seems fine though.
I'm just wondering if more of you still think(its a feeling, got no data to back it up) that there is something wrong.
I also think that 50call should do more damage, not ripping off wings, but more fuelleaks, engine damage, control damage and pilot kills. Even at point blank pilot armour stops a 50call bullet now. I think thats not right. Well, tell me what you think......(oh my got, hope i did not start the P51 whine thread..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

FritzGryphon
08-05-2005, 03:33 AM
You were doing good, until this point.

its a feeling, got no data to back it up) that there is something wrong.

But I agree, data on the P51 is hard to come by, especially for turn rates and whatnot.

FA_Whisky
08-05-2005, 03:42 AM
You were doing good, until this point.

its a feeling, got no data to back it up) that there is something wrong.

But I agree, data on the P51 is hard to come by, especially for turn rates and whatnot.

I know, thats why i'm asking here...... Must be somebody with some usefull stuff.

FritzGryphon
08-05-2005, 03:46 AM
As far as .50 cal lethality, Arnie's test showed 3-5 M2 bullets to be equivalent to 1 Hispano shell (in terms of numbers of hits per kill).

This is correct vs anecdotal evidence. I forget the source, but supposedly 3 M2 guns are as destructive as 1 Hispano (therefore 4-5 bullets per shell due to the different rates of fire). As you'd expect, the cannons are more effective at blowing away structure, and the M2 kills more often by PKs, fires and control damage.

The oft complained about M2 weakness is mostly a product of a buggy FW-190 DM, in particular, the lack of fuel leaks and fires in 4.01. Fight any other planes, and you'll light fires to your heart's content.

GR142_Astro
08-05-2005, 07:49 AM
There is something wrong with the P51d for sure. It flies like it has a constantly full fuse tank behind the behind the pilot. The COG is totally screwed up right now.

As far as the .50s, I think they are average to OK, but the REAL problem is that as soon as you pull the trigger the nose of both the P51 and the P47 begin this idiotic swaying from side to side, making it almost impossible to put any meaningful bursts together.

Couple this with fuselage damage BUGS in both the 109 and 190s, and there is the basis of the problem.

Bearcat99
08-05-2005, 09:56 AM
IMO the P-51 could use a bit more powerand the wings still come off too easily. Although both things have improved. I found that by using pitch and throttle I could attain a cruise speed closer to what the historical cruise speed on a P-51 is (B/C &D) but it still seems to lack power. Especially up high. The wings break off too easily and totaslly without warning even when minimal stick pressure is applied. I just deal with it and try to learn to use the plane as best i can but it does get frustrating. Personally I think the C should perform like the MkIII and the MkII should perform a bit closer to the P-51 from the first patch with the D slightly less stellar than the C... slightly. Just my 2 cents.

p1ngu666
08-05-2005, 10:16 AM
i broke the wing on a p51D by opening up the throttle sharply, the last time i flew it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Slickun
08-05-2005, 11:42 AM
I've been flying the Mustang III a lot. Weak, weak guns. Rest is pretty good, though.

learn to use maneuver flaps.

LStarosta
08-05-2005, 11:50 AM
Weak guns?! LOL!

That's bull. .50's are fine.

lbhskier37
08-05-2005, 12:01 PM
I find this ripping off of wings very strange. Since the patch I have been flying the MKIII online most of the time and have yet to lose a wing. Even before the patch I never lost my wings. I think this losing wings is definitly a stick settings thing.

ICDP
08-05-2005, 12:45 PM
Here are the results for P51B performance test in PF 4.01. I posted these on the last thread that stated the P51 was not good enough. The data is from various official USAAF sources (Including the P51B Manual)

As far as turnrate goes it is harder to test but the P51 will outturn the Fw190A at slows speeds, as long as the Fw190 doesn't use its massive low speed roll advantage the P51 WILL outturn it.

Real Data = RD

Top Speeds
Sea Level(RD): 359mph. PF 359mph
20,000ft (RD): 419mph. PF 423mph
24,000ft (RD): 442mph. PF 443mph
29,100ft (RD): 450mph. PF 444mph

So the PF 4.01 P51B matches real test data extremely well for top speeds.

Climb data using military power (100% throttle) to 20,000. Fuel 50%

(RD with full ammo and 180gals of fuel) 6.6 minutes
PF from brake release: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 50%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.4 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 50% fuel)
PF from brake release: 7.2 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 75%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 75% fuel)

I don't know if the real test was done from brake release so I tried both. Also in PF I cant select the correct amount of fuel (180 US gallons). I conducted 4 tests using both 50% and 75% fuel load and I tsted both loads from brake release and from SL. Overall the climbrate seems to be very accurate for 100% throttle in the P51B since I was able to match the real ROC at SL (3,400 ft/.min) and 20,000 (2500 ft/.min).

Rollrates

I tested the P51B rollrates according the the NACA rollrate chart (50lbs stick force).

MPH...NACA...PF
180...63.....72
220...78.....82
260...90.....101
300...94.....95
340...93.....83
380...88.....76

The P51B in PF is slightly overmodelled at slower speeds perfect at 300mph but slightly undermodelled in roll at higher speeds.

