PDA

View Full Version : p51 opinions



fullrealfly3r
05-03-2004, 11:19 AM
While I was flying last night someone on the server commented on my aircraft choice (p51). They claimed it was a "clown crate." I asked them to elaborate on this and they said it required no skill and the modeling for it in the sim was a joke. I will not mention the name. I then proceeded to ask why and they said the 50 calibers were too powerful, too easy to hit with (they suggested that the tactic of 'spray and pray' was noobish), and also claimed that the p51 turns too well at low speeds. I didn't know how to reply to this, and I guess I should have ignored that person but it really offended me. My understanding is that the p51 should be "noob friendly" because it was that way in real life. Pilots claimed that it was really easy to fly. I guess I don't understand why people just can't respect my choice of aircraft and not bother me about it. I hope not everyone is like this online or I may dedice to go back to playing offline. What does everyone else think? Am I less of a pilot or not as skilled because I choose to fly the "clown crates"?

fullrealfly3r
05-03-2004, 11:19 AM
While I was flying last night someone on the server commented on my aircraft choice (p51). They claimed it was a "clown crate." I asked them to elaborate on this and they said it required no skill and the modeling for it in the sim was a joke. I will not mention the name. I then proceeded to ask why and they said the 50 calibers were too powerful, too easy to hit with (they suggested that the tactic of 'spray and pray' was noobish), and also claimed that the p51 turns too well at low speeds. I didn't know how to reply to this, and I guess I should have ignored that person but it really offended me. My understanding is that the p51 should be "noob friendly" because it was that way in real life. Pilots claimed that it was really easy to fly. I guess I don't understand why people just can't respect my choice of aircraft and not bother me about it. I hope not everyone is like this online or I may dedice to go back to playing offline. What does everyone else think? Am I less of a pilot or not as skilled because I choose to fly the "clown crates"?

Baltar
05-03-2004, 11:24 AM
Don't be intimidated, the problem is obviously that his head does not process rational thought.

CaptainGelo
05-03-2004, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
While I was flying last night someone on the server commented on my aircraft choice (p51). They claimed it was a "clown crate." I asked them to elaborate on this and they said it required no skill and the modeling for it in the sim was a joke. I will not mention the name. I then proceeded to ask why and they said the 50 calibers were too powerful, too easy to hit with (they suggested that the tactic of 'spray and pray' was noobish), and also claimed that the p51 turns too well at low speeds. I didn't know how to reply to this, and I guess I should have ignored that person but it really offended me. My understanding is that the p51 should be "noob friendly" because it was that way in real life. Pilots claimed that it was really easy to fly. I guess I don't understand why people just can't respect my choice of aircraft and not bother me about it. I hope not everyone is like this online or I may dedice to go back to playing offline. What does everyone else think? Am I less of a pilot or not as skilled because I choose to fly the "clown crates"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FOr same reasons they dont respect pilost who fly La's, yaks..they cant beat them, are afraid of them and cuz they whining noobs who dont know how to fly, and who got no life....just ignore them..

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/oleg86.jpg
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''


plane is 2slow, guns are 2weak and DM suck?...Then click here (http://www.hmp16.com/hotstuff/downloads/Justin%20Timberlake%20-%20Cry%20Me%20A%20River.mp3) | Fear british army. (http://216.144.230.195/Videos/Medium_WMP8/British_Attack.wmv)

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif
"Big Bills suck, small Bills don't"&lt;----WRONG!!!! all Bills suck http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cardinal25
05-03-2004, 11:29 AM
The P-51 a n00b plane?

That's news to me.

CWoS. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)
VMF-92 and The 92nd Fighter Group (http://www.92ndfg.com)
7./JG77 (http://www.7jg77.com)

fordfan25
05-03-2004, 11:47 AM
ill remember how noobish it is next time i stall out becouse i tried to turn fight a b17 lol

JtD
05-03-2004, 12:07 PM
The P-51 is a good plane with no exceptional charateristics, neither good or bad. It's speed is remarkable but not much higher than that of it's contemporary opponents, like Bf 109 G-10, G-14, K-4, FW 190 A-8, A-9, D-9 or Ki-84.

I think the low speed turning in the P-51 is overmodelled, but still a lot of planes outturn the P-51. It will outturn late 109's which is doubtful at least.

The armarment is good and seems more useful than cannons like used in the FW 190 D-9 at the moment. The 0.50 are good for spray and pray, but perform poorly at short and brutal bursts. The same person complaining you hit him with a single round (out of 150 fired) at 400 meters is the one who will rip your plane in half within moments if he fires his guns at 50 meters.
I think the P-51 flight model is far to gentle, but this is true with a lot of planes.
Usually people get pissed if they can't deal with you and blame it on the plane. The P-51 is a very good choice, but there is no unbeatable plane in the game.

There was a guy on a server I flew on lately, who kept telling the La-7 is oh-so-uber, total noob plane, requires no skill and so on. Later he chose the plane to "prove his point". He got shot down without killing someone and left the server. Must have been an ace since he couldn't score with a noob plane.

Moog42
05-03-2004, 12:11 PM
Last night I was racking up a few kills in the Wright Flyer when out of nowhere this noob in an F-22 Raptor jumped me and put a few rounds right through the wing structures, severing several struts. Even though I managed a tight turn and PK'd this young pup, the other chaps on the server gave the Raptor pilot such a hard time over his choice of plane that he left without even saying goodbye. Don't get me wrong, the Flyer is a tough plane to handle and it is only after spending many solitudinous years studying its flight dynamics that I have become proficient. But I remember the days when I actually enjoyed IL-2 FB; seems so long ago now... thank goodness I finally recognised it as the masochistic tool it in fact is! I am so grateful for that online epiphany that struck me in the wee small hours a few years back when another pilot criticised my crate for being 'too easy to fly'. This intrigued me for a while, indeed it seemed counter intuitive... I'd get a few kills, get killed a few times, take a break, grab a beer, generally enjoy what I was doing... but he was right! It is truly the better man who invests his time and energy in computer simulations of real life than in real life itself, for when Death calls over the comms, the better man may click 'Refly'.

In the dying words of the original sim-addict Manfred von Richtofen, "Damn you vile noob, you never would have gotten away with this in the previous patch!"

Nowadays I only fly with or against people that provide proof of at least a Masters degree in military aviation history... and a girlfriend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PBNA-Boosher
05-03-2004, 12:19 PM
fullrealfly3r, don't listen to that guy.

History has proved that the man with the better plane AND better skill will dominate the skies. The whine is unimportant. The P-51 was a vital asset to winning the war. Yes, it had a glass chin, but the fact that it could be easily flown, had a powerful armament, and was user friendly had a huge impact on the war.

THE REASON WHY THINGS GET CALLED NOOB PLANES IS BECAUSE IT IS EASY FOR A NEW PILOT TO GAIN THE UPPER HAND.

However, when we look at aerial combat, the advantage is on the side of the person who can do this the most, and best. If your plane will allow you to destroy an ace in his plane with only limited practice for you, then that plane is definitely the plane to go with. This is how wars are won.

I personally do not like the P-51. I can't get it to go fast, nor am I accurate with the wing guns. Now, myself and the P-40 is another story, but the P-51 is just not my plane. The only reasons that these guys online were angry is because they couldn't fight against your superior fighter without gaining additional skill. This their fault, not yours. Technically, even an old SE.5A should be able to down any plane in this game. It just requires a huge amount of patience, as a dogfight is never easy. I'm sure the SE.5A would have trouble, and the aim from the pilots gun would need to be astoundingly accurate, but the point is that IT CAN STILL BE DONE.

Let them worry about the fact that you chose a superior plane. Just keep blasting them to pieces. Everyone will think the better of you for it.

Chuck_Older
05-03-2004, 12:26 PM
Q: Why do you fly the P-51?

A: I want to.


So apparently, this other pilot was an expert on flight characteristics of real world P-51s, eh? You should have asked him how many hours he had behind the stick in a real P-51, Fullreal.


