PDA

View Full Version : Put your P-51 data here......



Bearcat99
02-11-2006, 12:17 PM
Please list all your impressions of the P-51D as modelled in 4.03 here. I am not a charts and stats man.... I know something isnt right with it. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by your experiences.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-11-2006, 12:48 PM
I think its great. It matches my expectations in almost everyway except initial acceleration but with a slight nose down atitude it picks up speed very quickly. Its high speed turning is excellent and all high speed manuevering can be more aggressive because the wings don't have the same tendency to snap off. It hangs on to the Focke Wulf's tail quite handily and even though it can't climb with the 109 (which seems completely right to me given the realtive sizes and power to weight ratios of the two planes) I have no real problem running them down. The Mustang can also easily run from either one if it has a little alt to work with.

The plane will glady go into a snap stall at low speed or even at high speeds if you bang on the stick too hard. Although it takes some getting used to, I've only just started flying the Mustang regularly with the current patch. I also think the Mustang's stall behavior is realistic-I've read multiple accounts on the plane's tendency to snap.

E-retention is another thing the Mustang does not do well but there again I don't think that's wrong. The Mustang is very heavy for its size and the laminar flow wing can't be the best for energy conservation. There's also a video interview with Skip Holm that I downloaded and was floating around the forums a while back in which another pilot who flys the P-51 said that its energy retention was poor and the 109 could easily outclimb it. I know that these are unarmoured/unarmed civilian aircaft now but some of the characteristics-at least in general terms-have to be similar to their WW2 counterparts.

I also think that de-sync on the tracers helps the P-51 out tremendously. The hitting power of the weapons has not changed at all but the ability to hold the bullet stream on target is greatly improved and deflection shooting has become much, much easier. They're still heavily dependent on convergence for causing significant damage to 109s and Fw190s but you can get away with a lot more against lighly armoured Japanese aircraft. I don't think they're as strong as they should be-atleast relative to other weapons in game-but I still find them to be effective.

I do a lot of retrimming with the Mustang and failing to do so can really throw off my aim, I also find myself constantly fiddling with the pitch and radiator controls. Right now that's distracting and keeps me from tracking tarets as well as I could be but I'm used to flying the Focke Wulf in which there is almost nothing to worry about.

Given that its a specialized escort fighter, I don't find the characteristics to be a problem at all. Its range meant it could stay with the bomber, its machine gun armament allowed for easy gunnery and even if it didn't down a fighter it would probably send him home or at least prevent him from attacking the bombers again, and its speed meant it could respond to trouble spots quickly.

DangerForward
02-11-2006, 01:17 PM
From America's Hundred Thousand they have an acceleration test. At sea level from 250 mph the P51D accelerates 3.85 ft/sec/sec at combat power(110% for us). 100% fuel.

danjama
02-11-2006, 01:21 PM
I feel that it doesnt retain energy well enough, particularly in zoom climbs and sustained, 45 dgree turns, like a wing over.

I also think it is just too slow, and it spins too easily in a turn. Of course im speaking very generally here, but i find it very difficult to put my finger on what exactly i mean...

anarchy52
02-11-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I feel that it doesnt retain energy well enough, particularly in zoom climbs and sustained, 45 dgree turns, like a wing over.

I also think it is just too slow, and it spins too easily in a turn. Of course im speaking very generally here, but i find it very difficult to put my finger on what exactly i mean...

I'll put my finger on it for you: It's not a +25lb Spitfire

danjama
02-11-2006, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
I feel that it doesnt retain energy well enough, particularly in zoom climbs and sustained, 45 dgree turns, like a wing over.

I also think it is just too slow, and it spins too easily in a turn. Of course im speaking very generally here, but i find it very difficult to put my finger on what exactly i mean...

I'll put my finger on it for you: It's not a +25lb Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

ARCHIE_CALVERT
02-11-2006, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Please list all your impressions of the P-51D as modelled in 4.03 here. I am not a charts and stats man.... I know something isnt right with it. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by your experiences.

Bearcat... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Are you all right man, your behaving in a way that does not befit a 'Moderator' and is way over the top coming from someone like you... Calm down... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anarchy52
02-11-2006, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
I feel that it doesnt retain energy well enough, particularly in zoom climbs and sustained, 45 dgree turns, like a wing over.

I also think it is just too slow, and it spins too easily in a turn. Of course im speaking very generally here, but i find it very difficult to put my finger on what exactly i mean...

I'll put my finger on it for you: It's not a +25lb Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought it was funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

general_kalle
02-11-2006, 02:38 PM
if only it could be armed it with 8 Rockets and had 2 cannones it would be invincible... ok nearly invincible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

jds1978
02-11-2006, 02:40 PM
Bearcat... Are you all right man, your behaving in a way that does not befit a 'Moderator' and is way over the top coming from someone like you... Calm down...

observing is different than whining or crying....BC has put in his 2 cents in a dignified manner.

lets use this thread to sort things out instead of turning it into a @#$% fest.

Hopefully the data provided will be of some use for future patches/add-ons... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Chuck_Older
02-11-2006, 02:46 PM
Who can host a P-51D track for me? I took one last night.

Doesn't prove a d@mn thing, but it's a cool track

Kuna_
02-11-2006, 02:48 PM
Mustang MK.3 is superb. I didn't tried P-51D online yet, it for sure has lower performance. I'll be back later to post more impressions.

Chuck send yer track to me. I'll PM you.

faustnik
02-11-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Please list all your impressions of the P-51D as modelled in 4.03 here. I am not a charts and stats man.... I know something isnt right with it. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by your experiences.

Bearcat,

Please PM LRRP. He will have all the P-51 historical data that you need. If you have trouble, PM me, and I will track him down for you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Karaya-X
02-11-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by DangerForward:
From America's Hundred Thousand they have an acceleration test. At sea level from 250 mph the P51D accelerates 3.85 ft/sec/sec at combat power(110% for us). 100% fuel.

Which engine, which boost, etc...

danjama
02-11-2006, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
I feel that it doesnt retain energy well enough, particularly in zoom climbs and sustained, 45 dgree turns, like a wing over.

I also think it is just too slow, and it spins too easily in a turn. Of course im speaking very generally here, but i find it very difficult to put my finger on what exactly i mean...

I'll put my finger on it for you: It's not a +25lb Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought it was funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Low_Flyer_MkVb
02-11-2006, 03:03 PM
A very quick impression€¦.

I€ve just taken a P-51D for a very low level flypast of the Russian ships on the QMB Crimea map. Deliberately not trimming the aircraft, I found it dipped its port wing slightly €" nothing I couldn€t compensate for with stick input alone. It rolled like dream to port and needed only slightly more pressure on the stick to maintain rolls to starboard. Loops and dives presented no problems and I found it very easy to maintain attitude at sea level (slight dip to port notwithstanding). Easy to recover from a deliberate climbing stall. I found the aircraft pulled to the right when reducing speed for final approach. Now perhaps my aerobatics were led instinctively to port in this hasty test, but I€d have no qualms about low-altitude combat in this aircraft if reports about improved gunnery are taken into account. I€ll leave speed ratio€s and rates of climb to the €˜experts€ €" but to me she feels €˜right€, at least €˜on the deck€. Yes €" I €˜got track€, and yes €" my rig is so lowly that I take crashes to desktop, total freezes and reboots as all part of the game now. (I€d probably get more for the X-45 stick).

Just my two bob€s worth.

Slickun
02-11-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DangerForward:
From America's Hundred Thousand they have an acceleration test. At sea level from 250 mph the P51D accelerates 3.85 ft/sec/sec at combat power(110% for us). 100% fuel.

Which engine, which boost, etc... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51D at 67" hg, fully loaded with fuel.

FritzGryphon
02-11-2006, 03:46 PM
What P-51 would be best to test that, D5 or D/NA?

Kuna_
02-11-2006, 03:57 PM
chuck_older_p51d_work (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/offline/403__chuckolderp51d.zip)


Fritz wrote:
What P-51 would be best to test that, D5 or D/NA?

D/NA. You have the K14 luxury, other than that they are same planes.

Xiolablu3
02-11-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Please list all your impressions of the P-51D as modelled in 4.03 here. I am not a charts and stats man.... I know something isnt right with it. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by your experiences.

Bearcat... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Are you all right man, your behaving in a way that does not befit a 'Moderator' and is way over the top coming from someone like you... Calm down... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Bearcat has just put up with his favourite plane being underdone for long enough, but like me he doesnt have the time to get all the data together himself and do the tests.

He is trying to get a serious group and thread togther to sort out the p51 once and for all. Good luck to him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat99
02-11-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bearcat... Are you all right man, your behaving in a way that does not befit a 'Moderator' and is way over the top coming from someone like you... Calm down...

observing is different than whining or crying....BC has put in his 2 cents in a dignified manner.

lets use this thread to sort things out instead of turning it into a @#$% fest.

Hopefully the data provided will be of some use for future patches/add-ons... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks jd... thats my point...


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 Bearcat99:
Please list all your impressions of the P-51D as modelled in 4.03 here. I am not a charts and stats man.... I know something isnt right with it. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by your experiences.

Bearcat,

Please PM LRRP. He will have all the P-51 historical data that you need. If you have trouble, PM me, and I will track him down for you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which one there are several....


Originally posted by Kuna_:
Mustang MK.3 is superb. I didn't tried P-51D online yet, it for sure has lower performance. I'll be back later to post more impressions.
Chuck send yer track to me. I'll PM you.

It just seems than they just dont accelerate.... it seems to me that I cant catch anything in one of these things... which shouldnt be the case.

I just want to see if I am alone in this..... if it is just me and something I am either doing wrong or not doing.

Covino
02-11-2006, 04:06 PM
just smoked two veteran G-6's with the D-5 before i even realized the throttle was only at 80% the whole time.

the biggest misconception ive seen here is that fighers that use energy tactics should have great energy retention in turns... WTF? thats not true, energy fighters shouldnt be turning in the first place...

and the g-6 will easily outaccelerate and outclimb a p-51 from a takeoff, with similar fuel loads. 109 was a great energy plane because of its power to weight ratio.

the p-51 didnt have a great power to weight ratio, it was a rather heavy plane. however, it could use its inertia and aerodynamics to maintain more speed after a dive and climb (not in sustained turns though!, thats a whole different matter, which the 51 did not excel at).

the p-51 excelled in the western front because of its range, they outnumbered the enemy, they usually had altitude advantage over the 109s/190s, and the german fighters were tasked at destroying the bombers, not the fighters (making the Germans sitting ducks for p-51s).