Overall the P51B in PF is modelled very accurately, it reaches its top speeds, climb rate and rollrates very well compared to real data. So no I have to totally dissagree with some of the opinions on this thread that the P51 in PF is undermodelled.

Some of the people on this forum continually complain about the P51 without doing any real testing. By their definition the P51 (and all US aircraft) should be better because "Historically they did well". They don't seem to grasp the fact that how it performed in combat IS NOT SOLELY to do with how well it performed and more to do with tactics, numbers and general quality of opposition pilots.

horseback
08-05-2005, 03:12 PM
You cannot quantify the loss of E in high, medium, or low speed turns, but there appears to be a dropoff from patch 3.04. A 10% loss of roll rate at the higher speeds (which is where the Mustang is supposed to excell) is not 'slight.'

Neither is the 'jitter' induced by firing the guns. It is my understanding that the wing mounted fifties are modelled so that each round in each gun is fired at the same time as every other gun in the wing, when the guns actually all varied slightly in when they started firing, and so the recoil was much more evenly distributed. This clearly penalizes aircraft using exclusively wing mounted HMGs, which, oddly enough, are mostly American fighters.

apparently, this is the tradeoff for the improved P-38 FM...

cheers

horseback

Bearcat99
08-05-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Some of the people on this forum continually complain about the P51 without doing any real testing. By their definition the P51 (and all US aircraft) should be better because "Historically they did well". They don't seem to grasp the fact that how it performed in combat IS NOT SOLELY to do with how well it performed and more to do with tactics, numbers and general quality of opposition pilots.

Be that as it may be for the rest of the forum.. I still think the wings come off too easily. As far as the gunsd go.... you have to get in close.... "scary close" as Bud Anderson said to me....

Regardless i still fly the plane becasue as far as I am concerned... it is a sim.... and even if i may not like all the aspects of the FM or think it should be different... tere isnt a better P-51 anywhere for me to fly so I just suck it up and deal. You will never see me crying ad nauseum about any plane..... it is what it is....... and I still enjoy it.

Atomic_Marten
08-05-2005, 03:31 PM
the P51 (and all US aircraft) should be better because "Historically they did well".

That is really a problem with this game. Game brings up the worsest features of any plane as well as it's good sides much much more than in real life. And that is the problem with all aircraft in game.

If for nothing else, it is because in RL there were FAR more influences than what we have in game.

For instance engine reliability, heaters in cockpit, range of the aircraft (in game it is almost totally ignored especially in dogfight rooms), pilot skills and capabilities (eye sight, G force tolerance.. etc) etc.

Also aircraft in game are being used in unhistorical way, another words used on some purpose and role that particular aircraft did not fit.

ICDP
08-05-2005, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
You cannot quantify the loss of E in high, medium, or low speed turns, but there appears to be a dropoff from patch 3.04. A 10% loss of roll rate at the higher speeds (which is where the Mustang is supposed to excell) is not 'slight.'

Neither is the 'jitter' induced by firing the guns. It is my understanding that the wing mounted fifties are modelled so that each round in each gun is fired at the same time as every other gun in the wing, when the guns actually all varied slightly in when they started firing, and so the recoil was much more evenly distributed. This clearly penalizes aircraft using exclusively wing mounted HMGs, which, oddly enough, are mostly American fighters.

apparently, this is the tradeoff for the improved P-38 FM...

cheers

horseback

I see you left out the more than 10% improvement in rollrate at lower speeds, a bit biased of you isn't it? For your information the Fw190 is out at high speed rollrate by around 20%, are you going to whine about that?

I am not seeing the so called energy bleed you speak off, in fact the P51 is one of the best zoom climbers in the whole sim at the moment. If you insist on turnfighting a P51 at low speeds than of course you are going to get your *** handed to you. Maybe we should return to the AEP P51D with 700kph IAS tops speed at 8,000m. Or maybe we should return to the PF P51 which could turn with 109's and Spitfires at lows speeds (IIRC it could turn 360deg in 17.5 seconds).

Since 4.01 I have not broken a single wing in the P51, it has improved dramatically in this area IMHO.

faustnik
08-05-2005, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:


Top Speeds
Sea Level(RD): 359mph. PF 359mph
20,000ft (RD): 419mph. PF 423mph
24,000ft (RD): 442mph. PF 443mph
29,100ft (RD): 450mph. PF 444mph


Wow! That's impressive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif 1C is good.

faustnik
08-05-2005, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
You cannot quantify the loss of E in high, medium, or low speed turns, but there appears to be a dropoff from patch 3.04. A 10% loss of roll rate at the higher speeds (which is where the Mustang is supposed to excell) is not 'slight.'

I noticed a reduction in E-retention with the P-51s also, but, thought it might be my imagination. The P-51 and Fw190 both had high speed roll considerably reduced in 4.01 for some reason.

One thing I noticed with the P-51 is it has poor acceleration. I realize that this is historical to an extent, I'm just pointing it out. As a result you really have to manage your energy state carefully with the Mustang, even more than the Fw190. If you get slow you are in big trouble.