~edit:

also, most of these armchair pilots don't understand what "easy to fly" means concerning these planes. They tend to think that it really was easy to just hop in a "n00b plane" and you'd be an allstar pilot in no time because the plane was so good. In real life, no tail-dragger is "easy to fly". But real life pilots had to deal with how the aircraft were actually set up, such as having to switch hands on the control column to pull up the landing gear, or needing three hands just to start the engine. These guys who raz other folks about their choice of plane are probably the most n00bish of them all because they THINK they know what they are talking about.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

[This message was edited by Chuck_Older on Mon May 03 2004 at 11:39 AM.]

Udidtoo
05-03-2004, 01:05 PM
The real life designers and engineers of the planes that get labeled noob planes, if here and reading this forum would probably take that label as a compliment.

Noob plane in FB/AEP=Real life planes that performed a role they were designed for well and gave their pilots an increased chance of survival.

Don't let Air Quake jockies dictate to you what you enjoy.

..............................
I always have just enough fuel to arrive at the scene of my crash.

LilHorse
05-03-2004, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
While I was flying last night someone on the server commented on my aircraft choice (p51). They claimed it was a "clown crate." I asked them to elaborate on this and they said it required no skill and the modeling for it in the sim was a joke. I will not mention the name. I then proceeded to ask why and they said the 50 calibers were too powerful, too easy to hit with (they suggested that the tactic of 'spray and pray' was noobish), and also claimed that the p51 turns too well at low speeds. I didn't know how to reply to this, and I guess I should have ignored that person but it really offended me. My understanding is that the p51 should be "noob friendly" because it was that way in real life. Pilots claimed that it was really easy to fly. I guess I don't understand why people just can't respect my choice of aircraft and not bother me about it. I hope not everyone is like this online or I may dedice to go back to playing offline. What does everyone else think? Am I less of a pilot or not as skilled because I choose to fly the "clown crates"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me preface my comment by saying that I fly mostly early to mid 109s. In fact, my favorite of the lot right now is a G6 late with MG 151/20 pods slung underneath. So, I'm not P-51 biased.

That said, I can say that this guy, whoever he was, is full of ****. The P-51 if flown right is deadly. But I wouldn't characterize it as a "noob-ride" (I've shot down many, and I'm no uber pilot, just ask anybody who flies with me, LOL) . There are those planes that I might characterize as such but that aint one of 'em. Don't let some dork intimidate you over your choice of plane. He probably just sucks anyway.

Next time you meet him online just let him know that the plane is available in the set for anybody who wants to fly it. If he doesn't like it tell him to go to a server where it isn't offered or tell him to have a big steaming cup of STFU.

lbhskier37
05-03-2004, 01:25 PM
I don't think it is a newb ride, but I do think it is one of the easiest planes in the game to get kills in for a good pilot.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-03-2004, 01:45 PM
All stated earlier:

1. "Comparatively" easier to fly than many other planes in the game.

2. Far from the best performer in ANY category!

3. Weapons (mg's) MUST be utilized at set convergence to achieve anything close to damaging effect against an enemy (likely will change in the patch).



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

adadaead
05-03-2004, 01:51 PM
That it what did they say about cupcakes im mean La. Lol just kidding those people just afraid of one the pleasant and fun planes to fly.



Only in the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.

tttiger
05-03-2004, 02:10 PM
If you choose to fly in DF QuakeLand, why are you surprised at comments like that?

Being "easy to fly" for pilots of only moderate skill was what made Soviet planes (and most military equipment; I would choose an AK over an M-16 any day) so great. "Simple" does NOT mean inferior.

It was true of many US planes as well. The B-25 was a much better medium bomber than the B-26 because the Mitchell was relatively easy to fly while the Marauder was very spooky.

As with many German planes, as much as possible on US planes was made automatic to reduce task overloading for the pilot. Is that a "bad" trait?

Many of the dweebs who fly DF could care less about the history. If a plane is "easy to fly" then it is a "noob" plane and thus "bad." In real life, if it was "easy to fly" it was an "excellent" plane.

I would NEVER take anything about airplanes said by anyone in a DF arena seriously.

The P-51 is a good ride but not uber. It is more vulnerable than any German plane. It doesn't climb or accelerate particularly well. If you use the combat flaps sparingly, it turns well and maintains smash but it ain't no Spitfire or LA-7. And the firepower is puny.

I never fly Axis on line but I have tried them all off line. The speed and firepower of the German planes is VERY impressive and you fly them with everything on auto. Yet no one calls them "noob planes." That's the one I can't figure out.

Just consider the source.

And read my sig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

Maple_Tiger
05-03-2004, 02:18 PM
Actualy JtD, the BF109G-6/AS will out turn the P-51D at low speeds. Tride it, done it, and tested it with both planes.

The P-51B will win in a slow turn fight against the 6/AS.

P-51D, G10 and G14 are all pretty close at low speeds. But the G10 and G14 have the upper hand if there not carying more than 50% fuel.

Why shouldn't the P-51D turn with late BF109's at low speeds? It did in real life.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have never heard of any P-51 pilot saying that they couldn't turn fight with a BF109.


My point is, that i strongly disagree with you. You have no proof that the P-51D or B couldn't turn with BF109's.


If your tired of getting shot down, then mayby you should cary less fuel. Or mayby fly another plane besides the BF109... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Maple_Tiger
05-03-2004, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
While I was flying last night someone on the server commented on my aircraft choice (p51). They claimed it was a "clown crate." I asked them to elaborate on this and they said it required no skill and the modeling for it in the sim was a joke. I will not mention the name. I then proceeded to ask why and they said the 50 calibers were too powerful, too easy to hit with (they suggested that the tactic of 'spray and pray' was noobish), and also claimed that the p51 turns too well at low speeds. I didn't know how to reply to this, and I guess I should have ignored that person but it really offended me. My understanding is that the p51 should be "noob friendly" because it was that way in real life. Pilots claimed that it was really easy to fly. I guess I don't understand why people just can't respect my choice of aircraft and not bother me about it. I hope not everyone is like this online or I may dedice to go back to playing offline. What does everyone else think? Am I less of a pilot or not as skilled because I choose to fly the "clown crates"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Where these noobs that you where flying against?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Next time, just to piss in there cornflakes, take the KI-84. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

darkhorizon11
05-03-2004, 04:11 PM
Don't let it get to ya fullrealfly. Its mostly jealously. It is an easier plane to fly and I think everyone can agree that hands down it tipped the scales in the air war over Western Europe in the allies favor. Unfortunatley theres a lot of Luftwaffe babies thats embrace the German planes as they are a godsend and curse anything superior to their 109s. Maple is right in that at low speeds and altitudes a G6 will out turn an PONY but still the Mustang is generally superior to most Axis aircraft (except for the jets).

Please don't whine to me and say I'm biased because I'm not, I love the Focke Wulfs and Messerschmitts as much as the next guy but you have to face fact. Don't get me wrong though... a capable pilot can still overcome this gap!

lbhskier37
05-03-2004, 04:18 PM
The P51 shouldn't handle very well at low speeds. This is because of the laminar flow wings. They are great at high speeds, what they were designed for. The P51 should be able to turn with anything at high speeds, but as the speeds drop its handling should get worse, much like the 190 which has a wing designed for high speed. This is my only gripe with the 51. I love to fly it when I get put on red, but everything I know about the design tells me it shouldnt be a stallfighter or a good lowspeed turner.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

carguy_
05-03-2004, 04:24 PM
FB P51 is a mediocre aircraft.It`s easy to fly but you won`t gain much kills if you don`t learn it.It`s very easy to stall,not too good at turning,not too good at B&Z.Good all around aircraft which imo compared to Yak3 or Me109K4 is very weak.

By LW pilots considered as a meadiocre threat,by VVS pilots a plane without balls.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
05-03-2004, 04:44 PM
Hi,

I've a good idea who said that, especially if you were in Warclouds!

Even as a confirmed LW gun-whiner, I wouldn't agree that it was a clown crate in terms of FM.