ARCHIE_CALVERT
02-11-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bearcat... Are you all right man, your behaving in a way that does not befit a 'Moderator' and is way over the top coming from someone like you... Calm down...

observing is different than whining or crying....BC has put in his 2 cents in a dignified manner.

lets use this thread to sort things out instead of turning it into a @#$% fest.

Hopefully the data provided will be of some use for future patches/add-ons... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif "lets use this thread to sort things out" Meaning, alot of pages with numbers and graphs that show (On paper at least) what the P-51 is like in real life and then a little note to Oleg that he has appeared to have cocked up the FM and could he do it again so the P-51 is the best in the Sim please, cause it was like that in RL... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh dear, oh dear... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

jds1978
02-11-2006, 04:25 PM
"lets use this thread to sort things out" Meaning, alot of pages with numbers and graphs that show (On paper at least) what the P-51 is like in real life and then a little note to Oleg that he has appeared to have cocked up the FM and could he do it again so the P-51 is the best in the Sim please, cause it was like that in RL...

Oh dear, oh dear...

that explains a lot on your end...thanks

anyways, i'm done posting here until i've got some data or something constructive to add

carguy_
02-11-2006, 04:30 PM
The D is very different from other Mustangs.

Climbrate
I think the plane climbs very well up to 20deg angle.It hardly loses any speed and climb is about 11m/s.I find optimal climb speed of 340kph.
In online war coops it`s more than enough to get a favorable position.

Zoomclimb
90deg zoom climb shows slight advantage over other elite fighters.70deg zoom climb shows signs of danger of being catched by Me109 and Spit.If there`s 400m separation I can easily dive,wait for like 420kph and zoom up,nothing will catch me.

Stall characteristics
Next to no warning.The plane looks to be ok and in the next second it spins violently.I get suckered into this many times as Me109 is very pleasant here.

Maneuvering
I`d rather not,below 360kph that is.above 4500m I can DF a few moments.Down low it`s a sueside - run and hide.High speed elevator makes it a special plane.Very appreciated when compared to Me109.


Speed
Yeeehaaw,that`s where I can let go.It`s faster than most targets,it can catch anything.It`s definitely my style.Pick a target,position,dive,slash attack,climb.The target is constantly unaware.

Energy retention
Very small.A maggot of a Spitfire.Not worth turning cuz 60% energy is gone afterwards.

Guns
Point convergence makes 50cal worse than trying to hit with 45mm cannon.It`s nothing like it should be.

It aint no cannon so more hits are needed
It aint no fecking MG cuz it doesn`t have no spread!
I have to hit the target like a friggin sniper.BALONEY!
The concept was - get close and spray-it`s bound to hit something.Nope.


Overall the P51D performs like I expect it too although the game will never appreciate it because of the code.It fits my style but it has idioticly modelled guns.I am effective with 39mm/45mm cannons,I will do ok which doesn`t change the fact it shouldn`t be like this.

Kuna_
02-11-2006, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It just seems than they just dont accelerate.... it seems to me that I cant catch anything in one of these things... which shouldnt be the case.

I just want to see if I am alone in this..... if it is just me and something I am either doing wrong or not doing.

Bearcat I don't know. I flew on pit off server Do335 vs. Mustang MK.3 (I was in Do335).
The guys regularly catched me (on equal terms and with a bit of alt advantage).
On deck I simply couldn't pull away from Stang.

Now, today I was on WC flying the Stang and I catched Dora (? not 100% true FW190 it was) with alt disadvantage.
On other occasion Bf109 jumped on me, I run for cloud reversed course firewalled the throttle and head for home. He couldn't catch me, I don't know what type he used (but there is high chance that he used C3).
Climb isn't the friend of the P-51 tho.

Fuel used 50%.

I will try it more with P-51D.

Bearcat99
02-11-2006, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jds1978:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bearcat... Are you all right man, your behaving in a way that does not befit a 'Moderator' and is way over the top coming from someone like you... Calm down...

observing is different than whining or crying....BC has put in his 2 cents in a dignified manner.

lets use this thread to sort things out instead of turning it into a @#$% fest.

Hopefully the data provided will be of some use for future patches/add-ons... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif "lets use this thread to sort things out" Meaning, alot of pages with numbers and graphs that show (On paper at least) what the P-51 is like in real life and then a little note to Oleg that he has appeared to have cocked up the FM and could he do it again so the P-51 is the best in the Sim please, cause it was like that in RL... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh dear, oh dear... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Who said the P-51 was te best in real life? Certainly not me.... go away if you have nothing to offer but the contributions you have made so far.... I have been as level and staraight up as I can about the issue.. and I dont want this to turn into a flame fest or a whine fest so from here on out if you have nothing to contribute to the process Ill just delete your threads from the post. I just want to see if others see what I see. if there is something that others can get from this plane that I cant either through an error in flying or whatever.... The plane seems to slow to me... as I said.. I am not a track and charts guy.... so the next best thing is to enlist the help of others and get their take on it. There is a lot and I do mean a lot of good stuff in this patch. The damage effects seem better.... I see more variety in the plane damage.... the ground explosions are better.... the AI is better.... it seems to run smoother.... I cant say enough about the new planes I have tried..... The Tempest cockpit is o ne of the most beatifully done I have ever seen in any sim. I could go on. The desynched guns are great.... but the plane is slow and it doesnt hold E well.... Maybe its the way I am flying... thats what I want to find out..... or maybe it isnt me... maybe the plan e is indeed off..... thats what we want to find.. but we dont need your silly little jibes in this thread to achieve that so please.... if you have nothing constructive or instructive to say..... dont say anything.

FritzGryphon
02-11-2006, 04:36 PM
Anyway, tried acceleration at sea level. Track: http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/p51.ntrk

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/chart.jpg

The instantaneous acceleration at 250mph (400km/h) seems to be 1.32 m/s/s, or 4.3 ft/s/s.

It is close, but slightly faster than the 'America's Hundred Thousand' 3.85 ft/s/s.

There is nothing undermodeled about the PF P-51 acceleration in this regard.

Bearcat99
02-11-2006, 06:17 PM
CG & Kuna what are you guys doing? I dunno maybe I just am not doing something Maybe I should reinstall te whole ball of wax. I just dont see tha Mustang you are talking about.

geetarman
02-11-2006, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Covino:

the p-51 excelled in the western front because of its range, they outnumbered the enemy, they usually had altitude advantage over the 109s/190s, and the german fighters were tasked at destroying the bombers, not the fighters (making the Germans sitting ducks for p-51s).



YAWN - Have you read any of the posts in the last, say, six months from guys that know a hell of a lot more about Mustang performance, Mustang ops, Mustang history than you? Even some of it's detractors have abandoned this silly, ahistorical, argument.

This constant bleating from guys like you is getting tiring. The Mustang met the Germans head-on, when their best pilots were still around. They were out numbered on many occaisions. Their Mustangs had fewer guns (that jammed often)than the planes they faced. They fought them at high, medium and low altitude, mostly over enemy territory. From all this, the Mustang shot down a hell of alot more 109's and 190's than they lost.

It was an exceptional fighter plane for the time. The backlash this plane generates is idiotic.

DangerForward
02-11-2006, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
CG & Kuna what are you guys doing? I dunno maybe I just am not doing something Maybe I should reinstall te whole ball of wax. I just dont see tha Mustang you are talking about.

I think on a late war server you need that G-suit and 150 octane modeled to get back that luv'in feeling. The new guns sure do help a lot though...

Bearcat99
02-11-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by DangerForward:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
CG & Kuna what are you guys doing? I dunno maybe I just am not doing something Maybe I should reinstall te whole ball of wax. I just dont see tha Mustang you are talking about.

I think on a late war server you need that G-suit and 150 octane modeled to get back that luv'in feeling. The new guns sure do help a lot though... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The improved stability is definitely a plus..... so is the desynching of the guns. In fact I dont use the K-14 sight as much. Now it is actually a hindrance. I intend to keep on flying the plane like I always have regardless because I like it.. and lets face it... there are still notoehr WWII options around that I am willing to deal with. I just think the acceleration is still off... maybe I am going about reading it wrong. I know once before I reinstalled everything.. Ithink I had problems with the Jugs then.. anyway after I did that it was better.. I dunno.. maybe Ill try that. It looks as if there are almost two P-40s out here from some posts.

Brain32
02-11-2006, 07:14 PM
CG & Kuna what are you guys doing? I dunno maybe I just am not doing something Maybe I should reinstall te whole ball of wax. I just dont see tha Mustang you are talking about.

Well I'm no expert but this is what I do:
1. I gave up D20NA, I use D5NT because of the ball under gunsight
2. I use no prop pitch settings, 100% all the way
3. 12 clicks nose down
Now I'm really not what one would call P51 pilot, but I did/do fly it time to time and I was never dissapointed...

Grey_Mouser67
02-11-2006, 07:53 PM
The best info I've come across wrapped into a small page right here...

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

You might want to contact Warren Bodie and maybe try to find someone from the "Confederate Airforce".

The really dissappointing thing about the Mustang is that there are so many flying today and it is soooo easy to see them and talk to people regarding their handling attributes.

The handling/dive performance/wing breaking off has been fixed as far as I'm concerned...could it turn a bit better without energy bleed...yes I think so, but it is getting close. I think where it is most off is E retention after diving and turning at low angles of attack and I believe that it should not suffer the standard 20km/hr speed penalty for having its radiator open....also, you might want to contact Robban75 and/or Target...somewhere I saw posted some climb rates of the P51 and it is underperforming by at least 300 ft/min...not a lot by itself, but we've all seen the posts of its contemporary enemies overacheiving so it makes the difference much greater.

The guns are improved, but it just lacks killing power and finishing power....I'd like to fly it as B/Z but you won't kill anything doing that....so you have to get right behind them and peck away, exposed the whole time.

Lots of good info, and I think the trolls need to stay away and the rest of us interested in a more accurate Mustang should help Bearcat.

Incidentally, from a physics standpoint, parasitic drag increases with increasing speed....soooo, low drag designs like the Mustang enjoy a bit of an advantage at the higher ends of the accelaration spectrum per their given weight....also, Fuel has a big effect on the Mustang because it carried so much...I don't know if Oleg's modelling is complex enough to take that into account for accelaration purposes.

danjama
02-11-2006, 08:07 PM
Thinking about it, i would say Oleg is set in his ways as far as the Stang is concerned, which is sad because it is definately not up to scratch.

Just had to say that, the thread got me thinking about this.

Kuna_
02-11-2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
CG & Kuna what are you guys doing? I dunno maybe I just am not doing something Maybe I should reinstall te whole ball of wax. I just dont see tha Mustang you are talking about.

Bearcat do you mean Mustang or P-51D? I am speaking about Mustang MK.3 which is a fine plane IMO. I flew Mustang almost exclusively so far.