Grey_Mouser67
08-05-2005, 04:41 PM
The wing thing is still a pain...and the high speed elevator authority is overpowering.

Personally, I think the .50's are a little weak but I'd rather see the yaw oscillations and the pitch dampened significantly and then look at the .50's again. The Mustang, Jug and Lightning all pitch really, really bad and they all have yaw oscillations...they were all stable gun platforms so they should fly like it....it may be that gunnery is as big of a problem due to the instability....I get used to flying a stable plane like the 109, Hurricane or Beau and just get downright aggreavated with my behemoth, by comparison, swaying with the slightes pull of those HMG's...with all that recoil, it would make you think that they were actually powerful.

From a performance standpoint, speed and rate of climb, I think are real good. Turning may be a bit on the poor side...at least relative to a Fw...the Mustang should be able to out turn a Fw and not out turn a 109 at low speed below 20,000 ft....it sort of out turns an Anton and I have a hard time telling if it out turns a Dora...I don't think it does.

p1ngu666
08-05-2005, 04:47 PM
well, the p51 performs like it should, but its the handling and feel that feels odd, its not the only plane that has this issue, now or in the past.

i didnt break the wing from moving the stick, it was from the throttle which i opened up quickly, apart from that bizarity for sure its much better in teh wing braking.

i think the D model is worse than the B and C too

horseback
08-05-2005, 04:53 PM
I see you left out the more than 10% improvement in rollrate at lower speeds, a bit biased of you isn't it? For your information the Fw190 is out at high speed rollrate by around 20%, are you going to whine about that? I make a point not to get that slow, in keeping with my attempts to follow standard USAAF fighter doctrine, so low speed roll rate makes no difference in my 'combat sim' life.

As for the zoom climb, it's harder to quantify without a direct LAN comparison to other types than the E loss. A more aerodynamically refined aircraft like the P-51 should hold its E better than the 109 or 190, especially when the Mustang has burned off close to half its fuel. What I know is what it 'feels' like, sluggish and sloppy (absolutely NOT what its combat operators described) compared to the previous patch versions.

cheers

horseback

mynameisroland
08-05-2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The wing thing is still a pain...and the high speed elevator authority is overpowering.

Personally, I think the .50's are a little weak but I'd rather see the yaw oscillations and the pitch dampened significantly and then look at the .50's again. The Mustang, Jug and Lightning all pitch really, really bad and they all have yaw oscillations...they were all stable gun platforms so they should fly like it....it may be that gunnery is as big of a problem due to the instability....I get used to flying a stable plane like the 109, Hurricane or Beau and just get downright aggreavated with my behemoth, by comparison, swaying with the slightes pull of those HMG's...with all that recoil, it would make you think that they were actually powerful.

From a performance standpoint, speed and rate of climb, I think are real good. Turning may be a bit on the poor side...at least relative to a Fw...the Mustang should be able to out turn a Fw and not out turn a 109 at low speed below 20,000 ft....it sort of out turns an Anton and I have a hard time telling if it out turns a Dora...I don't think it does.

Hi Mouser,

I like the way the Mustang handles and performs in game. I am very aware of how easy it is to lose a wing and I constantly act cautiously when going 700k or above when turning or using elevator. As you know I like to fly the Fw a lot and the AC are not too disimilar. You can shed the wing of a Dora 9 almost as easily as the Mustang but the ceiling figure for it to happen seems to be 750 ~ 800Km/h.

I agree with you 100% reg the recoil of the .50 cals what I find even more incredible is the Hellcat judders like hell when you are firing its guns and this AC is solid.

If recoil was looked at and Fw damage model adjusted the .50 cal armed planes would be even more deadly than they are now - and they are great guns in the current 4.01 situation.

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

Boemher

ICDP
08-05-2005, 05:31 PM
The P51 in 4.01 definately outturns the Fw190 at all speeds, at lower speeds the higher rollrate of the Fw190 gives it an advantage in a dogfight. Against the 109's it is a lot harder unless you keep your speed high, it WILL NOT outclimb a 109 at normal speeds but it will outzoom it.

I tested a 109K4 and P51D for dive and zoom climb.

Bf109K4 reached 819kph in a dive from 10,000ft to 3,000ft and zoomed back to 8,750ft before stalling (straight up zoom).

P51D reached 849kph in a dive from 10,000ft to 3,000ft and zoomed to 10,400ft before stalling.

Hardly scientific stuff but it does show that the P51 is a better diver than the Bf109K. Despite the higher zoom climb altitude I would still avoid trying to outclimb a 109 at all speeds.

Both aircraft were tested with 100% fuel.

Grey_Mouser67
08-05-2005, 05:47 PM
Hey Boemher!

Offline, at least in the old version...haven't tested the new version, altitude played a role in the wing breaking...below 2000 meters, you better watch it, between 2000-3000 you can break it but you really have to try a little harder and above 3,000 meters I couldn't really break the wing...for some reason online, the critical altitude for wing breaking is much higher.

Anyways, it think the Mustang is pretty good as is overall. It doesn't fly smooth like it used to...I prefered that and it is competitive online...just those darn guns! The Fw does break wings too, but not as easily as far as I can tell and I fly the Fw alot too.