Perhaps what the certain person meant was that the P51's DM and guns were akin to one of the aforementioned custard pie throwers. Indeed, the P51 does have a glass chin if you can hit it in the engine. Woe betide hitting it in the wings with the 30mm, though, because (currently) the wings stay on, certainly for 1-2 hits and...

a. This causes you to laugh out loud at seeing yet another bandit slip away that would have been dead in v1.22.....
b. The following realisation that the P51 has now turned behind you, with a minor fuel leak.
c. Then, a spray shot from .7km causing a couple of Barnes Wallis .50s to take out your gunsight/engine.

Clown crate? no.
Frustrating to take down? Yes.

Cheers,
Norris

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

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

fordfan25
05-03-2004, 05:00 PM
i wish i could get those 50.s you guys are talking about put in my stang.instead iv got 22.cals fireing rubber bullits http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

darkhorizon11
05-03-2004, 06:42 PM
Yeah tell'em _Older I missed your post. Thats very true, all taildraggers are much less stabile than tricycle gear aircraft.

The two biggest aspects that made the P51 so deadly was its extremely long range and performance at high altitudes.

DONB3397
05-03-2004, 06:46 PM
Suppose the critic you encountered hadn't just had his butt handed to him in his last DF and that he didn't need an ego boost by taking a shot at a new pilot on the server. Suppose he actually had some inside information the rest of us don't have.

Naw....

TooCooL34
05-03-2004, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
FB P51 is a mediocre aircraft.It`s easy to fly but you won`t gain much kills if you don`t learn it.It`s very easy to stall,not too good at turning,not too good at B&Z.Good all around aircraft which imo compared to Yak3 or Me109K4 is very weak.

By LW pilots considered as a meadiocre threat,by VVS pilots a plane without balls.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

---------------------------

=815=TooCooL34, =815=Squadron

http://toocool34.cafe24.com/images/815mark.jpg

-= 8 1 5 =- FB AEP Server
AEP Server Address : 815sqd.com
Teamspeak Server Address : 815sqd.com
(Just enter 815sqd.com. No need for complicated IP numbers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

100Mb IDC line, P4 2.8G server.
Full real but limited icon and minimap path.
(3km type without color, 1.8km id, 0.5km name)

For more info, visit :
http://www.815sqd.com

huggy87
05-03-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Actualy JtD, the BF109G-6/AS will out turn the P-51D at low speeds. Tride it, done it, and tested it with both planes.

The P-51B will win in a slow turn fight against the 6/AS.

P-51D, G10 and G14 are all pretty close at low speeds. But the G10 and G14 have the upper hand if there not carying more than 50% fuel.

Why shouldn't the P-51D turn with late BF109's at low speeds? It did in real life.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have never heard of any P-51 pilot saying that they couldn't turn fight with a BF109.


My point is, that i strongly disagree with you. You have no proof that the P-51D or B couldn't turn with BF109's.


If your tired of getting shot down, then mayby you should cary less fuel. Or mayby fly another plane besides the BF109... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple,
I agree with you. This is just anecdotal evidence from Bud Fortier's autobiography, 'An ace in the eigth'. He talks about several instances where he got in turn fights with 109's- and won.

TAGERT.
05-03-2004, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
I asked them to elaborate on this<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mistake No. 1

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
I then proceeded to ask why<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mistake No. 2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
I didn't know how to reply to this, and I guess I should have ignored that person<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ding!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fullrealfly3r:
What does everyone else think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mistake No. 3

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WUAF_Boxer
05-03-2004, 08:14 PM
I'm pretty sure I know who said that too... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WUAF_MS_Boxer

FI-Aflak
05-03-2004, 08:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cardinal25:
The P-51 a n00b plane?

That's news to me.

_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_
_http://www.92ndfg.com_
_http://www.7jg77.com_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fw-190 A-9 outclimbs, out-endures, and outguns the P-51.

This makes the anton the more noobish of the two energy fighters. Sure, the P-51 outturns it, but no good pony pilot will be engaging his targets (usually slower turn+burners) in a turnfight, anyway.

P-51 != noob plane.

FatBoyHK
05-03-2004, 09:32 PM
Mustang is a good plane, but no way it is a noob plane that you can get kill with little skill. In a completitive server, noob player can't get result from a Mustang, only a skill pilot can.

It is because Mustang doesn't have a uber trick, its accel is not the best, its turn rate is not the best, its climb rate is not the best, its stall characteristic is nasty, its armor is weak.... the list go on and on....

Therefore, to be able to get result from a Mustang you can't rely on only one tactic... You can't BnZ all day, and it is plain stupid to TnB non-stop.... Instead, you need to mix and match different tactics, and be able to use the right tactics at the right time...

To able to do so, a pilot need a wide spectrum of skill, and I don't think you can call anyone a noob if he can master a Mustang. Instead, I think Mustang is a good training platform, to teach a wanna-be the right way to fly and fight.

lbhskier37
05-03-2004, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Actualy JtD, the BF109G-6/AS will out turn the P-51D at low speeds. Tride it, done it, and tested it with both planes.

The P-51B will win in a slow turn fight against the 6/AS.

P-51D, G10 and G14 are all pretty close at low speeds. But the G10 and G14 have the upper hand if there not carying more than 50% fuel.

Why shouldn't the P-51D turn with late BF109's at low speeds? It did in real life.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have never heard of any P-51 pilot saying that they couldn't turn fight with a BF109.


My point is, that i strongly disagree with you. You have no proof that the P-51D or B couldn't turn with BF109's.


If your tired of getting shot down, then mayby you should cary less fuel. Or mayby fly another plane besides the BF109... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple,
I agree with you. This is just anecdotal evidence from Bud Fortier's autobiography, 'An ace in the eigth'. He talks about several instances where he got in turn fights with 109's- and won.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Airfoil stall results when flow separation occurs over a major portion of the upper surface of the airfoil. As the angle of attack is increased, the stagnation point moves back along the lower surface of the airfoil... Flow on the uppper surface then must accelerate sharply to round the nose of the airfoil. The minimum pressure becomes lower[refering to the pressure distribution on the top of the airfoil], and its location moves forward on the upper surface. A severe adverse pressure gradient appears following the point of minimum pressure; finally, the adverse pressure gradient causes the flow to separate completely from the upper surface and the airfoil stalls.
Movement of the minimum pressure point and accentuation of the adverse pressure gradient are responsible for the sudden increase in drag coefficent for the laminar-flow section. The sudden rise in drag coefficient is caused by early transition from laminar to turbulent boundary-layer flow on the upper surface. Aircraft with laminar flow sesctions are designed to cruise in the low-drag region.[of the drag coefficent vs. AoA plot]
Because laminar-flow sections have very sharp leading edges, all of the effects we have described are exaggerated, and they stall at lower angles of attack than conventional sectgions. The maximum possible lift coefficient is also less for laminar-flow sections."

Any questions classhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Laminar flow wings are good for high alt/speed. At low alt/speed higher AoA is needed to produce same lift, and higher AoA is bad on laminar flow sections. This is why the P51 shouldn't handle very good at low speeds. Same thing goes for any aircraft with laminar flow wings such as P61 and others (not sure what others have laminar flow)

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

VW-IceFire
05-03-2004, 11:05 PM
I may have been in the same game or heard from the same guy. He (or anyone else) is totally off their rockers believing what they do. The person I was talking to I challenged to tell me what was wrong, provide some evidence, heck if they have evidence and the FM should be tightned by all means lets show everything and see what the best truth is (this is history for you).

But he said "he was right" and thats obviously your first sign that they don't know anything and have some sort of perverse reality.

I like the P-51 but I find that the FW190, the Yak-9 (usually the 9U), and the Spitfire are my best planes online. I'm good in the Mustang and I'm only a bit worse in the Bf 109...and frankly I'm almost as good in the P-40 or P-63 than I am in the Mustang. So for the supposed "n00bish" qualities I find that I have other aircraft that are easier for me to fly.

This is a matter of style mostly (even when the Yak, FW190, and Spitfire all require different approaches)...

Regardless, that spread on the .50cals is wrong, detremental to anyone who wants to do precision shooting, supposedly fixed in the next patch. The P-51 may turn a bit too good at low alt but then who gets into a low alt turn fight with a P-51...if you are then you are probably flying a La or a Yak and you already have the advantage anyways.