I flew P-51D hour or two ago on wc and get shot down like a newbie once (in spite of alt advantage -- I was over eager and entered spin - Bf109 gave me MK108 head on treatment), without score. So I gotta wait with tracks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.
That aircraft is perhaps the toughest ride (out of late war a/c) on wc planeset.

And yes P-51D was definitely the most fishy P-51 in 402. I believe this is the case in 403 too. Anyway I'm off to some more 'field testing' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (still enjoying desynced .50s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif).
No some bold conclusions can be made out of just posting pure numbers & charts, but that is a good start. Like they say "one pic = 1000 words".

Bearcat99
02-11-2006, 08:15 PM
Yeah I meant the D.... Intrestingly enough... I just left a coop on HL where I got the D to 350mph... and not in a dive.... I kept my MP @ 55.... above the redline and the RPM at 27. It took a while but it got there.. I still think it is too slow.... but it isnt as bad as I thouhgt... and I still think the 50s are off. The E retention is also not good.

Slickun
02-11-2006, 08:35 PM
Covino wrote:
the p-51 excelled in the western front because of its range, they outnumbered the enemy, they usually had altitude advantage over the 109s/190s, and the german fighters were tasked at destroying the bombers, not the fighters (making the Germans sitting ducks for p-51s).

Slickun writes:

Ho hum. Not even gonna respond. You just go on thinking all that.

bolillo_loco
02-11-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Covino wrote:
the p-51 excelled in the western front because of its range, they outnumbered the enemy, they usually had altitude advantage over the 109s/190s, and the german fighters were tasked at destroying the bombers, not the fighters (making the Germans sitting ducks for p-51s).

Slickun writes:

Ho hum. Not even gonna respond. You just go on thinking all that.

That's an interesting analogy Covino, but by this same logic couldn't one say that the Bf-109 and Fw-190 were worse designs with less ability than any American design? When the Fw-190 and Bf-109 did have air superiority and pilot superiority, the Germans failed to wipe out the inexperienced and out numbered Americans so by your logic the Bf-109 and Fw-190 have to be worse right?

As far as air superiority goes, it really wasn't until late in 1944 that the Allies could even begin to make the claim of having air superiority over the entire continent. D-day landings were one thing; even Spitfires had range to make it to that battle. Air superiority over a target as distant as Berlin was a long time coming.

fordfan25
02-11-2006, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Please list all your impressions of the P-51D as modelled in 4.03 here. I am not a charts and stats man.... I know something isnt right with it. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by your experiences.

motor is still uber weak. wing tear,i have not tested. More stable and easyer to aim at high speeds. excelaration still suck very badly,still haveing BF109s,Fw190s,spits,ect easly keeping up in a dive. top speed seems the same as last patch at SL but just like last patch youll over heat so fast it does not matter.it lose's speed faster than most other late warbirds leveling out after a dive. low speed stall has been even further increased,much more touchy and turn radiuse and rate is MUCH longer/lower. basicly i see NO resone to fly what was one of the worlds best fighter unless its the only choice in a map. p-47 and p-38 turns better dives as well takes slightly more damnge "there DM is still fubar" and has more fire power.

only good thing i have to say about THIS VERSION of the p51 is IF you are in a server that has engien overheat cut off it is fast up high.


and im talking about the D moddle.

Grey_Mouser67
02-11-2006, 10:34 PM
That seems to contradict much of what I've read about the bomber offensive.

At first, before the Mustang was there, the Lightnings and Jugs flew close escort. They nearly always entered the fray at an altitude disadvantage.

Later, when the first Mustangs showed up, they would fly above the bomber formations, but still within sight and often lower than Luftwaffe. There weren't so many in the beginning so Mustangs couldn't cover the entire bomber stream...but the fighter doctrine had changed and the Mustangs were allowed to pursue their quarry to the ground...and they did.

Later...late spring 44 and onwards, the Mustang was there in numbers...now the Mustangs could even range out in front of the bomber formations looking to break up gaggles of Luftwaffe aircraft. If they didn't find any, they went down on the deck and shot them and anything else up they could.

Late in the war....the Luftwaffe ranged very high, dove on bomber formations, and kept on diving all the way to their base if they could. They avoided any and all contact when possible...by and large, just like in Battle of Britain, the defensive aircraft usually have the advantage of altitude and the ability to pick when and where they are going to fight.

The Mustang won anyways...it did so because it was a superior aircraft flown by aggressive pilots. Regardless of whether you think it was the best or not, it had to be very good to even be considered...nobody is making a case for the Warhawk or Zero as being 'best'. Anyways, the plane is closer rather than farther but still not right.

I had a good couple of online fights tonight with Bf109G6A/S and G14 as well as Fw190A6...the fw's were a handful, but when I got behind the 109's, my B model mustang got them...albiet with lots of shooting!

One thing to think about...the Luftaffe spent the remainder of the war trying to match or counter the Mustang....the only plane that came close was the Dora...and it might not have been its equal in real life. Nobody in this game will mistake a Dora for a Mustang, but I think a well modelled Mustang would be very similar in combat effectiveness to a Dora...and it was available Jan. 1944! By the time the Dora arrived, the Mustang got more boost and better fuel so it really never caught up to it...but the Me-262 did!!!!

Xiolablu3
02-11-2006, 10:53 PM
I think one BIG disadvantage the p51D has right now is that it uses machine guns only and these are not working correctly in the sim.

They should be hitting all sorts of dangerous areas on the aircraft and punching right thru the tail section into the cockpit/engine area.

At the moment if you hammer away at the tail with the 50's , nothing much happens. Maybe it was like this in reallife, I am not sure.

The vulnerable ammo box in the wings, the armour piercing ammo that went straight thru the engine blocks. None of it can be modelled properly on this engine as it would mean even more detail and more powerful computers.

I am quite sure Oleg understands this shortcomings and is working towards a more realistice 'interior/inside' model of the planes for BOB. I am also sure BOB will include more of these 'danger' areas for the 50 cals and more detailed damage model. I am not saying htis is the only problem with the P51D, but this is one of them. You have to sit on the tail of the plane for so long to kill it that you are in constant danger.

Its not just the US 50cals either. The Germans would have taken the 13mm's off their fighters if they were as ineffective as they are in this game right now. Face it, if you are in a Dora or Anton and your cannon runs out, do you EVER stay in the fight? I dont even think about it, its RTB as you know you are never going to down anything with those 2xMG. The only thing they are good for is for tracer.

fordfan25
02-11-2006, 11:07 PM
speaking of 50.s and this is not realy a complaint but IMHO as far as power per round thay have been reduced alot. im getting 4 times as many hits now buit the way i see it if thay were still as strong round for round thay would be downing planes much faster. but as it is im faily happy with them. i agree with the above post that thay should be doing more damnge in the form of of hitting fuel tanks ammo stores piolet kills ect ect.

GR142-Pipper
02-11-2006, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Covino:
the biggest misconception ive seen here is that fighers that use energy tactics should have great energy retention in turns... WTF? thats not true, energy fighters shouldnt be turning in the first place... There may be fewer folks here than you think who equate the two. Furthermore, be careful what you say about "energy fighters". If an energy fighter can turn and the situation calls for it, then turn. Just because you include the word "energy" as an adjective, it doesn't always mean that the fighter CAN'T turn (i.e doesn't have the ability to turn). LA-5/7's are good examples of that. They can fight in the vertical as well as the horizontal. If the fight is a vertical one, they'll fight in the vertical.


and the g-6 will easily outaccelerate and outclimb a p-51 from a takeoff, with similar fuel loads. 109 was a great energy plane because of its power to weight ratio. While that may be true of a take-off scenario, what's been observed is the P-51's poor energy characteristics in its normal operating envelope.


the p-51 didnt have a great power to weight ratio, it was a rather heavy plane. however, it could use its inertia and aerodynamics to maintain more speed after a dive and climb (not in sustained turns though!, thats a whole different matter, which the 51 did not excel at). The P-51 certainly had excellent aerodynamics and it was by no means a slouch when it came to engagements. There are too many testimonials to the contrary for the P-51 to be dismissed as non-competitive. Was it an A6M-like turner? Not by a long shot but it could match anchors with the 190s and 109s in most circumstances as the many, many pilot accounts attest.


the p-51 excelled in the western front because of its range, they outnumbered the enemy, they usually had altitude advantage over the 109s/190s, and the german fighters were tasked at destroying the bombers, not the fighters (making the Germans sitting ducks for p-51s). The P-51's excelled simply put because they absolutely destroyed their opponents. It was a superior design that functioned well in its element as well as on the edges of its element. To say that the German opponents were merely sitting ducks is just contrary to all documented history of the both the Allied P-51 operators as well their German opponents. In other words, the P-51 drivers had to "earn it". You're certainly entitled to your opinion but I suggest (assuming you're interested) you take the time to really look into what the P-51 accomplished and how it accomplished it. Your view might change.

GR142-Pipper

drose01
02-12-2006, 12:12 AM
Observation from someone who logs ALOT of hours on the online dogfight servers: P51s are few and far between, and when they show up they lose big time. And in a big, 30+ plane server, there are plenty of opportunities for energy fighting, to boom down and tear up all the guys absorbed in turn fights who arent paying attention, and alot of guys make a killing doing this, mostly in FW190s and TA152s.

In that type of server, where you can choose almost ANY plane you want, almost noone chooses the Mustang because they don't want to lose. And this is very telling, and I think at odds with how the plane performed against its rivals in real life.

FritzGryphon
02-12-2006, 12:26 AM
Focus on the performance, and the design of the plane, to verify the realism of the ingame plane.

How it fared in real life has more to do with the situation than the aircraft.

Were one to be in large numbers at high altitude, fighting Germans more interested in bombers than them, I'm sure any plane would show good scores.

Not such with low alt 1v1s against fighters lighter almost by half, better T/W and wing loading. What's one to expect to happen?

robban75
02-12-2006, 12:28 AM
This game doesn't really portay real WW2 dogfights. It's not only because we can yank and bank without ever getting tired, or withstand G's that would put any modern day pilot unconscious.