The trick to keeping the Mustang from wing breaking is to trim your aircraft to a negative standpoint so it wants to nose into the ground. This dampend your elevator inputs and I've been able to manuever up to and slightly over 800km/hr...even in a Mustang but my Saitek X-45 has enough dead zone that the plane gets super twitchy and I really can't hit much at that speed.

I'd like to see that twitchy feeling toned way down...dampened. All planes w/ no hydraulic boost had controls get heavier with speed...including the Mustang. From a relative standpoint, the Mustangs controls and the space in the cockpit combined with stick length / design allowed great high speed manueverability...maybe best in class irl.

If the Mustang didn't change, it wouldn't be the end of the world because it is a competitive plane when flown right, but I'd still be wondering what we'd get the next time Oleg was to model one? Its not dominant, but real, real good!

carguy_
08-05-2005, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Both aircraft were tested with 100% fuel.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Hoarmurath
08-05-2005, 07:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AerialTarget
08-05-2005, 09:08 PM
I just hopped into my old German ride - Me-109 G-2 - yesterday for some fun with a guy I was duelling. Wow! My "bad" gunnery, about which I have been asking myself since the patch, "was it always this bad?" completely changed. I hit every single thing I shot at, and with most of my bullets. It was incredible! I'd always remembered that I considered myself a good shot, and this is why.

So I was wondering, why is it that I am such a lousy shot when I'm in an American ship? It's not because I'm not used to them, because they are all I fly. I think the answer is because of the ridiculous vertical oscillation. Why don't the German planes suffer from this? The American aircraft seem to suffer from what I would call "instability."

faustnik
08-05-2005, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
The American aircraft seem to suffer from what I would call "instability."

AT,

All the aircraft with weapons in the wings do this, not just the American a/c. Try the Spitfires and the Fw190, they will do the same thing. Of course with the Fw190 it matters less and just gives you a good shotgun pattern of 20mm rounds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What HOTAS setup are you using? The problem that you are describing sounds much worse than I am getting with my setup. I am using the MSFFB2 stick with CH pedals & throttle.

HotelBushranger
08-06-2005, 12:20 AM
So I was wondering, why is it that I am such a lousy shot when I'm in an American ship? It's not because I'm not used to them, because they are all I fly. I think the answer is because of the ridiculous vertical oscillation. Why don't the German planes suffer from this? The American aircraft seem to suffer from what I would call "instability."

I'd say because the American rides have more and bigger guns. The G2 only has a 20mm and 2 7.7mm's, whilst most US planes have 4 or more .50's.


As far as the .50s, I think they are average to OK, but the REAL problem is that as soon as you pull the trigger the nose of both the P51 and the P47 begin this idiotic swaying from side to side, making it almost impossible to put any meaningful bursts together.

Amen to that. Last night against a very well flown K-4, I finally got into a good firing position: K-4 in a vertical climb but only at a speed of maybe 200-250k, whilst I was a bit more (he was in another fight and climbed up with speed, whilst I was at a higher height). So yeah, hes just starting to turn back to earth, and hes in my gun sights.....After the first 6 rounds, the Stang starts to buck around like a wild horse (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif) and I lose my kill http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif got a slightly smoking engine though.

So yeah, I'd say worst problem is gun stability.


i think the D model is worse than the B and C too

I agree 100%.

fordfan25
08-06-2005, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
You were doing good, until this point.

its a feeling, got no data to back it up) that there is something wrong.

But I agree, data on the P51 is hard to come by, especially for turn rates and whatnot.

even if we do post data some one will just post pics of mk3's with clowns in them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

AerialTarget
08-06-2005, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
All the aircraft with weapons in the wings do this, not just the American a/c. Try the Spitfires and the Fw190, they will do the same thing. Of course with the Fw190 it matters less and just gives you a good shotgun pattern of 20mm rounds.

Hmmm, in particular the twenty millimeter cannon on the P-38 is receiving my scrutiny. It has a lower rate of fire than the German twenty millimeter, and yet shakes around like a billy-oh. I can't figure this out; is the round twice times the length or something? It certainly has two times the shake!

As you know, my two rides are P-38 Lightning and Me-109 G-2. I can't do squat with the P-38, but I can do anything with the Me-109.

By the way, I use CH Combat Stick and CH Pro Pedals.

carguy_
08-06-2005, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by AerialTarget:
As you know, my two rides are P-38 Lightning and Me-109 G-2. I can't do squat with the P-38, but I can do anything with the Me-109.


Amazing!Up to 300m I find the P38 both more stable and deadly.In firepower I place it between FW190A and FW190D.I also noticed that if I make .50cal spread a bit more I get a minumum of engine smoke out of most enemies.Hispano I use in close ups 70m-140m make it very effective.

As for shaking P51,check out the MGFF on the Emil.Shaking is the same.Both planes lack of inboard wing cannons unlike the FW190.

p1ngu666
08-06-2005, 01:46 AM
u are forgetting, the 109 is best at pretty much everything http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the hispano fires with more volicity, but less often, 10 rounds a sec, 12-3 for teh mg151/20

p51 is the new p38, u feel like its gonna not be good..