That person is crazy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P.S. lbhskier37, the Tempest also has a laminar flow style wing...the primary difference between it and the Typhoon. Which is why it is rated as only turning better than the FW190 and sometimes the 109 (probably the initial turn on the Tempest is better but sustained is worse).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Bearcat99
05-04-2004, 12:00 AM
I see you only have 8 posts and the fact that you would post this here tells me thet you are relatively new to this arena. Welcome aboard.. I hope you have fun cause that's what its all about, having fun. Ignore people who want to label you a "noob" or an arcade flyer because you prefer to run the sim you bought with your own money your way, or fly what you want to fly. Dont be fooled. They are all noob planes. A lot of the guys here who fly in those HL DF servers talking that noooob cr@p would probably toss thier cookies in a heartbeat or $hit thier pants at the first high G barrel roll or power dive. They sit from the safety of thier desks and 60 years in the future and spout all kinds of stuff that sounds good.. it sounds like they know what they are talking about, it sounds like they are really tough, gritty.. full real fliers....Oooooooooo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif... but in reality they are just guys playing a game on a computer.. a very good game.. one that actually has earned the title of simulaton but it is still a game.. and we all revel in it. No danger... no G forces making it hard for you to hold that stick when inertia is taking your whole body in the opposite direction... no thuderous roar of an engine all around you... no cold hands from sitting in a metal can thousands of feet up for a few hours... bored to tears...having to pi$$, missing your kids, your wife... your buddy who got incinerated last week...... no one trying to kill you before you kill them..... no pain, no fatigue, no fear..... just grab another brewski and pick your plane and fly. So the next time someone calls you a noob...or insinuates you are a noob because you chose a certain plane..... as if they actually were a fighter pilot... just chalk it up to some poor schmuck with no social skills, no life, no real friends and no outlet save for this sim and Hyperlobby. And go on... enjoy yourself.. in spite of them.


Oh... and the P-51? A sweet bird.. my favorite. I am currently fooling around with my convergence settings to see if I can give them more umph... I think it handles well.. is fast enough... In this sim you have to use all the stuff at your disposal to get the most out of the sim and whatever plane you are flying. Pitch,trim,throttle,all this comes into play. Experiment. However well you fly it now.... or not... it will only get better with practice.
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

[This message was edited by Bearcat99 on Mon May 03 2004 at 11:08 PM.]

kondor999
05-04-2004, 01:22 AM
The Bf109 design had the worst turn radius of any fighter evaluated by the RAF in 1943 (referring to the G-6). Trials were conducted which compared it to: P-51b, Spit Mk V, and FW190A-3. This surprised me given its fairly low wing loading, but according to the Brits the leading edge slots would bang open and render the plane nearly uncontrollable at the edge of the envelope, thus reducing its ability to "stall-fight".

I have to say that, based on my reading, the 109 was an outdated 1935 design with a great engine flown by guys who could probably make a Piper Tomahawk lethal...

kondor999
05-04-2004, 01:27 AM
****..this is a P51 thread! Anyway, the great advantage of the P-51 should be its phenomenal ability to retain energy due to its low drag design.

I read a story in Aviation week years ago where some entrepreneurs wre trying to design a high speed single seat executive plane. On a lark, one of the engineers put in a 3/4 scale model of the Mustang...and it blew away their design. They concluded, as I recall, that serious prop-engine a/c design really stopped with the P-51 and that not a whole lot has been learned since then. They built the 3/4 Mustang "replica".

JtD
05-04-2004, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kondor999:
The Bf109 design had the worst turn radius of any fighter evaluated by the RAF in 1943 (referring to the G-6). Trials were conducted which compared it to: P-51b, Spit Mk V, and FW190A-3. This surprised me given its fairly low wing loading, but according to the Brits the leading edge slots would bang open and render the plane nearly uncontrollable at the edge of the envelope, thus reducing its ability to "stall-fight".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British were incapable of making the leading edge slats work properly, that's not Messerschmitts fault.

About low speed turning of the P-51 in comp. with Bf 109:

Both planes had about the same wingloading, true. However, while the lift coefficient of the P-51 is only 1.28 acc. tp NACA 829, the lift coefficient for a Bf is about 1.5 (still have to find reliable source). Total lift is wing area * lift coefficient, which gives the Bf an advantage of 1.5/1.28 or about 17% in liftloading and thus low speed turning. In fact, exp. Luftwaffe pilots in their Emils could turn with a Spitfire I (as pilots from both sides reported), which also suffered from it's low lift coefficient of about 1.12.

[This message was edited by JtD on Tue May 04 2004 at 03:33 AM.]

Aaron_GT
05-04-2004, 01:53 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
"Maple,
I agree with you. This is just anecdotal evidence from Bud Fortier's autobiography, 'An ace in the eigth'. He talks about several instances where he got in turn fights with 109's- and won."

But we can't assume that because the fight was
won that it was won because of some presumed
advantage of turn radius in the P51. There are
too many other factors involved, pilot skill
being one of the more important ones. So we
have an ace pilot, maybe shooting down less
able pilots? It's hard to draw any conclusions
from this piece of information other than
Bud Fortier was an ace, he survived, and the
P51 is at least competitive with the 109 in
turn fights. It doesn't tell us which plane
was better, however, any more than Galland's
record might lead us to conclude that the 109
totally outclassed whatever Galland was facing
(possibly P51s).

Bastables
05-04-2004, 02:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kondor999:
The Bf109 design had the worst turn radius of any fighter evaluated by the RAF in 1943 (referring to the G-6). Trials were conducted which compared it to: P-51b, Spit Mk V, and FW190A-3. This surprised me given its fairly low wing loading, but according to the Brits the leading edge slots would bang open and render the plane nearly uncontrollable at the edge of the envelope, thus reducing its ability to "stall-fight".

I have to say that, based on my reading, the 109 was an outdated 1935 design with a great engine flown by guys who could probably make a Piper Tomahawk lethal...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>err that test/comparitve trial the quote is drawn from was actully a G2 with the two underwing 2cm cannons......

JtD
05-04-2004, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maple Tiger:

If your tired of getting shot down, then mayby you should cary less fuel. Or mayby fly another plane besides the BF109...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hardly ever get shot down, mainly because I fly offline most of the time. If I do fly online, I usually pick a P-51 and am immune to enemy actions. ;-P

Btw, haven't figured out if the gauge in the P-51 cockpit reads "fuel" or "full". The indicator doesn't move even if you are leaking fuel, so "full" would be appropriate.

wayno7777
05-04-2004, 02:30 AM
Ahhh Bearcat, the voice of reason. Maybe they should start out the old way. Flight school. Each of the various air corps trainers to work up to the skills to fly the fighters. Almost all the aces went through it.

"Wir greifen an!"
("We attack!")
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/wayno77-bluesclues3a.JPG

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

Maple_Tiger
05-04-2004, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Actualy JtD, the BF109G-6/AS will out turn the P-51D at low speeds. Tride it, done it, and tested it with both planes.

The P-51B will win in a slow turn fight against the 6/AS.

P-51D, G10 and G14 are all pretty close at low speeds. But the G10 and G14 have the upper hand if there not carying more than 50% fuel.

Why shouldn't the P-51D turn with late BF109's at low speeds? It did in real life.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have never heard of any P-51 pilot saying that they couldn't turn fight with a BF109.


My point is, that i strongly disagree with you. You have no proof that the P-51D or B couldn't turn with BF109's.


If your tired of getting shot down, then mayby you should cary less fuel. Or mayby fly another plane besides the BF109... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple,
I agree with you. This is just anecdotal evidence from Bud Fortier's autobiography, 'An ace in the eigth'. He talks about several instances where he got in turn fights with 109's- and won.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Airfoil stall results when flow separation occurs over a major portion of the upper surface of the airfoil. As the angle of attack is increased, the stagnation point moves back along the lower surface of the airfoil... Flow on the uppper surface then must accelerate sharply to round the nose of the airfoil. The minimum pressure becomes lower[refering to the pressure distribution on the top of the airfoil], and its location moves forward on the upper surface. A severe adverse pressure gradient appears following the point of minimum pressure; finally, the adverse pressure gradient causes the flow to separate completely from the upper surface and the airfoil stalls.
Movement of the minimum pressure point and accentuation of the adverse pressure gradient are responsible for the sudden increase in drag coefficent for the laminar-flow section. The sudden rise in drag coefficient is caused by early transition from laminar to turbulent boundary-layer flow on the upper surface. Aircraft with laminar flow sesctions are designed to cruise in the low-drag region.[of the drag coefficent vs. AoA plot]
Because laminar-flow sections have very sharp leading edges, all of the effects we have described are exaggerated, and they stall at lower angles of attack than conventional sectgions. The maximum possible lift coefficient is also less for laminar-flow sections."