I believe it's the boost addiction. I know I use it alot, I know the AI uses it ALL the time. German planes especially gets a huge upswing in performance whenever MW50/EN is activated. Real pilots probably didn't use it nearly as often as we do. I'm thinking they(LW) used the climb/combat setting, most of the time and even the take-off/emergency setting, every now and then. Special emergency was used when there was a,, special emergency. Me, I treat every dogfight as a special emergency, and therefore I need that MW50 boost, almost all the time. So, the Mustang pilots in this game are engaging a rather different adversary compared to the real WW2 Mustang pilot. It'd be interesting to see how it all would look like if everybody stopped using "the boost" in dogfights. Don't you think? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper
02-12-2006, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Please list all your impressions of the P-51D as modelled in 4.03 here. I am not a charts and stats man.... I know something isnt right with it. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by your experiences. Somewhat small matter....trim. The P-51 as modeled in this game requires absurd amounts of trim to keep the ball centered. Small changes in power or attitude really can peg the turn ball in either direction. There's no plane in real life that has trim characteristics as erratic as this. It would be worth knowing if others have experienced this as well.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
02-12-2006, 02:28 AM
Double post sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Xiolablu3
02-12-2006, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
This game doesn't really portay real WW2 dogfights. It's not only because we can yank and bank without ever getting tired, or withstand G's that would put any modern day pilot unconscious.

I believe it's the boost addiction. I know I use it alot, I know the AI uses it ALL the time. German planes especially gets a huge upswing in performance whenever MW50/EN is activated. Real pilots probably didn't use it nearly as often as we do. I'm thinking they(LW) used the climb/combat setting, most of the time and even the take-off/emergency setting, every now and then. Special emergency was used when there was a,, special emergency. Me, I treat every dogfight as a special emergency, and therefore I need that MW50 boost, almost all the time. So, the Mustang pilots in this game are engaging a rather different adversary compared to the real WW2 Mustang pilot. It'd be interesting to see how it all would look like if everybody stopped using "the boost" in dogfights. Don't you think? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The Tempest boost is much more in line with what we read about in the historical reports. You can use it but it massively revs the engine and will wreck it in 5 mins or so. In many other planes you can fly around with it on most of the time and it does no harm at all, this is not historical, it was emergency boost used very seldom.

The Tempest is the only plane where the boost feels like that in my opinion, its just too easy to use on the other planes.

I understand that the Spitfire doesnt rev as high as the other planes and so doesnt over heat like the planes that go up to 110%, but you can fly around with WEP on indefinitely. Also in the Dora, La series and to a certain extent the 109's you can use it more than 50% of the time with only a little overheating now and then.

I hope we see more planes with boost acting like the Tempest where you really feel like you are damaging the engine when you use it and the temp shoots up, like it should do in my opinion.

Sorry for going off topic, but I think Rob makes a good point here..

Kocur_
02-12-2006, 03:12 AM
Not that Im any aerodynamics expert, but as far as my limited knowledge goes its that planes of low wingloading do lose less speed in tight turning, because low winloading lets them generate a lot of lift, while remaing at (relatively) lower AoA to generate certain g. Plane of high winglading has to enter higher AoA to generate enough lift to maintain flight path at the same g. In case of Mustang we can replace "high wingloading" with "laminar airfoil wing", as laminar wings generate less lift with increace of AoA than regular ones, so Mustang would have to increace AoA, thus drag, more than low wingloader in turn - just like 'regular airfoil high wingloader'. In another words: Mustang should not be a good turner, neither IRL nor in the game. It should lose speed or E quite fast in TIGHT turns, as planes of regular airfoil and high wingloading, for reasons above.

But thats about high AoA turning only. As long as manouvers are gentle, i.e. kept at few degres of AoA, planes like Mustang or Fw190, i.e. planes of reduced drag either by laminar wing or reduced wetted area, should keep edge over planes of higher drag, i.e. all those designed for good turning.
I have no doubt that Mustang should RULE by considerable margin in zoom climb - its quite heavy and has really, really low drag - perfect prescription for zooming! As Robban test showed Mustang was best in zoom climb in 4.02, followed closely by Dora (hmm, too close? yet fine with me: quite low drag and higher powerloading) and La-7 (how come radial powered, i.e. more draggy plane can almost match two in-line engined fighters, especially that Dora has powerloading similar to La-7?).

Im have serious doubts regarding acceleration. I understand that Mustang is not undermodelled as far as it comes to level acceleration with full fuel. But what about half or quorter fuel? Can we be certain, that improvement of acceleration due to reduction of weight in resembled in game well?
But in fact problem is relative performance, not just RL values of Mustang. Do other planes accelerate according to historic data too? Its a serious question, as we saw too many times, that certain performance features were modelled 'optimistically'.

AFAImC .50 are fine. They are not cannons: if their projectiles hit something wital - it is noticeable, but if not - its just "debris" falling. And thats what it should be: .50 effectiveness should be and is RANDOM. Sometimes no visible result despite certain number of hits, but sometimes, its PK with first hit, first burst cuts controls or makes engine smoke. Even critical damage happenes: at least three times in 4.03 I dewinged Do-335 and Tempest firing from well below 100m (P-51D). Probability that proper type of projectile will hit proper part of targets silhouette, i.e. where vital things are located and will penetrate well is quite low per se, i.e. it takes a number of hits to do anything close to ensuring that serous damage will be inflicted. Cannon hits are far more effective, because if there is anything vital within radius of blast of fragments kill zone - it will be affected. .50 projectiles do not create blast nor fragments. Oh how I wish things went different and US Hispanos were usuable before P-51B entered production lines!

No, no WW2 .50 projectile would penetrate a fighter from tail to hub. Not even AP was capable of that: penetration of armour was considerably reduced by passing aluminium skin. 10mm of armour behind pilots back gave him good chances of surviving, 15mm made him almost entirely safe - as long as AP projectiles had to pass long through seemingly soft parts of a plane. Please do not quote 25mm of AP penetration, firstly: by US standards it means that 50% of projectiles did that, secondly it was penetration in perfect conditions: there was nothing, like fuselage skin or internal equippment to add yaw to projectile rotation.
Not EVERY API hit in tanks area would cause fire. As long as hits were at low angle, there was always considerable distance between point of impact, where incendiary content was ignited and burned, and actual tank. AP core might have penetrated deeper and puncture tank, but 12,7 - 13,2mm hits were not effective in generating leaks from well quality self-sealing tanks. In another words it took hits at higher angle, i.e. when it was just skin and tank upper or lower wall between point of impact and fuel or its vapours to guarantee good chances of igniting fuel from self-sealing tank.
Note also, that we have early WW2 belting for .50s, with lots of Ball projectiles - the least effective.



I still find it VERY interesting if lightly loaded P-51 can beat fully, integrally loaded Spitfire, i.e. when their weights are equal, in acceleration at alt, where powers of both Merlins are equal!

panther3485
02-12-2006, 03:31 AM
UGHHHH!!!!! (eyes rolling, teeth clenched, beads of sweat appearing on forehead)....really gotta use every bit of willpower here, not to respond to what one member recently stated about the Battle of Britain!
(I promised myself I'd be a good boy and stay on topic.)

When I've finished playing about one week's worth of v.4.03 offline 'pilot career' in the P51D, I'll post my 20 cents' worth, if I think it's gonna be worth anything by then.


Best regards to Bearcat & all the rest of you,
panther3485

robban75
02-12-2006, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Also in the Dora, La series and to a certain extent the 109's you can use it more than 50% of the time with only a little overheating now and then.


The D-9 had MW50 for 40 minutes of use. And from what I understand it could run full power with MW50 for 10 minutes at a time, but the engine had to cool down for several minutes before it could be used again.

However, I do believe it is over-used in the sim.

And yes, I'm sorry for the OT too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Back to the Mustang.

I did a QMB fight against the +25boost Spit in a P-51D20. I used 50% fuel and I so did my adversary. I chose to run at only 99-100% throttle throughout the fight. The AI always runs at max power. I made only gentle turns while diving, and always made sure the Spit never got a good shooting opportunity. I was impressed on how competitive the P-51 was when not using full power. It builds up speed even in shallow dives rapidly enough to deny the superboosted Spit a kill. In the end, the Spitfire ended up as a smoking whole in the ground. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Kocur_
02-12-2006, 04:26 AM
According to my, not so precise I guess, data the empty weight of

P-51B was
3.150kg.

Internal fuel capacity was
696l x 0,76 = 529kg

Spitfire F MkIXc t/o weight with full internal load was
3.380kg

So difference between empty P-51B and fully loaded Spit would be
3.380 - 3.150 = 230kg

That weigh is
230kg/529kg = 0,43

, i.e. to equal full weight of Spit we should take empty P-51B and tank it with 43% fuel.

Spit: 3.380kg
P-51B: 3.150 + 0,43 x 529kg = 3.377kg


And similarly P-51D
3.380 - 3.230 = 150kg

Internal fuel capacity was
1020l x 0,76 = 775kg

150kg/775kg = 0,19

Spit: 3.380kg
P-51D: 3.230 + 0,19 x 775kg = 3.377kg

Please correct me if my thinking is wrong or data incorrect - and the latter is rather rough I suppose.

But I have idea at what alts respective versions of Merlins would produce equal power! Anyway where those powers would be equal both: empty P-51B with 43% fuel and empty P-51D with 19% fuel should beat fully loaded Spitfire Mk.IX in acceleration to any speed. Now do they?

willyvic
02-12-2006, 04:48 AM
First off, sorry to see all the chaff the rabble has brought to your thread BC.

To answer your request for experience with the 51:
It's my ride of choice online. You'll find me at WC's just about exclusively.

I fly 50% fuel, 75-80 throttle and 85 prop pitch when hunting. Trim is about 10 to 12 nose down, 4 to 6 right rudder, and sometimes 1 right aileron (compensating for my heavy handedness).

Pre 4.03 I wasn't happy with the flight characteristics. I must say now that I "feel" the bird is starting to come around. The following is my perception after about 11 or so hours of flight with the new patch.

1.Re-acceleration after bleeding E feels a bit sluggish. As does "punching" it in straight and level flight.

2,Acceleration in a shallow dive is very good.

3.Trim is still a bear, no pun, to maintain.

4.Firing solution easier to aquire and maintain.

5.Low speed snap stall, with little or no warning is still present.

6.Climb is good.

7.Turns require staying ahead of the aircraft. Initial input, then finesse (sp?).

8.Weaponry is adequate. Being able to see the path of the rounds is a big plus.

All in all a much more stable and enjoyable aircraft this time around imho.

Hope this helps.

WV.

robban75
02-12-2006, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Was it an A6M-like turner? Not by a long shot but it could match anchors with the 190s and 109s in most circumstances as the many, many pilot accounts attest.