FA_Whisky
08-06-2005, 01:50 AM
i broke the wing on a p51D by opening up the throttle sharply, the last time i flew it


Lol, you must be pulling +15g like that. Last tme i broke the wing i was doing 650kmh and pulled up while shooting. Also +15g i think without blackout!

The P51 does indeed come very close to rl data. But i think it misses a few things like

acceleration: We fly the plane with only 25% hp/weight ratio is not that bad than

Jitter: plane keeps moving around when you let go of the stick, nothing like a stable gun platform. Not even at high speeds(600kmh+)

Energy retention: it loses a lot of energy in turns and manouvering. Why? its very low drag. Shouldn't it be more like a spitfire witch does not lose much energy in turns. (NOT that it should outturn the spitfire though).

Thats all i think

FritzGryphon
08-06-2005, 02:42 AM
it loses a lot of energy in turns and manouvering. Why? its very low drag. Shouldn't it be more like a spitfire witch does not lose much energy in turns. (NOT that it should outturn the spitfire though).

In a turn its all about induced drag, wing loading, max lift, AoA, that sort of thing. Wing is much smaller than a Spit, plane heavier. It should 'bleed' like a FW in a turn, and it does seem to.

In testing sustained turn, I find the P-51D to be marginally worse than FW-190A5, not better. Mind you, this is with full fuel. 15.6 dps versus 15 dps. In any case, the wingloading and powerloading are similar, so it is not a surprise.

With 25% fuel, this is reversed. The P-51 turns marginally better, with less 'bleed'.

More turn rates.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1241035933/p/1

---

And on the topic of blackouts and wingbreaks, it is the same on all planes, I've tested it. It happens most often on the planes that have touchy controls, and are more likely to exceed the G limit with a careless pull. The limit itself is the same in all cases (14G, according to devicelink)

ICDP
08-06-2005, 04:45 AM
Nice work Fritz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Grey_Mouser67
08-06-2005, 09:28 AM
In my CFS2 days, you could edit airfiles and I would use a dampening figure to help with this "twitchyness"...it seems to occur in the vertical (pitch) and horizontal (yaw) of many allied aircraft including spitfires....I just point out the Jug, Lightning and to a slightly lesser degree the Mustang because they were known for their stability and relatively speaking, they are the most unstable planes in the game imho.

If Oleg were to change this, it would change the way the plane "feels" when you manuever it. I think it would be a good thing. I watched a wingman last night score 20+ % hits with a Bf109F-4 last night...he is a verrry good shot, but the stability of the aircraft and its dampened controls add to it as does his joy stick and reflexes I'm sure...you could not do this with a P-38. The pitch just doesn't allow for small movements of the joystick to correct aim so I wind up with a series of small snapshots instead of a stream of a tracking shot...at least in most cases....pull on the stick and the plane bobs around for a couple of seconds destroying your aim.

I find the 20mm config in the 109F4 and G2 to be very powerful, especially with the stability of the plane...a real joy to fly and shoot in.

By contrast, the Lightning with a Hispano and 4 .50 cal. HMG's is really not much more effective for me...imagine if that plane's controls were as steady as the 109....the bullet stream would be murderous...just like everything we've read about...it should be! And of course the Mustang and Jug, Spitfire etc should be similar too, although I have read in more than one account that it was easy to "overcontrol" a spitfire with makes me thing that it did pitch a little...and same with the P-39 and to a lesser degree the P-40.

As far as drag is concerned, I think Fritz summed it up pretty good. The low drag, high wingloaded aircraft should be good at energy retention but only to certain angles of attack. Where this low drag design should be more evident is in diving and high speed manuevering. Parasitic drag increases at an increasing rate with speed....in other words, the faster you go, the worse the drag effect. That is a big reason why Spits, that are lighter, with the same engine as a Mustang for example, fly slower....why big, high drag planes like the Jug (apart from supercharger) do better in thin air.

Low drag designs should decelerate much slower after dives, acheive higher speeds more quickly for a given power to weigh ration or dive, attain higher top end speed and this should also translate to better low altitude speed for a given power to weight because the thick air increases drag.

I am unclear as to whether this is modelled in this game closely and I'm most familiar with what I've read about the Mustang being a low drag design...and the radiator configuration also adds positively to the equation by being low drag from a relative standpoint...again showing up at high speed and in thicker air more so than in low speed turning situations.

FA_Whisky
08-06-2005, 11:13 AM
Low drag designs should decelerate much slower after dives, acheive higher speeds more quickly for a given power to weigh ration or dive, attain higher top end speed and this should also translate to better low altitude speed for a given power to weight because the thick air increases drag.


I agree with this one. But none of this can be found in the game. Sure, the stang is fast, it it does not really keep energy very well, or better than other planes.

GR142_Astro
08-06-2005, 02:00 PM
We can dance all around this issue if you like, but this bogus oscilation of US aircraft is so arcade. So, we have the historical penalty of heavier, larger aircraft but with 2 Olegian twists:

1 - the instant you trigger the guns US aircraft begin to bob around like they have absolutely no mass at all

2 - the P47 in particular has a woefully weak damage model, to go along with a plastic P51 engine and a balsa wood P38 elevator

Thanks 1C for modeling all the cons and none of the pros.