Any questions classhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Laminar flow wings are good for high alt/speed. At low alt/speed higher AoA is needed to produce same lift, and higher AoA is bad on laminar flow sections. This is why the P51 shouldn't handle very good at low speeds. Same thing goes for any aircraft with laminar flow wings such as P61 and others (not sure what others have laminar flow)

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I disagree.


Your saying the P-51 pilots in WW2 where cheeting? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Sorry guy, but you is wronge. They did turn with BF109's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Maple_Tiger
05-04-2004, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maple Tiger:

If your tired of getting shot down, then mayby you should cary less fuel. Or mayby fly another plane besides the BF109...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hardly ever get shot down, mainly because I fly offline most of the time. If I do fly online, I usually pick a P-51 and am immune to enemy actions. ;-P

Btw, haven't figured out if the gauge in the P-51 cockpit reads "fuel" or "full". The indicator doesn't move even if you are leaking fuel, so "full" would be appropriate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actualy there are three fuel gauges in the P-51. Look down to your left, and you'l see the left wing tank. Look down to you right, and you'l see the right wing tank. Then look over your left shoulder, and you'l see the aux fuel tank.

They do work.

You fly mainly offline?...lol. The AI's do not use the planes full potential.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JtD
05-04-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

I disagree.

Your saying the P-51 pilots in WW2 where cheeting?

Sorry guy, but you is wronge. They did turn with BF109's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recently outturned a Spit in my FW. According to your logic, this makes the FW a superior low speed turner.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You fly mainly offline?...lol. The AI's do not use the planes full potential.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither do humans.

(thx for the info on the fuel gauges. :-)

Abbuzze
05-04-2004, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Actualy JtD, the BF109G-6/AS will out turn the P-51D at low speeds. Tride it, done it, and tested it with both planes.

The P-51B will win in a slow turn fight against the 6/AS.

P-51D, G10 and G14 are all pretty close at low speeds. But the G10 and G14 have the upper hand if there not carying more than 50% fuel.

Why shouldn't the P-51D turn with late BF109's at low speeds? It did in real life.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have never heard of any P-51 pilot saying that they couldn't turn fight with a BF109.


My point is, that i strongly disagree with you. You have no proof that the P-51D or B couldn't turn with BF109's.


If your tired of getting shot down, then mayby you should cary less fuel. Or mayby fly another plane besides the BF109... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this is from pilot reports isn´t it?
We know nothing about the pilot in the 109- or carried it gunpods? There are also reports from finnish pilots... one of them shoot down a P51 in a turning fight and the guy in the 109 had gunpods under his wings... make the 109 REAL clumsy.
I also read a report from a german ace, while a turning fight he wonderd why he had troubles to follow a P51 in a turn, at the end (if I remember correct) he got the pony. After the fight he found the answer... he fought with the droptank- which he had forgot to release!

So- it´s more a question about the pilot than the plane... maybe the finnish pilot would not outturn a P51 ace with his gunpods http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg

jurinko
05-04-2004, 07:21 AM
it seems to me that its sustained zoomclimb and turning ability are a bit high, otherwise it is deadly plane for anything blue. Early P-51s are very sweet, just the weak firepower...
surprisingly, Fw 190 with similar wingloading turns like brick, if the maneuver can be called turning.

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

lbhskier37
05-04-2004, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Actualy JtD, the BF109G-6/AS will out turn the P-51D at low speeds. Tride it, done it, and tested it with both planes.

The P-51B will win in a slow turn fight against the 6/AS.

P-51D, G10 and G14 are all pretty close at low speeds. But the G10 and G14 have the upper hand if there not carying more than 50% fuel.

Why shouldn't the P-51D turn with late BF109's at low speeds? It did in real life.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have never heard of any P-51 pilot saying that they couldn't turn fight with a BF109.


My point is, that i strongly disagree with you. You have no proof that the P-51D or B couldn't turn with BF109's.


If your tired of getting shot down, then mayby you should cary less fuel. Or mayby fly another plane besides the BF109... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maple,
I agree with you. This is just anecdotal evidence from Bud Fortier's autobiography, 'An ace in the eigth'. He talks about several instances where he got in turn fights with 109's- and won.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Airfoil stall results when flow separation occurs over a major portion of the upper surface of the airfoil. As the angle of attack is increased, the stagnation point moves back along the lower surface of the airfoil... Flow on the uppper surface then must accelerate sharply to round the nose of the airfoil. The minimum pressure becomes lower[refering to the pressure distribution on the top of the airfoil], and its location moves forward on the upper surface. A severe adverse pressure gradient appears following the point of minimum pressure; finally, the adverse pressure gradient causes the flow to separate completely from the upper surface and the airfoil stalls.
Movement of the minimum pressure point and accentuation of the adverse pressure gradient are responsible for the sudden increase in drag coefficent for the laminar-flow section. The sudden rise in drag coefficient is caused by early transition from laminar to turbulent boundary-layer flow on the upper surface. Aircraft with laminar flow sesctions are designed to cruise in the low-drag region.[of the drag coefficent vs. AoA plot]
Because laminar-flow sections have very sharp leading edges, all of the effects we have described are exaggerated, and they stall at lower angles of attack than conventional sectgions. The maximum possible lift coefficient is also less for laminar-flow sections."

Any questions classhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Laminar flow wings are good for high alt/speed. At low alt/speed higher AoA is needed to produce same lift, and higher AoA is bad on laminar flow sections. This is why the P51 shouldn't handle very good at low speeds. Same thing goes for any aircraft with laminar flow wings such as P61 and others (not sure what others have laminar flow)

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I disagree.


Your saying the P-51 pilots in WW2 where cheeting? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Sorry guy, but you is wronge. They did turn with BF109's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You disagree? This is fluid dynamics textbook. Did pilots say they stallfought 109s? I would like to see these claims. Im not saying the P51 shouldnt outturn stuff at highspeeds, it should, but at low speeds the wing will stall at lower AoA than conventional airfoils. Laminar flow is nice, but you dont just get something for nothing.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

mortoma
05-04-2004, 10:02 AM
I don't know where the idea came from that suggests the P-51 FM in this game gives it too good of a turn at low speeds??? How do these people know?? Did they ever fly a P-51?? What I think happened is a few people played with the P-51 in QMB and were able to outturn planes like 109s of various stripes. But the fact of the matter is that even set on "ace", the AI does not turn any plane they fly as hard as it can be turned.
They simply don't fly their planes on the edge of the envelope. I can outturn 109s in a P-51 too if they are AI controlled planes. But if you are up against a good human pilot in just about any 109, they will turn circles around your P-51!! I have heard enough about the supposed
over modelling of the P-51 low speed turn.

mortoma
05-04-2004, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Yeah tell'em _Older I missed your post. Thats very true, all taildraggers are much less stabile than tricycle gear aircraft.

The two biggest aspects that made the P51 so deadly was its extremely long range and performance at high altitudes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry but you and Older are wrong. Tail draggers are only harder to take off and land. Once you get airborne, how hard or easy a plane is to fly has nothing to do with whether or not it's a tail dragger. Nor does it have any impact on stability. Fighters as a rule are less stable by design so they are more manueverable in all axes. And tricycle fighters like the P-38, P-39 and P-63 were not any more stable than anything else out there. Both type of planes are still designed to have the center of gravity in about the right place despite where the landing gear may be placed in the aircraft. I'm a Cessna and Piper pilot and although I have never flown a tail dragger, I've talked to many people who have. Also discussed getting a tail dragger endorsement a time or two with several instructors. And none of the instructors ever mentioned them being harder to fly overall, just more difficult to learn the landing and take off technique. Especially in crosswinds.