And this is excactly what we see in-game. A Fw 190 cannot out turn a Mustang at any speed, and a Mustang has no problem out turning a Bf 109 at high speed.

edgflyer
02-12-2006, 07:52 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 Bearcat99:
Please list all your impressions of the P-51D as modelled in 4.03 here. I am not a charts and stats man.... I know something isnt right with it. I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by your experiences. Somewhat small matter....trim. The P-51 as modeled in this game requires absurd amounts of trim to keep the ball centered. Small changes in power or attitude really can peg the turn ball in either direction. There's no plane in real life that has trim characteristics as erratic as this. It would be worth knowing if others have experienced this as well.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pipper,
This is how the trim characteristics are for the real 51.

edgflyer
02-12-2006, 08:03 AM
BC and all. I have made a track that I think you would find interesting. Keep in mind, I set up to not be killed and this is to show effectiveness of the guns and the effectiveness of the turning ability of he P51 20 model. PM me for track and I will email it to you. I think the 51 is great and do not see the problem everyone else is seeing. But judge the track for yourself. Maybe I am missing something. However, I was fighting a DF last night and was owning everything with it unless I got jumped without knowing it. (Happens with me alot. No Wingman http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

Bearcat99
02-12-2006, 09:08 AM
IMO thwe P-512 in the .03 beta was the best one ever in this sim. It wasnt uber like in FB 1.0.. and that is so funny to me.. that in FB 1.0 the first mustang (I forgot what patch that was) was just soooooo uber... then it got it's balls slashed and was never the same.... a hobbled plane ever since. I just dont understand it. I dont want it to be the bestest,fastest,mostest,biggest gunned.. plane... (Too much Rugrats) but it should and could be closer to what it was. I find it interesting that in the 03 beta the Mossie was not present. I wonder if the reasomn for some of the disparities in some of the planes in this sim is that there is only so much dode (so to speak) to go around and since tweaking one plane will effect another in a different way 1C reached the best compromise possible to get as close as possible in every other plane. A matter of balance with what is available if you will. I do not subscribe to the "intentional bias" or the "conspiracy to neuter American planes" theory so I am just trying to find and understand what the problem is. I still believe that 1c is doiong the best it can in rendering the FMs as good as they can... but some things just bite.

Flyby_99
02-12-2006, 10:07 AM
My take,
We will never find the flight model, or ballistic fidelities we seek in this sim. It seems that the general FM formula, for example, is wrought with exceptions that can't be reconciled from one plane to the next. Where one plane gains, another loses. It's a general formula, isn't it? I'm probably wrong in this assumption, but how else to explain the "moving target"? Why is "well enough" always subject to change?
I don't think even the most modern home computer can handle true flidelity in a sim that has so many flyables, so many cannon and gun types. Imagine the hit on frame rates. Now, if Oleg cared to share his FM tables, perhaps some of our modding community could take on specific planes (how to decide which?). Perhaps, as well, their armaments and bring those models up to spec, or closer to published characteristics? I think such accuracy would still be a hit on our computers, mho.

BTW, good as the Mustang was, I think it's deplyment in large numebrs in later war years had a credible impact on it's success too. From a Luftwaffe point of view, the damned things were everywhere. Even the Jug had great success for similar reasons. Historically, perhaps, the Allies were eventually too many planes chasing too few aerial targets, as Germany could not match the rate of Allied aircraft production, aircraft, and pilot replacement.
I know: "in God we trust; all others bring data"
Flyby out

Grey_Mouser67
02-12-2006, 10:12 AM
Personally, I think its deployment in small numbers in early 44 with the changed fighter doctrine is what gave the Luftwaffe the heebeegeebee's.

That is when the great scourge came...the Allies cleared the skies for D Day and the Mustang "felt" like it was everywhere when in fact, it wasn't....it was just performing admirally and the pilots were very aggressive as was the fighter doctrine.

I, too, believe the kinetic energy in the .50 round was decreased when the dispersion was decreased...about 2.01. Any yes, the Mustang was neutered and never returned to its old self...too bad Oleg wouldn't dig up the old Mustang and just tweak its S/L and Alt speed!

The Mustang and Lightning are still generating lots of discussion and displeasure...I think there is a perfectly reasonable explanation....because they are not modelled properly yet.

edgflyer
02-12-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
BC and all. I have made a track that I think you would find interesting. Keep in mind, I set up to not be killed and this is to show effectiveness of the guns and the effectiveness of the turning ability of he P51 20 model. PM me for track and I will email it to you. I think the 51 is great and do not see the problem everyone else is seeing. But judge the track for yourself. Maybe I am missing something. However, I was fighting a DF last night and was owning everything with it unless I got jumped without knowing it. (Happens with me alot. No Wingman http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

OK, Kuna got my track and alerted me to a error on my part. I had a computer crash that reset all of my settings for my joystick and such. However I never went back to fix my settings for quick combat so the track I made was a peice of garbage. I will make another with the correct settings and not easy everything. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

robban75
02-12-2006, 10:59 AM
So, all we have is a feeling that it's not modelled correctly?

I don't know what could be wrong with it. Because it's very nice when I fly it.

Apart from the .50's being too weak, I see only one thing wrong with it. And that is its climb rate.

I have dug up some old climb tests from the 3.04 patch.

They looked like this.(climb rates are average climb rates, as they are caculated from the time taken for every thousand meters.)

Alt - m/sec - ft/min

1000 - 18.5 - 3642
2000 - 19.2 - 3789
3000 - 20.0 - 3937
4000 - 18.5 - 3641
5000 - 14.7 - 2893
6000 - 12.8 - 2520

Now it looks like this.(4.03)

Alt - m/sec - ft/min

1000 - 16.4 - 3228
2000 - 16.7 - 3287
3000 - 16.7 - 3287
4000 - 15.2 - 2992
5000 - 13.2 - 2598
6000 - 12.5 - 2460

And it should look like this.

Alt - m/sec - ft/min

1000 - 17.5 - 3445
2000 - 17.7 - 3484
3000 - 17.2 - 3386
4000 - 15.4 - 3031
5000 - 14.4 - 2834
6000 - 13.0 - 2559

It's fast, almost 600km/h on the deck, and 618km/h at 7500m.

Acceleration seems according to tests compare well with what the real Mustang could achieve. At sea level at least.

When it comes to dive acceleration and zoom climb. It has no equal in this game.

GR142-Pipper
02-12-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im have serious doubts regarding acceleration. I understand that Mustang is not undermodelled as far as it comes to level acceleration with full fuel. But what about half or quorter fuel? Can we be certain, that improvement of acceleration due to reduction of weight in resembled in game well?
But in fact problem is relative performance, not just RL values of Mustang. Do other planes accelerate according to historic data too? Its a serious question, as we saw too many times, that certain performance features were modelled 'optimistically'. Very true. At the end of the day, it's likely few would care if the game specs deviated much from real life as long as the RELATIVE performance positions were maintained. Assuming similar performance characteristics, if plane A is modeled at +10% of a particular performance parameter and plane B is modeled at -10%, the net difference is 20% between the two for that parameter. Differences like this can really stand out.

GR142-Pipper

OldMan____
02-12-2006, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
So, all we have is a feeling that it's not modelled correctly?

I don't know what could be wrong with it. Because it's very nice when I fly it.

Apart from the .50's being too weak, I see only one thing wrong with it. And that is its climb rate.

I have dug up some old climb tests from the 3.04 patch.

They looked like this.(climb rates are average climb rates, as they are caculated from the time taken for every thousand meters.)

Alt - m/sec - ft/min

1000 - 18.5 - 3642
2000 - 19.2 - 3789
3000 - 20.0 - 3937
4000 - 18.5 - 3641
5000 - 14.7 - 2893
6000 - 12.8 - 2520

Now it looks like this.(4.03)

Alt - m/sec - ft/min

1000 - 16.4 - 3228
2000 - 16.7 - 3287
3000 - 16.7 - 3287
4000 - 15.2 - 2992
5000 - 13.2 - 2598
6000 - 12.5 - 2460

And it should look like this.

Alt - m/sec - ft/min

1000 - 17.5 - 3445
2000 - 17.7 - 3484
3000 - 17.2 - 3386
4000 - 15.4 - 3031
5000 - 14.4 - 2834
6000 - 13.0 - 2559

It's fast, almost 600km/h on the deck, and 618km/h at 7500m.

Acceleration seems according to tests compare well with what the real Mustang could achieve. At sea level at least.

When it comes to dive acceleration and zoom climb. It has no equal in this game.

In fact all acceleration tests I made agve it better acceleration thatn it should have. If there are planes (and there are) that have problems with acceleration in game, the 51 is not one of them.

horseback
02-12-2006, 11:47 AM
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 GR142-Pipper:
Somewhat small matter....trim. The P-51 as modeled in this game requires absurd amounts of trim to keep the ball centered. Small changes in power or attitude really can peg the turn ball in either direction. There's no plane in real life that has trim characteristics as erratic as this. It would be worth knowing if others have experienced this as well.

GR142-Pipper

Pipper,
This is how the trim characteristics are for the real 51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Absolutely disagree. The RL Mustang was a 'trim aircraft', but contemporary and current (Jeffrey Ethell wrote a few articles on flying the P-40, P-51A and Merlin versions, and refers to and compares them to each other. Find them and read them-they've been linked on these boards repeatedly) reports compare it quite favorably in regards to trimming to the P-40 which was (and is) a trim hog.

The P-40 in-game is far more benign and predictable in its trim requirements than the Mustang, which, with the possible exception of the Corsair, still has the touchiest control response of the 'flyables' inventory. I suspect that Oleg & team's interpretation of 'light on the controls' means 'really short stick throw getting shorter with increasing speed' instead of 'stick & rudder don't require 8o ft/lbs of force to move at higher speeds'.

I can't even be sure that my keystroke/joystick button trim inputs are being treated consistantly, and the Needle and Ball indicator may as well not be there, for the time it takes to 'settle in', compared to the Bf 109 series, or for that matter, the P-40.

The Mustang was a successful fighter because it did NOT require extraordinary skill to exploit its combat strengths, as compared to, say, the Bf 109G or even the P-47. It was simpler and easier to fly and control at all speeds than most of its contemporaries, and it had a sh*tload of speed and firepower to go with its range.

I don't see those qualities in the Forgotten Battle's Mustang FM.

cheers

horseback

Grey_Mouser67
02-12-2006, 11:54 AM
relative to other aircraft, I'll know the Mustang is there when I employ FW like tactics with it....let me explain.

I fly a Fw alot, and the Spitfire is its main adversary. I can't turn with a Spitfire, but I am faster and better in dive etc....When I engage and I have an advantage, I press the attack and kill the Spitfire rather quickly and I use energy/slashing/B&Z and can even turn with a spit for a short period of time...the guns do the rest.

When I don't have the advantage, i can turn into or away from the spit, depending on tactical situation and the Spit will eat my dust! Rather quickly too...it can't roll with me, dive with me, out speed me....a good Spit driver will immediately know the jig is up and start climbing.