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

p1ngu666
08-06-2005, 02:16 PM
bought a spitfire book today, the elivators where sensitive but seems they got less senistive as they (spits) got heavier.

u got used to it quickly tho, u just flew with pressure rather than deflection of the stick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

side to side yawing is another matter, its mostly todo with side area. id say the 109 has about the same sidea area as a spit, p51 and other fighter aircraft..

Stanger_361st
08-06-2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
We can dance all around this issue if you like, but this bogus oscilation of US aircraft is so arcade. So, we have the historical penalty of heavier, larger aircraft but with 2 Olegian twists:

1 - the instant you trigger the guns US aircraft begin to bob around like they have absolutely no mass at all

2 - the P47 in particular has a woefully weak damage model, to go along with a plastic P51 engine and a balsa wood P38 elevator

Thanks 1C for modeling all the cons and none of the pros.

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

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

Kocur_
08-07-2005, 05:37 AM
On effectiveness M2 vs. British Hispano Mk.II:

In both there are used not only KE projectiles but also those which contain chemical materal: incendiary in M2's API and explosive in HE of BH Mk.II, so calculating KE only of both leads to false conclusions.

If to calculate chemical energy and add it to KE of projectiles and put results in relation to effectiveness of .50 API, we will have:

M2:
.50 API=1,

and

BH. Mk.II:

20mm x 110 Hispano HE=4,86

(btw: MG151/20 HE=2,31, but Minengeshoss=6,53!)

We can calculate effectiveness of M2 and BH. Mk.II, in assumpiton that M2 fires API only and BH fires HE only:

M2:
800/60=13.3 x 1=13,3

British Hispano Mk.II
600/60=10 x 4,86=48,6

3 x M2=3 x 13,3=40
1 x BH Mk.II=48,6

48,6/13,3=3,6

so one 20mm Hispano = ~3,6 M2's

Note: ROF in already there!


Its not definitive though because its all based on assumption that belts are filled ONLY with .50 API/20mm HE. Its not true. Seems to me that 20mm HE were more common in Hispano belts (like 3HE/1AP?) than API in M2 belts. Correct me if im wrong, i.e. if someone has details on belting of those, please post them.

So to equal effectiveness of one 20mm Hispano it takes at least 3,6 of .50 M2's and possibly more.

data from:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm


edit:
Why I never thought about it before!?:


Most of planes here have fuselages (some wings also Fw 190) built in semi monocoque technology: aluminium-most, wood-some, especially Lagg/La family. In that technology fuselage of a plane in nothing more than a tube made of thin aluminium/plywood. We dont want that skin to collapse under pressure so it is stiffened with internal stiffeners and/or longerons mounted around bulkheads.
If you make a hole in that tube of a size, the whole tube will be weakened in horizontal/vertical plane depending on where the hole is, proportionally to hole area. If fuselage structure was calculated to carry certain stress and you remove part of that structure it will breake under much less stress. Also removal of part of the tube will result in removing part of entire tube stiffness. It all depends on total area of hole(s) in structure and its position.
M2 had no HE projectiles! And HE projectiles cause incomparably more damage to planes skin due to explosion. No .50BMG projectile will cause hole substantially bigger than ~12,7mm diameter (bigger, i.e. eliptical at low angles of hitting, i.e. at dead 6) while 20mm HE might blast 100mm+ hole in skin, and thus cause proportional damage to fuselage strenght!

In conclusion effectiveness of M2 in comparison to any 20mm cannon is lowered further than 3,6 ratio, because 20mm cannon fire give MUCH higher chance of causing failure of the plane's structure.

p1ngu666
08-07-2005, 09:51 AM
USN found that 20mm hispano worth around 3.3 .50cals http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

geetarman
08-07-2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by ICDP:
Here are the results for P51B performance test in PF 4.01. I posted these on the last thread that stated the P51 was not good enough. The data is from various official USAAF sources (Including the P51B Manual)

As far as turnrate goes it is harder to test but the P51 will outturn the Fw190A at slows speeds, as long as the Fw190 doesn't use its massive low speed roll advantage the P51 WILL outturn it.

Real Data = RD

Top Speeds
Sea Level(RD): 359mph. PF 359mph
20,000ft (RD): 419mph. PF 423mph
24,000ft (RD): 442mph. PF 443mph
29,100ft (RD): 450mph. PF 444mph

So the PF 4.01 P51B matches real test data extremely well for top speeds.

Climb data using military power (100% throttle) to 20,000. Fuel 50%

(RD with full ammo and 180gals of fuel) 6.6 minutes
PF from brake release: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 50%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.4 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 50% fuel)
PF from brake release: 7.2 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial, 75%fuel)
PF from SL: 6.8 minutes (160mph IAS from cockpit dial 75% fuel)

I don't know if the real test was done from brake release so I tried both. Also in PF I cant select the correct amount of fuel (180 US gallons). I conducted 4 tests using both 50% and 75% fuel load and I tsted both loads from brake release and from SL. Overall the climbrate seems to be very accurate for 100% throttle in the P51B since I was able to match the real ROC at SL (3,400 ft/.min) and 20,000 (2500 ft/.min).