VW-IceFire
05-04-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
I don't know where the idea came from that suggests the P-51 FM in this game gives it too good of a turn at low speeds??? How do these people know?? Did they ever fly a P-51?? What I think happened is a few people played with the P-51 in QMB and were able to outturn planes like 109s of various stripes. But the fact of the matter is that even set on "ace", the AI does not turn any plane they fly as hard as it can be turned.
They simply don't fly their planes on the edge of the envelope. I can outturn 109s in a P-51 too if they are AI controlled planes. But if you are up against a good human pilot in just about any 109, they will turn circles around your P-51!! I have heard enough about the supposed
over modelling of the P-51 low speed turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah pretty much agreed there. Obviously pilot skill is one of the predetermining factors...you can out turn a 109 in a TB-3 if you are really good at throwing the TB-3 around and the 109 pilot doesn't know what he's doing.

All in all I still think FB's 109s turn better than the P-51 does except in some high speed situations...but in a sustained turn the P-51 looses speed and stalls...I know because I've stalled it and crashed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

F19_Ob
05-04-2004, 12:55 PM
From an old hand. dont worry about it.

Franzen
05-04-2004, 01:21 PM
I fly the G2 95% of the time. When the teams aren't even I have to fly a so called "noob plane". I admit it's much easier to get kills in a Spit, P-51, or an La7 but I still don't like them. Nothing to do with the "noob plane theory" just that I really like the 109's and 190's. I get more satisfaction shooting down a a noob plane with a 109 or a 190 than shooting down planes with a Spit, P-51, or an La. I enjoy a challenge.

I don't like the shot spread of the P-51 but I hear it will be fixed. Imagine how deadly it will be in the hands of a goodshot.

People shouldn't whine about these planes but instead welcome the challenge. Eventually once one is good with a 109 or a 190, he/she will be good with any plane. It's the pilot, not the plane.

A Luft-whiner is a 109/190 pilot that doesn't use strategy or have patience. A Luftwaffe ace is pilot that does.

Fritz Franzen

Chuck_Older
05-04-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Sorry but you and Older are wrong. Tail draggers are only harder to take off and land.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So they are therefore easy to fly?

I said that no taildragger is easy to fly. You say I'm wrong, then say they are harder to takeoff in and land...which contradicts what you just said, unless landing and taking off aren't part of flying.

Then compound that by things like the P-51's fuselage tank changing the CG, or compressaiblity issues, or over-revving an engine...

So all these planes are actually easy to fly? The reason that it took almost a year to change an aviation cadet into a pilot was because they were just dummies, then. The planes actually could be flown by anyone who walked in off the street, but the cadets were so useless it took a year to train them to walk upright? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You are over-simplfying the issue, don't you think?

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Bearcat99
05-04-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Bearcat99 wrote:
"Maple,
I agree with you. This is just anecdotal evidence from Bud Fortier's autobiography, 'An ace in the eigth'. He talks about several instances where he got in turn fights with 109's- and won."

But we can't assume that because the fight was
won that it was won because of some presumed
advantage of turn radius in the P51. There are
too many other factors involved, pilot skill
being one of the more important ones. So we
have an ace pilot, maybe shooting down less
able pilots? It's hard to draw any conclusions
from this piece of information other than
Bud Fortier was an ace, he survived, and the
P51 is at least competitive with the 109 in
turn fights. It doesn't tell us which plane
was better, however, any more than Galland's
record might lead us to conclude that the 109
totally outclassed whatever Galland was facing
(possibly P51s).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Uhhhhh actually that was Huggy87.... but thats ok.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I did read Bud Fortiers book though.. excellent read....

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Maple_Tiger
05-04-2004, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

I disagree.

Your saying the P-51 pilots in WW2 where cheeting?

Sorry guy, but you is wronge. They did turn with BF109's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recently outturned a Spit in my FW. According to your logic, this makes the FW a superior low speed turner.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You fly mainly offline?...lol. The AI's do not use the planes full potential.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither do humans.

(thx for the info on the fuel gauges. :-)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Qout JtD: I recently outturned a Spit in my FW. According to your logic, this makes the FW a superior low speed turner.


If you say so JtD.

If you had actualy read the full post by Ibhskier37, then you might have known i was talking about low speed turning. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

HayateKid
05-04-2004, 01:52 PM
I score easier when using the P-51 than when using german planes. I think the P-51 guns is easy to use. It doesn't require precise aiming. You might say it's a spray and pray aircraft. But I guess this is true for the P-47 as well.

"First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule, Daniel San, not mine." - Mr. Miyagi

JtD
05-04-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Mortoma:
I don't know where the idea came from that suggests the P-51 FM in this game gives it too good of a turn at low speeds??? How do these people know?? Did they ever fly a P-51?? What I think happened is a few people played with the P-51 in QMB and were able to outturn planes like 109s of various stripes. But the fact of the matter is that even set on "ace", the AI does not turn any plane they fly as hard as it can be turned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got curious because IL-2 compare shows superior low speed turning of P-51's. So I started a topic and started testing and found that a P-51 does outturn a K-4 in pure slow speed low alt level turning. It has an advantage of about 1sec per turn (20 vs. 21). I haven't tried a G model, maybe I should, but for me it's enough to have a K-4 outturned and to have a sustained turn of 20sec/360?. That is just wrong.

Thread is this one (two weeks old and basically the same as this one ;-):

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=838102063&p=1


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Franzen:
People shouldn't whine about these planes but instead welcome the challenge. Eventually once one is good with a 109 or a 190, he/she will be good with any plane.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am good in 109's and FW's but I suck in La's. How come?

Franzen
05-04-2004, 02:04 PM
JTD, good question. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Fritz Franzen

mortoma
05-04-2004, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Sorry but you and Older are wrong. Tail draggers are only harder to take off and land.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So they are therefore easy to fly?

I said that no taildragger is easy to fly. You say I'm wrong, then say they are harder to takeoff in and land...which contradicts what you just said, unless landing and taking off aren't part of flying.

Then compound that by things like the P-51's fuselage tank changing the CG, or compressaiblity issues, or over-revving an engine...

So all these planes are actually easy to fly? The reason that it took almost a year to change an aviation cadet into a pilot was because they were just dummies, then. The planes actually could be flown by anyone who walked in off the street, but the cadets were so useless it took a year to train them to walk upright? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You are over-simplfying the issue, don't you think?

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry Chuck, what you wrote was not inaccurate since you didn't differentiate between any particular phase of flying, from takeoff to landing. It's darkhorizon that seems to make a mistake by insinuating that nose wheelers are more "stable" than tail draggers. My mistake.

Freycinet
05-04-2004, 04:12 PM
Just back from two hours online, the Bulge map, winter, exclusively flying the P-51D.

Even though I was never a great flyer, I actually ended up with 800 points and the closest second was at 480 when I left the server.

The P-51 is one of the few planes that will give you PK's at long distances and high deflection. It is also a plane whose engine seems to seize up every second time you're hit.

But all in all, I was more succesful in the P-51 than the other guys in their Ki-84's and whatnot. I think it is because it is a really good all-rounder.

When you're dogfighting, the enemy doesn't always do what you want him to do, so having a good all-round airplane enables you to get sensibly out of most situations. You can turn quite well with the enemy and you can run if needed.

It helps to know your energy fighting basics, swing up and above the enemy if he turns to tightly for you, trade speed for height and swoop down afterwards, etc, etc...

I think the people who get into trouble with stalls are not doing energy fighting, and probably compound their problem by flying with 100% fuel.

The .50's were specifically chosen by the USAAF to help their pilots land at least some hits. The yanks were fighting against small fighters and not big bombers, as the Germans did, so that philosophy made sense. I feel that the guns in the game pretty well reflect the way they were in real life, according to accounts.

If you're up against good pilots who know their mounts perfectly and you let them dictate the terms of the fight, then you might end up in trouble with the P-51. Otherwise it'll be a good plane on-line, as it was in WWII.