The Mustang should really be alot like that against Fw's and 109's with two notable differences...1) obviously its guns aren't as powerful. They are effective in real life though and 1 good spray aught to disable the opposing aircraft and 2) to the positive, the Mustang can out turn a Fw and turn with a 109 much longer in order to bring its guns to bear.

So the fight should go very similarly....I engage with energy, chop throttle aim and kill the enemy in my Mustang and zoom off...If I start with a disadvantage, I turn away or turn into the enemy depending on the situation and speed away.

So what is missing? Probably gun strength and probably dive performance/E retention/top speed with radiators open....I think it is my ability to damage and disengage that seems to be the issue with me.

Kocur_
02-12-2006, 01:21 PM
Agreed! Succesful tactics for Mustang and Fw-190 must be similar. Con of Mustang are weak guns compared to Fw-190, OTOH Mustang has considerable advantage in DIVE acceleration and zoom. Didnt have opportunity to repeat it in 4.03 yet, but back in 4.02 I had a really good fight in 1943 map with a good Fw-190A6 pilot. When it came to close fight my P-51C started to lose to Fw, so I returned to E fight of prolonged dives and zooms with turn at top of the loop. It took like two or three such to gain total E advantage over Fw-190. If that was possible in P-51C vs. Fw-190A6, it surely is in any Mustang vs. any plane less capable in E fight than Fw.
Trouble at E equal or lower? I run at least until enemy stops to close. Few zooms and dives at speeds as high as possible and very gentle inputs, with careful observation where his nose, i.e. guns are pointed are usually enough to achieve E advantage. Rest is shooting...

ICDP
02-12-2006, 01:47 PM
I have conducted four climb tests in the P51D using the Crimea map with a test runway placed on the sea. I used 75% fuel, full ammo, 110% power (WEP) and auto radiators. I used a climb speed of approx 150mph IAS. This matches with the test as outlined at this web site.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/p51d-15342.html

Test 1: 7m:08s (timed from aircraft began to roll on takeoff)

Test 2: 7m:03s (timed from aircraft began to roll on takeoff)

Test 3: 7m:06s (timed from aircraft began to roll on takeoff)

Test 4: 6m:33s (timed from pull up at climb speed from SL)

As my data shows I find that the only way to match the test results is to start timing from pull up at climb speed and have no wing racks (contrary to the actual test). AM I correct in believing that the USAAF started timing from when the aircraft started to roll during climb tests? The addition of wing racks cause a massive hit on speed and ROC, though this bug does effect a lot of other AC.

The E bleed is fine IMHO from some unscientific tests. Basically I measured the speed loss during a high G 360deg turn at SL. I started pulling high G's until I was at the edge of blackout. Starting at a speed of 500kph IAS both the P51D and Fw190A8 lost 150kph during a 15.5 second 360 degree turn. Given that both AC lost the same speed in the same time in the same amount of turn they are matched very well for E retention in this admitedly basic test. This is despite the fact that the Fw190A8 has a better power to weight ratio (both AC using WEP). The 190D9 does retain E better than the P51 but that should be expected given the better power to weight ratio.

The only area of contention for me with the P51D is in climb rate. It needs improved by around 10% to get it to match real test data. Other areas (speed and acceleration) seem to be spot, or slightly better than real test data.

Gwalker70
02-12-2006, 02:16 PM
Robban-- what speed and degree of nose down and up are you doing to get the P51 to dive and zoom the best

robban75
02-12-2006, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Gwalker70:
Robban-- what speed and degree of nose down and up are you doing to get the P51 to dive and zoom the best

The shallower the better it seems. 10-15 degrees is good. The faster you go, the better for you. The Mustang is super slippery. However, be ware of the K-4, its dangerous at speeds below 700km/h.

Bearcat99
02-12-2006, 03:19 PM
OK now when you did your testing what were your settings.... I did find last night that I managed to get up to 300mph last night in a coop.. which for some reson I couldnt do offline before.. even flying for @ 20 minutes... Another thing.... (I think I asked this in another thread but I cant find it..LMAO) TAS & IAS.... the gauge reads IAS correct? So if this is the case how do you calculate TAS or do you need wind info to do that. I am going to keep trying to find te sweet spot. There must be one. I have found that with this sim no matter how a FM seems you can always get a little more out of it. It seems like the FM for the Mustang in the 03 beta was spot on. I could out dive most other planes and wind up at cruising speed in @ 10 minutes give or take... If anyone else has any more info on how they get the most out of this plane as far as acceleration and performance goes let me know.

ICDP
02-12-2006, 03:32 PM
Bearcat,

I am able to keep a very good speed with the P51D using 100% PP and 100% throttle. I can fly around on radiator 2 or even closed for very long periods. Once I get to a good altitude 4500m plus I will got to 80% PP and 80% throttle with opened radiators (while still climbing). This helps to cool the engine and gives you some time at WEP. If I see an enemy lower than me I go to 100% PP and throttle and use energy tactics to maintain the advantage. If I get into trouble I go full power and PP with closed rads. This can be maintained for around 5 minutes before an overheat message appears. When the overheat message appears drop throttle to 100% and open the radiators a little, the overheat message goes away after a few seconds.

One of the main points to remember in the P51 (and all other aircraft) is to keep the ball as centred as possible. It helps to keep energy if you are not side slipping all over the place. I also find that there a very few aircraft that can keep up with the P51 in a dive.

robban75
02-12-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
OK now when you did your testing what were your settings.... I did find last night that I managed to get up to 300mph last night in a coop.. which for some reson I couldnt do offline before.. even flying for @ 20 minutes... Another thing.... (I think I asked this in another thread but I cant find it..LMAO) TAS & IAS.... the gauge reads IAS correct? So if this is the case how do you calculate TAS or do you need wind info to do that. I am going to keep trying to find te sweet spot. There must be one. I have found that with this sim no matter how a FM seems you can always get a little more out of it. It seems like the FM for the Mustang in the 03 beta was spot on. I could out dive most other planes and wind up at cruising speed in @ 10 minutes give or take... If anyone else has any more info on how they get the most out of this plane as far as acceleration and performance goes let me know.

When I do climbs and speedruns with the Mustang I use 100% prop pitch. I also use 100% fuel. When I did the climb test I climbed using the speeds from the POH. The speed gauge in the pit shows IAS. And when I need to know my TAS I do a quick switch to wonder woman view. The problem is it shows km/h, and cockpit gauge shows mph. When doing speed runs it's important to be patient. It usually takes a looong time getting there for most planes. I have begun doing speed runs with wind and turbulence turned off. Because for some strange reason it is possible to reach higher TAS with W&T on. Which actually makes it GS(ground speed). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Bearcat99
02-12-2006, 03:59 PM
How come the gauge in the pit is the same as the mph gauge in the speedbar? That would mean that the mph reading on the speedbar is also IAS apparently. If that is the case then does that mean that the kmh reading on the SB is indicated also.. just metric? I always thought the KIAS was knots indicated airspeed... See where my confusion comes in?

Bearcat99
02-12-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
The best info I've come across wrapped into a small page right here...

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

The handling/dive performance/wing breaking off has been fixed as far as I'm concerned...could it turn a bit better without energy bleed...yes I think so, but it is getting close. I think where it is most off is E retention after diving and turning at low angles of attack and I believe that it should not suffer the standard 20km/hr speed penalty for having its radiator open....also, you might want to contact Robban75 and/or Target...somewhere I saw posted some climb rates of the P51 and it is underperforming by at least 300 ft/min...not a lot by itself, but we've all seen the posts of its contemporary enemies overacheiving so it makes the difference much greater.

The guns are improved, but it just lacks killing power and finishing power....I'd like to fly it as B/Z but you won't kill anything doing that....so you have to get right behind them and peck away, exposed the whole time.

Incidentally, from a physics standpoint, parasitic drag increases with increasing speed....soooo, low drag designs like the Mustang enjoy a bit of an advantage at the higher ends of the accelaration spectrum per their given weight....also, Fuel has a big effect on the Mustang because it carried so much...I don't know if Oleg's modelling is complex enough to take that into account for accelaration purposes.

On this link above it mentions high blower and low blower.. by that I think they mean supercharger correct? It would seem there is no way to tell if the auto SC kicks in or not.

Kuna_
02-12-2006, 06:13 PM
Bearcat, man I flew 6 (long) sorties with no results in P-51D. Now I don't say that I set an example in riding the Pony, but it is tough.

I get myself into clear firing position (high six) three-four times, and score some hits but no luck.

A bit frustrated, I jumped in Tempest. All right nose of that bird has tendency of being a bit "naughty" (floating when some rudder input is applied) anyway trim solves most problems, but... what a change!

In very first sortie I got 2xFW-190 and landed safely... (all flown on wc)
That only confirms my old 402 Pony thoughts...

BfHeFwMe
02-12-2006, 06:29 PM
Can you hear the Luftwaffe boys praying to see more Mustangs and Lightnings again. Lifes pretty rough with their new found pals of the RAF. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

arjisme
02-12-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
How come the gauge in the pit is the same as the mph gauge in the speedbar? That would mean that the mph reading on the speedbar is also IAS apparently. If that is the case then does that mean that the kmh reading on the SB is indicated also.. just metric? I always thought the KIAS was knots indicated airspeed... See where my confusion comes in? I always thought they were both IAS. And yeah, that would mean IAS, whether in mpg or kph. Don't you have to go to wonder woman view to see TAS?

arjisme
02-12-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Kuna_:
Bearcat, man I flew 6 (long) sorties with no results in P-51D. Now I don't say that I set an example in riding the Pony, but it is tough.

I get myself into clear firing position (high six) three-four times, and score some hits but no luck. Is this online or offline? I have been flying a P-51 offline campaign and I am getting results. I don't often get immediate results, but I can damage the nme enough he breaks off and attempts to rtb. Well, it's 50/50 actually. Sometimes they do a long dive or spin to earth. Others, I get a later congrats when they fail on rtb.

Chuck_Older
02-12-2006, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Kuna_:
chuck_older_p51d_work (http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/tracks/offline/403__chuckolderp51d.zip)





Thanks Kuna http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now, I don't know what that track means really, though I do find the D model touchier at low speed...but that track's of the first time I flew the 4.03 P-51D, and I was able to rein it in. I was stupid to get into that fight, but I was able to hold pitch and yaw straight even as the plane rolled on it's own, as I crossed into negative G. A little counter rudder popped the nose back down, and I was after the bandit like a shot. It's not all that different to my feel than 4.02, but there is a difference

I can't turn in the D like I used to. But I never really relied on turning in it; I worked an altitude advantage, and kept the bad guy under my thumb. Climb seems weaker to me, and level accelerations doesn't seem as good as it used to, but that could be me.