Rollrates

I tested the P51B rollrates according the the NACA rollrate chart (50lbs stick force).

MPH...NACA...PF
180...63.....72
220...78.....82
260...90.....101
300...94.....95
340...93.....83
380...88.....76

The P51B in PF is slightly overmodelled at slower speeds perfect at 300mph but slightly undermodelled in roll at higher speeds.

Overall the P51B in PF is modelled very accurately, it reaches its top speeds, climb rate and rollrates very well compared to real data. So no I have to totally dissagree with some of the opinions on this thread that the P51 in PF is undermodelled.

Some of the people on this forum continually complain about the P51 without doing any real testing. By their definition the P51 (and all US aircraft) should be better because "Historically they did well". They don't seem to grasp the fact that how it performed in combat IS NOT SOLELY to do with how well it performed and more to do with tactics, numbers and general quality of opposition pilots.

That's fine but doesn't tell the whole story. The P-51 flys well and (apparently) very true to life. It does not, in game, COMBAT well due to excessive yaw instability, DM problems, increased E-bleed, etc.

Kocur_
08-07-2005, 10:00 AM
p1ngu666 Posted Sun August 07 2005 08:51

"USN found that 20mm hispano worth around 3.3 .50cals"

Depends much on targets. If those were Japanese kites-and-lighters it could have been even better than that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Grey_Mouser67
08-07-2005, 10:46 AM
The strength of 3.3 to 1 sounds about right to me...HE vs. API would have similar but different effects on the airframe of its target and would be hard to express quantitatively...the cannon would leave one large hole and the HMG would leave 3x as many small holes with deeper penetration with damage occuring when something solid was hit.

I would still like to see the yaw and pitch dampened, as with would help a bit with gunnery and make the FM a little more believable and I think the guns would automatically seem more powerful....anyone remember the arguement that the P-40's had stronger guns than the Mustang? I think the real difference was in the pitch dampeneing...it was easier to aim, track and hit with the warhawk...more hits makes the guns automatically more effective.

As far as combat performance...from the quote from ICDP...I feel that the combat performance is indicative of the performance of the aircraft relative to its tactical mission...there is a correlation.

The myth that is perpetuated over and over that is a little aggrevating is that the Mustang had numerical superiority, fuel and better pilots...this is true but only at the end of the war. The great Luftwaffe purge occured in early 1944...with P-51B mustangs, those puny 4 gun models, and they didn't have lots of numbers...they only became effective in squadron strength in Dec. 43. The fighter doctrine was changed and the Mustang proceeded to wipe the sky clean of 109's and 190's...with experienced pilots. Many Luftwaffe pilots were transferred from the Russian front to the Western front to stem the tide...by D-Day, one could say the fuel, pilots and numbers became a big factor...but not before May 1944.

The Mustang was the right plane for the job and performed very well. It performs well in game and I think if we fought Bf109G6's online and Fw190A8's...the heavy unmanueverable Sturmbock versions, and the pitch/wing falling off thing/yaw etc were fixed the P-51 would dominate there too like it did in real life. Just can't duplicate those tactical sitations online very well.

The Mustang is close...but not quite there yet. I hope Oleg straightens out this yaw/pitch oscillation and dampens the controls/makes the high speed elevator less twitchy....that would be good.

geetarman
08-07-2005, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The strength of 3.3 to 1 sounds about right to me...HE vs. API would have similar but different effects on the airframe of its target and would be hard to express quantitatively...the cannon would leave one large hole and the HMG would leave 3x as many small holes with deeper penetration with damage occuring when something solid was hit.

I would still like to see the yaw and pitch dampened, as with would help a bit with gunnery and make the FM a little more believable and I think the guns would automatically seem more powerful....anyone remember the arguement that the P-40's had stronger guns than the Mustang? I think the real difference was in the pitch dampeneing...it was easier to aim, track and hit with the warhawk...more hits makes the guns automatically more effective.

As far as combat performance...from the quote from ICDP...I feel that the combat performance is indicative of the performance of the aircraft relative to its tactical mission...there is a correlation.

The myth that is perpetuated over and over that is a little aggrevating is that the Mustang had numerical superiority, fuel and better pilots...this is true but only at the end of the war. The great Luftwaffe purge occured in early 1944...with P-51B mustangs, those puny 4 gun models, and they didn't have lots of numbers...they only became effective in squadron strength in Dec. 43. The fighter doctrine was changed and the Mustang proceeded to wipe the sky clean of 109's and 190's...with experienced pilots. Many Luftwaffe pilots were transferred from the Russian front to the Western front to stem the tide...by D-Day, one could say the fuel, pilots and numbers became a big factor...but not before May 1944.

The Mustang was the right plane for the job and performed very well. It performs well in game and I think if we fought Bf109G6's online and Fw190A8's...the heavy unmanueverable Sturmbock versions, and the pitch/wing falling off thing/yaw etc were fixed the P-51 would dominate there too like it did in real life. Just can't duplicate those tactical sitations online very well.