Bearcat99
05-04-2004, 04:19 PM
The thing with the P-51's guns that I have found is.... convergence.. I use to set mine for 275cannon...225MGs.. I now set them both for 200 since I usually fly Jugs and Ponies anyway.... what a difference.... I now have to pa attention to my convergence when in a game and reset it accordingly if I am flying something with cannon.. but for the .50s.. 200 works quite well for me.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Chuck_Older
05-04-2004, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:

Sorry Chuck, what you wrote was not inaccurate since you didn't differentiate between any particular phase of flying, from takeoff to landing. It's darkhorizon that seems to make a mistake by insinuating that nose wheelers are more "stable" than tail draggers. My mistake.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can easily see how my post could make you think I meant that just by virtue of the plane's landing gear, I was implying that the a/c was either easy or hard to fly. I should have been more clear http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

FatBoyHK
05-04-2004, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:
Just back from two hours online, the Bulge map, winter, exclusively flying the P-51D.

Even though I was never a great flyer, I actually ended up with 800 points and the closest second was at 480 when I left the server.

The P-51 is one of the few planes that will give you PK's at long distances and high deflection. It is also a plane whose engine seems to seize up every second time you're hit.

But all in all, I was more succesful in the P-51 than the other guys in their Ki-84's and whatnot. I think it is because it is a really good all-rounder.

When you're dogfighting, the enemy doesn't always do what you want him to do, so having a good all-round airplane enables you to get sensibly out of most situations. You can turn quite well with the enemy and you can run if needed.

It helps to know your energy fighting basics, swing up and above the enemy if he turns to tightly for you, trade speed for height and swoop down afterwards, etc, etc...

I think the people who get into trouble with stalls are not doing energy fighting, and probably compound their problem by flying with 100% fuel.

The .50's were specifically chosen by the USAAF to help their pilots land at least some hits. The yanks were fighting against small fighters and not big bombers, as the Germans did, so that philosophy made sense. I feel that the guns in the game pretty well reflect the way they were in real life, according to accounts.

If you're up against good pilots who know their mounts perfectly and you let them dictate the terms of the fight, then you might end up in trouble with the P-51. Otherwise it'll be a good plane on-line, as it was in WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well-said, Mustang is a very good all-rounder that give you a lot of choices, and at the same time give you a lot of opportunity to learn the basics of air combat.....and after all, a fun plane to fly and fiht with.

Aaron_GT
05-05-2004, 03:06 AM
"Uhhhhh actually that was Huggy87.... but thats ok."

Sorry bearcat, my mistake.

Freycinet
05-05-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freycinet:
Just back from two hours online, the Bulge map, winter, exclusively flying the P-51D.

Even though I was never a great flyer, I actually ended up with 800 points and the closest second was at 480 when I left the server.

The P-51 is one of the few planes that will give you PK's at long distances and high deflection. It is also a plane whose engine seems to seize up every second time you're hit.

But all in all, I was more succesful in the P-51 than the other guys in their Ki-84's and whatnot. I think it is because it is a really good all-rounder.

When you're dogfighting, the enemy doesn't always do what you want him to do, so having a good all-round airplane enables you to get sensibly out of most situations. You can turn quite well with the enemy and you can run if needed.

It helps to know your energy fighting basics, swing up and above the enemy if he turns to tightly for you, trade speed for height and swoop down afterwards, etc, etc...

I think the people who get into trouble with stalls are not doing energy fighting, and probably compound their problem by flying with 100% fuel.

The .50's were specifically chosen by the USAAF to help their pilots land at least some hits. The yanks were fighting against small fighters and not big bombers, as the Germans did, so that philosophy made sense. I feel that the guns in the game pretty well reflect the way they were in real life, according to accounts.

If you're up against good pilots who know their mounts perfectly and you let them dictate the terms of the fight, then you might end up in trouble with the P-51. Otherwise it'll be a good plane on-line, as it was in WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well-said, Mustang is a very good all-rounder that give you a lot of choices, and at the same time give you a lot of opportunity to learn the basics of air combat.....and after all, a fun plane to fly and fiht with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, fun too!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FatBoyHK
05-05-2004, 10:31 AM
yes, I don't think either TnBing or BnZing all day would give you much fun.... with Mustang you have more choice, and this give you fun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

darkhorizon11
05-10-2004, 01:23 AM
Mortoma:

"Sorry but you and Older are wrong. Tail draggers are only harder to take off and land. Once you get airborne, how hard or easy a plane is to fly has nothing to do with whether or not it's a tail dragger. Nor does it have any impact on stability. Fighters as a rule are less stable by design so they are more manueverable in all axes. And tricycle fighters like the P-38, P-39 and P-63 were not any more stable than anything else out there. Both type of planes are still designed to have the center of gravity in about the right place despite where the landing gear may be placed in the aircraft. I'm a Cessna and Piper pilot and although I have never flown a tail dragger, I've talked to many people who have. Also discussed getting a tail dragger endorsement a time or two with several instructors. And none of the instructors ever mentioned them being harder to fly overall, just more difficult to learn the landing and take off technique. Especially in crosswinds."

Other way around. Mortoma you made a very common mistake in that you confused stability and maneuverability. They are two totally different things. Maneuverability varies by each individual plane. Stability is how the plane wants to fly.
It can be very complicated and there are two types. Sorry I'm not trying to talk over you guys its just that I could go on forever about the topic since its very intricate. Anyone who has taken aerodynamics can agree. Theres tons of books about the topic and I'm sure lots of stuff online too.

Put it this way... if your flying along straight and level at any give alt. (trimmed out) and your release the controls, a stabile plane will pretty much keep flying along without any change. An unstable plane will veer of course. Stabile also means that if you displace the plane for a certain trimmed performance (a/s and alt.), the plane will return to that performance setting after a period of up and down oscillations. The same goes for bank as well. If you bank the plane to a certain angle, release the controls and the wings return to level its considered to be a shallow bank. If you put in more bank angle, release and the bank steepens this is considered a steep bank. Thats stability.

I've flown two different types of taildraggers and they are less stable. Try releasing the stick for a just a few seconds during a takeoff run in a taildragger compared to a tricycle. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (just kidding, don't its dangerous)
Also during climb out at Vy or Vx in a taildragger the pitch attitude flatter than a your 172s or Warriors. Same with the landing, flares are muchhhhhh trickier! I've flown both types.

Look at it this way. All fighters are designed to be unstable to a certain extent (this can compliment manueverability), besides look how many WW2 fighters are tricycle compared to tail. Even the jet Me262 was originally designed as a taildragger! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Metallicaner
05-10-2004, 02:48 AM
the P-51 is not overmodelled, it's not without a reason that it's claimed to be the best aircraft of WW2, it was better than the BF 109's and FW's in any ways, faster "uphill" and in climbing, and was very manouverable at low and high speeds.

Besides, it's said that when G¸ring saw a P-51 over Berlin he said "we've lost the war"

BTW, do you think the Allied air forces would stop using the P-51 because they felt pity for the nazi's (because it was better)?

So you just relax and continue to play with it as much as you want http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Edit: Online it's .50 calibers is way to undermodelled http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Ob
05-10-2004, 02:57 AM
P51D pilot Lawrence Thompson Met Hartmanns bf109G14 and ended up flying alongside him for several minutes. He probably wasnt to happy to see 200 kills on his fin. And what if the enemy then grinned atU, making the "cut throat" gesture?
(o.b diving and screaming like a little schoolgirl).


Heck ...why not read the story yourselves.
Thompsons account is almost on the bottom of the page.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-ErichHartmann.html


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

JtD
05-10-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>it was better than the BF 109's and FW's in any ways, faster "uphill" and in climbing, and was very manouverable at low and high speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just plain wrong.

LilHorse
05-10-2004, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>it was better than the BF 109's and FW's in any ways, faster "uphill" and in climbing, and was very manouverable at low and high speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just plain wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'll say. This is stuff bourne out of the legend of the P-51. Let's understand something here. Let's eliminate the whole question of pilot skill and say that we have two pilots of equal ability. A P-51 low and slow against any 109 is in BIG trouble. Sorry to say the 'Stang would probably be shot down. Also, in powered climb, 109s climb like monkies compared to the P-51.