Kuna_
02-12-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by ar****e:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
Bearcat, man I flew 6 (long) sorties with no results in P-51D. Now I don't say that I set an example in riding the Pony, but it is tough.

I get myself into clear firing position (high six) three-four times, and score some hits but no luck. Is this online or offline? I have been flying a P-51 offline campaign and I am getting results. I don't often get immediate results, but I can damage the nme enough he breaks off and attempts to rtb. Well, it's 50/50 actually. Sometimes they do a long dive or spin to earth. Others, I get a later congrats when they fail on rtb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already said in my post, all flew on wc. That means online.


Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Thanks Kuna

No prob.

DaimonSyrius
02-12-2006, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
It would seem there is no way to tell if the auto SC kicks in or not.
Bearcat,
The supercharcher indicator will light up when the second stage kicks in, it's labelled "HIGH BLOWER ON" on your instruments panel. It will come on at around 5500m or 18000ft (this will vary a bit with map, summer or winter, etc). You can see it in this pic:
http://www.infonegocio.com/daimon/img/SC-P51D.jpg

There are two other things by which you can tell what the supercharger is doing without looking at the light:
-If you keep an eye on the manifold pressure gauge, you will see that it goes up to 67"Hg at full throttle and low altitude, but as you go at higher alt, the MP will start decreasing when you're above about 3000m. If you keep going higher, the supercharger's second stage will come in at 5500m (indicator will light up) and at this moment the full-throttle manifold pressure will jump again at 67"
-Also there is a noticeable change in the engine sound at the time the second stage kicks in and MP jumps at 67".

Cheers,
S.

Bearcat99
02-12-2006, 08:29 PM
Rgr.. Ill look for that.. I never noticed it before.

horseback
02-13-2006, 09:13 AM
Spent most of this weekend flying the Mustang, mostly the B/C models with a dash of the D. I can't get the darned thing up to anything like its listed top speeds. At best, I was a good 35 mph short of the expected indicated speed.

I certainly never approached 600 kph in the Wonder Woman TAS in level flight; my best was about 568 at 5,000ft.

At low altitudes (Sea Level to 10,000ft), I'm not getting over 330mph IAS at any altitude in level flight, which is a good 40 mph slower at sea level than the speeds listed in the site linked earlier in this thread.

I've tried the radiator in both closed/auto & closed, I've tried leaving the Prop Pitch at 100% and when that didn't work, I gradually dropped the pitch to 80% (throttle at 110% the whole time). No dice. (yes, I checked to make sure my flaps & gear were up)

I spent almost an hour on the Crimea map at seal level, 5,000 & 10,000 ft, burned almost 80 gallons of virtual avgas, on three different flights, and never got the thing over 330 mph indicated airspeed for either the C or D model Mustangs up to 10,000 ft.

I did notice that it got almost impossible to trim for level flight; even though my elevator sensitivity was set for 10 12 15 19 and so on, I could barely keep it semi-level using Wonder Woman view (the cockpit instruments were next to useless); the slightest sliver of green or blue beneath my little 'airplane' meant an immediate change of 70 or 80 ft in altitude, with a corresponding gain or loss of speed.

Even over the ocean, I was getting occasional little 'micro-bumps', very similar, but much shorter, to those I get flying over rivers; just a quick up and down blip, but noticeable.

The 'new' FM doesn't seem to have been that much of a change for the better for the P-51.

cheers

horseback

Grey_Mouser67
02-13-2006, 12:00 PM
I retested the Mustang at sea level only and I'm getting 605'sh if I hold between 7-15 meters on Crimea etc...that is the same as in 4.02.

I'll do some more testing higher up to check some of those values but I've not seen any change in top speed that I've noticed.

I'll stick to what I said...the plane is not climbing correctly, probably turn rate/e bleed in turn isn't right, stability/gunner/weapons effectiveness could be improved but this plane is improved over 4.02...yes, I think there is room for improvement but at least now I can fly fast like the plane was meant to fly and not have my wing fall off so easily...I've not lost one yet and I've been in fights over 450mph IAS and under 1000 meters and not come apart!

Lets keep the efforts up to continue to refine the Mustang, but I think we're going to have to be precise in our communications and testing in order to be successful....the climb rate is an easy thing to measure and it has been measured and it is off....not bad, but since many of its opponents are off the other direction, I see this as a big opportunity.

fordfan25
02-13-2006, 12:15 PM
im still loseing wings hust like 4.01. also i have a qustion about testing the stangs top speed. IRL didnt the mustang have only 2 settings for the rad? auto and closed. so my qustion is how did thay test the mustang IRL? with rad closed or auto? evry test iv seen done here is with rad closed. just thought id ask.

Slickun
02-13-2006, 12:37 PM
Recent post and test by LRRP showed the test with the rad in "auto".

P-51D with wing racks hit 442.

lrrp22
02-13-2006, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Recent post and test by LRRP showed the test with the rad in "auto".

P-51D with wing racks hit 442.

Yeah, all historical speed tests were conducted with the radiators set to 'automatic', so all tested top speeds were reached with the radiator flap open to some degree.

Typical position reached during speed tests was between 6.5 and 8.5 inches open with approximately 5.25 inches being the "fully closed" position. It appears from RAF statements that the Air Corps advised blocking the radiator flap lever to set 7.25 inches as the minimum opening. Coolant and oil temperatures remained in the green during all real-world speed and climb tests, even at increased boost levels. In-game, I can hit pretty much all the historical speeds in the P-51D, but only if radiators are fully closed which causes overheat before, or just after, reaching top speed.

LRRP

Kocur_
02-13-2006, 03:15 PM
And that is a serius flaw!

Texan...
02-13-2006, 04:29 PM
Bring back v3.03 and you'd have a winner. That plane was much, much more closely modeled to what 60+ years of accounts have told us.

If you met a 109 at around 4K, your skill could win the fight. That is not possible now, the weak FM of the P51 doesn't allow it.

A number of us got quite good in the Mustang, and even had the occasional opportunity to lower combat flaps and pull lead on the odd 109 and smoke'm. This lead to a river of blue tears which leaves us with the garbage FM of the P51 now.

Bring back 3.03.

bun-bun195333
02-13-2006, 04:36 PM
Bearcat,

Here is an offline track of me flaming a 190 with 2 half-second bursts. The fire goes out and he keeps flying for a bit but the damage is done.

P-51 Gun effectiveness (http://home.comcast.net/%7Eargylestransom/Pics/PonyChase.zip)

ReligiousZealot
02-13-2006, 05:08 PM
Well, I figured I'd contribute to this post seeing as I am a fan of the P-51 and stopped flying it after the 4.01 patch.

First off, I just wanted to comment on the .50 cals. The Desyncing of them has really aided the American planes, and pretty much removed the "bobble" effect I used to get when firing with the P-51. The only problem now is, when you do score hits, damage is minimal because you're no longer firing a "salvo" of .50 cals. I find now, I have to park on the enemies six and unload hoping I'll be able to take him down, so I really think the .50s need more stopping power. Enough about this, it's a topic for another time. This is in reference to online play, as for offline, I seem to have better success (probably due to the lack of a need for "client prediction").

I also agree that the Mustang feels slow to accelerate and I know it doesn't turn quite as well as it should.

I really made this post to actually input some data as I have from this book; "Aircraft of WWII" by Stewart Wilson. The book can be found here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1875671358/sr=8-1/qid=1139874424/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9111586-8619151?%5Fencoding=UTF8). I find it to be quite a reliable source, but the data is as follows:

(P-51D)
Weights:
Empty - 7635 lbs
Max Loaded - 12,100 lbs

Performance:
Max Speed - 437mph (703km/h) at 25,000ft (7620m), 395mph (636km/h) at 5,000ft (1525m)
Max Climb - 3475ft (1059m)/min; time to 20,000ft - 7.3 min
Service ceiling - 41,900ft (12,770m)
Range - normal range 850 miles (1368km); max range with droptanks 1650 miles (2655km)

On another note, was curious...anyone happen to catch last nights History Channel Special entitled "Dogfight" (on at 10PM EST)? It was a tale of some famous dogfights and had interviews with a few aces. The most interesting part (to me) was a section about a battle between Bud Anderson's flight of 4 Mustangs against a flight of 4 Bf109s. There was a break down using computer graphics of the 2 aircraft (The P-51C and Bf109G series, not sure which varient exactly, but it was carrying the Mk. 108 nose cannon) in which the narrator stated the P-51 could out turn and out climb the 109.

I pretty much ask here, is this truth? I would assume at certain altitudes/speeds this may be the case, but the manner in which it was presented seemed to imply at all times. Upon my entry into this game, I was taught on the notion, never to climb with a 109, so I would guess the 51 does not out climb it? I know at high speeds, the 109 doesn't turn well (isn't this due to the cramped cockpit, the pilot cannot exert all his fource on the stick?) so in some cases the P-51 could out turn it.

Aside from these questionable facts presented, the program was thoroughly enjoyable.

Treetop64
02-13-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Bring back v3.03 and you'd have a winner.

Bring back v3.03 and all the planes are winners, especially the little Polikarpovs! Those buggers were deadly in v3.03!

I've always felt, historically speaking, that the p-51s were just a bit overrated. Yes, they were marvelous marvels of technology for their day, with the super-slick airframe and laminar flow wings, stupendous range, and drop-dead good looks. Personally, I love P-51s.

However, they took part in the war with circumstances heavily in their favor. They were built in huge numbers, were almost always at an altitude advantage at the start of a fight (due to their heavy use as bomber escorts), were full of fresh and properly trained airmen (while tha Luftwaffe's airmen were becoming more and more depleted), and were so fast that they almost always dictated the terms of the fight. There were some heroic exploits carried out by these planes and pilots, though, and it all combined to grant the aircraft its legendary status that still holds today.

As great as the P-51 and it's pilots were, I think that, through time, history has tended to elevate the status of the P-51 to some "super-plane" status.

Personally, I think the late-war F4-Us were superior. They carried as many .50s (and a more powerful combination of four 20mm in the Charlie), had a greater bomb and missile capacity, was just as maneuverable, was more robust, and was a tad bit faster. They also stayed in production until the 1950's. They just weren't quite as pretty...

That's just a personal opinion, of course. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MLudner
02-13-2006, 05:40 PM
All right, Bearcat, my own experience is not agreeing so far. Twice now I have had it out with an AI Ace in a 109G10 and each time the 109 was shot down. It does fly a little different, though. In my first attempt I stalled my P-51D-20NA and crashed. Oops, but that has not happened again. I seem to be doing fine in it so far, at least to the parameters I have known before.