The Mustang is close...but not quite there yet. I hope Oleg straightens out this yaw/pitch oscillation and dampens the controls/makes the high speed elevator less twitchy....that would be good.

I would agree with most of your post. The 51 needs some minor tweaking to make it a better, more realistic, combat weapon. It's coming up short now. Even if adjusted, most 51 pilots felt they had a plane that could compete with a 109 or 190, particularly at higher alts. I don't think it would dominate them, as it didn't in RL.

Kocur_
08-07-2005, 12:14 PM
The strength of 3.3 to 1 sounds about right to me...HE vs. API would have similar but different effects on the airframe of its target and would be hard to express quantitatively...the cannon would leave one large hole and the HMG would leave 3x as many small holes with deeper penetration with damage occuring when something solid was hit.


Agreed: it is a complicated matter. IF stream of M2 bullets hit a plane from dead 6 most of them will hit something important: API's have well chances of penetrating pilots armour, and if fuel tank protector werent best quality, have good chances of lighting fuel IF they hit fuel tanks, also all types of projectiles have very good chances of beaking control cables. Alltogether set of 3 M2's "produces" 4 times more projectiles than one BH Mk.II.
On the other side not all cartridges in M2 belts were with API's and only those could "damage" pilot or light fuel.

Effectiveness of M2's against semi-monocoque planes structure it self is very limited. The key factor is area of holes in structure. Any type of .50 BMG will produce 126,61mm^2 hole. 3 M2s will produce holes of total area of in 1 sec :

3 x 13,3 x 126,61 = 3 x 1.688 = 5.064 mm^2

BH Mk.II, if there are 3 HE,1 AP rounds in belt will produce, if to assume carefully HE makes 50mm hole:

2,5 x 314,00 + 7,5 x 1 962,50 = 15.233 mm^2

Thus:

single BS Mk.II 15.233 / 1.688 M2's = 9

So single BS Mk.II is statistically 9 times more effective in destroying semi-monocoque structure than one M2, and even set of 3 M2's is 3 times weaker at that.


Like I said before it is complicated. Sill I would vote for 3,6+ as M2 equivalent for one Hispano if we are talking about shooting at modern, strong built, well protected planes, that is different that most of Japanese.

msalama
08-07-2005, 12:37 PM
We can dance all around this issue if you like

Sure. But hey, listen up before hitting that dance floor again:

I had this issue with v.4.01 Mustangs - and many other planes too - before changing joysticks. But now, after getting myself yet another JS, the problem has completely disappeared. None, and I repeat, NONE, of the P-51s suffer from ANY axial oscillations and/or gunning instability anymore.

(And yeah, I can record a track as evidence too if someone's willing to host it...)


Thanks 1C for modeling all the cons and none of the pros.

Thank you for listening!

blazer-glory
08-07-2005, 01:02 PM
Finest German plane ever flown by the Americans!

Blackdog5555
08-07-2005, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The strength of 3.3 to 1 sounds about right to me...HE vs. API would have similar but different effects on the airframe of its target and would be hard to express quantitatively...the cannon would leave one large hole and the HMG would leave 3x as many small holes with deeper penetration with damage occuring when something solid was hit.

I would still like to see the yaw and pitch dampened, as with would help a bit with gunnery and make the FM a little more believable and I think the guns would automatically seem more powerful....anyone remember the arguement that the P-40's had stronger guns than the Mustang? I think the real difference was in the pitch dampeneing...it was easier to aim, track and hit with the warhawk...more hits makes the guns automatically more effective.

As far as combat performance...from the quote from ICDP...I feel that the combat performance is indicative of the performance of the aircraft relative to its tactical mission...there is a correlation.

The myth that is perpetuated over and over that is a little aggrevating is that the Mustang had numerical superiority, fuel and better pilots...this is true but only at the end of the war. The great Luftwaffe purge occured in early 1944...with P-51B mustangs, those puny 4 gun models, and they didn't have lots of numbers...they only became effective in squadron strength in Dec. 43. The fighter doctrine was changed and the Mustang proceeded to wipe the sky clean of 109's and 190's...with experienced pilots. Many Luftwaffe pilots were transferred from the Russian front to the Western front to stem the tide...by D-Day, one could say the fuel, pilots and numbers became a big factor...but not before May 1944.

The Mustang was the right plane for the job and performed very well. It performs well in game and I think if we fought Bf109G6's online and Fw190A8's...the heavy unmanueverable Sturmbock versions, and the pitch/wing falling off thing/yaw etc were fixed the P-51 would dominate there too like it did in real life. Just can't duplicate those tactical sitations online very well.

The Mustang is close...but not quite there yet. I hope Oleg straightens out this yaw/pitch oscillation and dampens the controls/makes the high speed elevator less twitchy....that would be good.

I agree 100%.. I set the convergence to 175 and get in close and the 50s are effective. I think the dispersion is still a bit high. the convergence should, as in real life have all shells hit within a 18 inch circle at 200 yards. but all the yaw makes it hard to aim..especially in the P47.. When i fly with rudder pedels its easier to control but with my FFB twisty its near impossible to control yaw.