Grey_Mouser67
02-13-2006, 05:49 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 Slickun:
Recent post and test by LRRP showed the test with the rad in "auto".

P-51D with wing racks hit 442.

Yeah, all historical speed tests were conducted with the radiators set to 'automatic', so all tested top speeds were reached with the radiator flap open to some degree.

Typical position reached during speed tests was between 6.5 and 8.5 inches open with approximately 5.25 inches being the "fully closed" position. It appears from RAF statements that the Air Corps advised blocking the radiator flap lever to set 7.25 inches as the minimum opening. Coolant and oil temperatures remained in the green during all real-world speed and climb tests, even at increased boost levels. In-game, I can hit pretty much all the historical speeds in the P-51D, but only if radiators are fully closed which causes overheat before, or just after, reaching top speed.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this little peice of data, if presented properly to Oleg would have a huge impact on the flight performance, in terms of speed, of a Mustang.

Most aircraft get a 20km/hr hit to speed with radiators open...I was always under the belief that the Mustang was the most effecient radiator design of the war and operated most effectively in "auto" where it adjusted its apreture size depending on need and balanced drag with expelled hot gasses...there is a scientific name that is used to describe the effect, but it escapes me.

If that is true, and I don't know how to prove it, then the speed testing done with the Mustang was done with radiator in Auto...it should be able to reach those speeds in Auto! Huge difference folks! It would be like adding 20km/hr top end speed to the plane at all altitudes and that would give you the feeling of speed!

The turn/guns still need to be addressed, but it would fly faster without the drag penalty. We need to prove it and send it to Oleg...anyone got any facts and data to support this or nix it?

FritzGryphon
02-13-2006, 05:51 PM
Versus the AI, the player will win all the time, regardless of the planes. It's not a very good test.

Besides, why a G10 vs P-15 1v1? In that scenario, the P-51 is at a disadvantage in most respects. Save for top speed (running away).

Can someone point me to historical climb data? I would like to compare it to the game.

I think there neesd to be not a forum thread, but a small website with the P-51 data and game tests on it. This thread will sink in the abyss, and more will be spawned shortly after.

Grey_Mouser67
02-13-2006, 05:57 PM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

Best data I've seen...has the climb rates in there too. I think that we need to gather data on the specifics of what we'd like to change and then present it to Oleg....need leadership and webspace.

FritzGryphon
02-13-2006, 06:16 PM
I have webspace. Dunno about that leadership bit.

I'm thinking just a simple list of 'shoulds' and 'ingames'.

Climb to 20,000 should be X. Ingame climb to 20,000 is Y, etc.

fordfan25
02-13-2006, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
All right, Bearcat, my own experience is not agreeing so far. Twice now I have had it out with an AI Ace in a 109G10 and each time the 109 was shot down. It does fly a little different, though. In my first attempt I stalled my P-51D-20NA and crashed. Oops, but that has not happened again. I seem to be doing fine in it so far, at least to the parameters I have known before.

i can out dog fight 2 la-7 ace AI in a p-47,. testing the performnce of ANY plane aginst offline planes is in no way able to judghe a fighters performnce.

Bearcat99
02-13-2006, 06:54 PM
I agree with you fordfan.. it is against humans that the real tests come.. not only that but the historical planes as well. Lets keep in mind that the Mustang wasnt made to fight Lavochkins.. or Yaks.... At the time it was made to fight the enemy at hand... 109s and such. Truth be told this thread is not so much to present a set of results to Oleg for change perse.. but a way of putting heads and techniques toghether to figure out how to best fly this plane... and then if we all come to a conclusion that it is indeed mega porked we will have data ready for Oleg. As I said in another thread.. I am not a charts and stats guy... I go by how it flies.. I have one map with one set of enemy and friendlies that I use and have used since IL2... the map has changed somewhat to reflect the new planes. but the P-39 part is still the same as it was in IL2. I am the first to admit than I may just be doing something wrong.... thats why I want all of you who are willing to share your insights and findings... otherwise i dont know if it is just me or what. Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread.

fordfan25
02-13-2006, 08:27 PM
best tactic aginst 109/ki84/zeros ect is just stay high and fast. hit and run. keep rad at setting 6 or 8 and use 102% power. it will normaly not over heat at that setting. take 25% fuel when you can. dont count on out diveing anything. be carefull when diveing do to wing snap. o and fly a p-38Late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Bearcat99
02-13-2006, 09:20 PM
OK... after a few more hours in the pit I have discovered a few things...
I cant remember who it was but someone said to use a little negative elevator trim... that was a very good suggestion because it helps, thanks for the tip. I also found that auto radiator helps a little too... it seems the Mustang holds E much better in a line... as long as you donrt climb or turn you can almost cut youyr throttle by @20-30% out of a dive and not loose too much.. but as soon as you start to turn you need to throttle up into the turn.. once you get momentum back off the throttle a tad so that you have somewhere to go when you need it. It seems to pay to be very gravity concious in this plane.... and it is a constant fiddle process... I am gettig better at it.... I still think it is a tad too slow on the acceleration and it seems to loose E a little too quickly in a turn and a climb... but as I have said from the beginnign.. I will still fly the plane because it is just so hot... and it's better to learn how to fly a challenging plane well than to just back off and pick a more forgiving bird. Just my opinion of course... I am curious though as to just what the differences were in the 03b and 03f.. Still it is a decent patch though.. I like the new AI routines.... therer are times when you have to tell yourself that you are flying against a computer. They make dumb mistakes... they seem to bail a little more resonably now.. but that seems kind of random.

Sharpe26
02-14-2006, 02:44 AM
Bearcat, not so very long ago I posted some tips about flying and fighting the Mustang.From memory I'm going tot ry to put them up here and if I'm wrong you'll have to search for them I'm sorry to say

okay, the tips:

1: never let the speed get under 250 mph

2: The Mustang doesn't turn well, so don't

3: old but good, get close and hammer him

4: team tactics

that's about all I remember so far.

edit: one other thing; keep your Pony high. Unless you know what you're doing, the P51 has no place down low. it's a good altitude fighter.

Slickun
02-14-2006, 07:43 AM
Sorry for the double post.

Slickun
02-14-2006, 07:43 AM
Treetop64 wrote:


Originally posted by Slickun:
[quote]However, they took part in the war with circumstances heavily in their favor. They were built in huge numbers, were almost always at an altitude advantage at the start of a fight (due to their heavy use as bomber escorts), were full of fresh and properly trained airmen (while tha Luftwaffe's airmen were becoming more and more depleted), and were so fast that they almost always dictated the terms of the fight. ]


Slickun responds:


Only the last statement is correct. And therein lies one of the secrets of its success. Does it not count?

And, you are welcome to your opinion on the Corsairs. They were the superior ground attack plane, but not air to air. A tad bit faster? I dunno. 442 with wing racks, at 67" hg.

Compare -4's to P-51D's operating out of Iwo pulling 80" hg on 145 octane, rather than a fully loaded P-51D @ 67" hg to get a real comparison. Speed advantage, especially down low, to the Mustang.

P-51's enjoyed an advantage in the dive, acceleration, visibility, parity in roll rate, and at some altitudes outclimbed the -4. Regardless of the model. You can look all this up.

horseback
02-14-2006, 09:05 AM
Treetop64 wrote:
However, they took part in the war with circumstances heavily in their favor. They were built in huge numbers, were almost always at an altitude advantage at the start of a fight (due to their heavy use as bomber escorts), were full of fresh and properly trained airmen (while tha Luftwaffe's airmen were becoming more and more depleted), and were so fast that they almost always dictated the terms of the fight. The Corsair was a flawed, incomplete aircraft with tremendous potential until the -4 was introduced in combat in late '44 early '45. Like the P-38, it had a number of problems that its makers were slow to cure, despite a big head start over its competitors.

The Merlin Mustang was much closer to its potential at its introduction in late 1943, and had all its 'bugs' worked out a good six months before the Corsair (a pre-war design) finally reached its full maturity, fighting an already grossly overmatched enemy.

Comparing the -4 Corsair to the D model Mustang is apples to oranges; it might be more instructive to compare the F4U-4 to the P-51H, which had its development/production slowed because of the effectiveness of the models already in service, and the government's desire to save a few bucks with war's end in sight.

cheers

horseback

MLudner
02-14-2006, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
All right, Bearcat, my own experience is not agreeing so far. Twice now I have had it out with an AI Ace in a 109G10 and each time the 109 was shot down. It does fly a little different, though. In my first attempt I stalled my P-51D-20NA and crashed. Oops, but that has not happened again. I seem to be doing fine in it so far, at least to the parameters I have known before.

i cant out dog fight 2 la-7 ace AI in a p-47,. testing the performnce of ANY plane aginst offline planes is in no way able to judghe a fighters performnce. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right. I meant more that it was handling much as it used to before with a slight FM difference that was not very significant. It caused me slip-up twice, once by stalling on the deck and crashing, the second when I crashed while landing at Vladimkino. But, not much of a problem since. Even against AI you will note differences in the way your aircraft handles and flies. In fact, it may be a little faster down low now; I was much more able to keep up with the G10 each time.

Bearcat99
02-14-2006, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Sharpe26:
Bearcat, not so very long ago I posted some tips about flying and fighting the Mustang.From memory I'm going tot ry to put them up here and if I'm wrong you'll have to search for them I'm sorry to say

okay, the tips:

1: never let the speed get under 250 mph

2: The Mustang doesn't turn well, so don't

3: old but good, get close and hammer him

4: team tactics

that's about all I remember so far.

edit: one other thing; keep your Pony high. Unless you know what you're doing, the P51 has no place down low. it's a good altitude fighter.

Thanks Sharpe....

Grey_Mouser67
02-14-2006, 08:26 PM
I'd add, stay off Warclouds...

Lots of guys on the forums post from there, but the Mustang that we have in this game is not a match for K's and Dora's. Been on a couple of times and every time I log on, I've seen 1.98K's so I fly a mission and leave.

Still don't have the proper plane set to take on 45 Luftwaffe....the D Mustang should be fighting Fw A8's, Bf109G6Late and G14's....anything later than that aught to be fought against the high boost versions, MkXIV, the correct Tempest....the L late and P-47D are historical against everything except the Do, K 1.98, G2, Ta152 etc...

fordfan25
02-14-2006, 08:40 PM
what i ment to say in my other post was that i CAN out dog fight la-7's in a 47 lol. typo. AI in this game can shoot with BS accuricy but never ever turns a plane at the planes full turn rate. i have no trouble downing 2 ace zeros in a wild cat,hellcat or sair. not braging im sure most people can.

Bearcat99
02-22-2006, 03:34 PM
Any new takes on this bird out there? My original feelings still stand... although I am getting better at it....