Conversly, at high speeds and higher alts the P-51 shines manuverability-wise where the 109 starts to perform as if its flight control surfaces are covered in thick mud. In a zoom climb the P-51 may have the advantage as well.

The 'Stang was a great a/c if flown to it's strengths and away from it's weaknesses. Stay high and fast in it and you'll do fine.

FatBoyHK
05-10-2004, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
Yeah, I'll say. This is stuff bourne out of the legend of the P-51. Let's understand something here. Let's eliminate the whole question of pilot skill and say that we have two pilots of equal ability. A P-51 low and slow against any 109 is in BIG trouble. Sorry to say the 'Stang would probably be shot down. Also, in powered climb, 109s climb like monkies compared to the P-51.

Conversly, at high speeds and higher alts the P-51 shines manuverability-wise where the 109 starts to perform as if its flight control surfaces are covered in thick mud. In a zoom climb the P-51 may have the advantage as well.

The 'Stang was a great a/c if flown to it's strengths and away from it's weaknesses. Stay high and fast in it and you'll do fine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points, but seem some people are having trouble believing the truth...

Maple_Tiger
05-10-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>it was better than the BF 109's and FW's in any ways, faster "uphill" and in climbing, and was very manouverable at low and high speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just plain wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lmao... Thats your opinion.


Didn't the P-51 have better power loading then the BF109?. The Pony was also more aerodynamic. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Over all the P-51 was a better plane. It is common knowledge that the Bf109 was out dated.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Rebel_Yell_21
05-10-2004, 02:46 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by carguy_:
FB P51 is a mediocre aircraft.It`s easy to fly but you won`t gain much kills if you don`t learn it.It`s very easy to stall,not too good at turning,not too good at B&Z.Good all around aircraft which imo compared to Yak3 or Me109K4 is very weak.

By LW pilots considered as a meadiocre threat[QUOTE]

1. The Pony is very good at BnZ.

2. Heinz Baer, who fought on every front from 39-45 and had over 100 kills against the Russians and over 100 kills versus the Western Allies, and commanded JV-44, the "Squadron of Experts" after Galland, and was the leading jet ace of WWII said the Mustang was the most difficult allied aircraft to combat.

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg

SpitfireMurdock
05-10-2004, 03:06 PM
May be the pony was a donkey in real, and not a mustang http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message was edited by SpitfireMurdock on Mon May 10 2004 at 02:19 PM.]

Slickun
05-10-2004, 03:20 PM
It isn't necessary to stay high and fast, just fast.

It is a myth that the P-51's envelope was altitude limited. Remember, the original Allison Mustangs were low level planes, and by all accounts outstanding. The Merlin was an attempt (successful) to extend it's outstanding performance UPWARDS.

The phrase "a Mustang caught low and slow" is, well, I guess ANY plane caught out of its envelope is in trouble. Trick is to stay in your envelope. The Mustang had a very large envelope, and staying away from a stall fight was a lot easier than somehow luring an idiot into one.

SpitfireMurdock
05-10-2004, 03:43 PM
May be the pony jockeys like a sidewinder in the next update? lol

JV44Rall
05-10-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
it seems to me that its sustained zoomclimb and turning ability are a bit high, . . . Early P-51s are very sweet, just the weak firepower....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on, imho. I've seen a 51C with equal initial energy to me climb away so fast that I thought it was warping. Ten seconds later it was out of range and turning onto my six. I was in a FW190A9 and on comms with the 51C pilot, whom I know and trust. So I suspect FM is a little much with the 51s. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Good thing the .50s are undermodeled. It would be extremely hard to defeat a mustang if it had good guns.

My impressions of the last two months revolve around dawns. Pink dawns, grey dawns, misty, rainy and windy dawns, but always dawns; first light. Shadowy Spitfires and quietness . . . . Geoffrey Wellum, First Light.

JG5_UnKle
05-10-2004, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is just plain wrong.

Lmao... Thats your opinion.


Didn't the P-51 have better power loading then the BF109?. The Pony was also more aerodynamic. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Over all the P-51 was a better plane. It is common knowledge that the Bf109 was out dated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's the sort of response I would of expected http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Initial climbrates for a Mustang (51 D)would be about 3000 ft/min or around 15 m/s.

For a K-4 its about 4800 ft/min http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif
So for a so called out-dated design I think it did pretty well. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

Stachl
05-10-2004, 05:51 PM
quote from Maple Tiger

"Why shouldn't the P-51D turn with late BF109's at low speeds? It did in real life..

I have never heard of any P-51 pilot saying that they couldn't turn fight with a BF109.


My point is, that i strongly disagree with you. You have no proof that the P-51D or B couldn't turn with BF109's."

_______________________________________________

Well Maple, I don't know if this is really proof or not, but I think it sure as heck beats anything you, or other like-minded individuals, have added to this discussion so far. The December 1999 issue of 'Flight Journal' ran an article concerning the then just restored Bf-109 G-10 'Black 2'. This plane was restored by Hans Dittes and is owned by 'The Old Flying Machine Co. The flight test was done by the late Mark Hanna and what really makes this article interesting, and pertinent to this discussion, is that they actually carried out a couple of mock dogfights against both a Spitfire and a P-51D.

On page 32 under 'Contemporary Comparisons' Mark Hanna writes:

"First, let me say that all my comments are based on operations below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding 40 inches and 2,600 rpm. I like the airplane, and with familiarity, I think it will give most of the Allied fighters I have flown a hard time--particularly in a close, hard-turning, low-speed dogfight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of fight because the roll rate and slow-speed characteristics are much better. The Spitfire, on the other hand, is more of a problem for the 109, and I feel it is a superior close-in fighter. Having said that, the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot ability would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds, the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept its energy up and refused to dogfight, it would be relatively safe against the 109."

I highly recommend this issue of Flight Journal to anyone interested in this discussion. After reading it, I would have to conclude that the current FM in AEP does not represent the true low speed handling of the P-51D. Hopefully this is being addressed in the new upcoming patch.

Regards,
Stachl

LeadSpitter_
05-10-2004, 09:00 PM
p51 definatly needs less elevator control so do all the ki84 yaks laggs and migs especially at higher speeds, the p38 needs slightly more so do the 190s.

The p51 is extremely manuverable in this game especially at high speed. If they correct the gun strengths the p51d will be quickly dubbed super noob plane.

Only if this sim had correct dive rates, weight seems to have no effect in dive accelaration in this sim. The lighter more power to weight aircraft are out running the heavies in dives until they reach thier max breakup speed only then the heavy weights can pull away and they bleed thier speed right away even from trimming out into a gentle level flight out of the dive. The lighter aircraft will catch immediatly.

Dont get me wrong I love this game but simple things like that which were some aircrafts major strong point doesnt happen here.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

JtD
05-11-2004, 01:31 AM
Less elevator control for Yak's LaGG's and MiG's? Have you ever (virtually) flown one of these birds, esp. early models and not-3U-MiG's? The only plane with a clearly worse elevator at high speeds is the P-38.

Metallicaner
05-11-2004, 01:54 AM
I have f"cking read BLACK ON WHITE several times, that the P-51 WAS better in any way

Someone said the P-51 was slower at climbing, but that's bull****, it had a stronger engine, and at the "downhill" I was talking about, the P-51 WAS 60 mph faster.

then again, it depends on how much fuel each of the planes have selected

Someone also said that the 109 climbs like a monkey compared to the P-51, it all depends on how much faster the 109 is than the P-51 "at that time" but say they are flying at 600 km/h next to each other, or atleast the P-51 behind the 109, the Mustang WOULD have kept up with the 109, if not have getting closer to it

and at those low altitudes, let's say a turn fight where both of the planes comes in from 300 km/h, the 109 WOULD have given up the fight in the end, trying to get away, but failed because it got beaten by the Mustangs strong engine at over 1600 hp's (which is far more than the 109's)

BTW, anyone wants to test it with me, a skilled 109 pilot with me in the Mustang flying behind each other for to prove this once and for all, with no shooting at each other, just this test...

I'm 249th_Metall in HyperLobby, and I live in an area that have GMT +1

Metallicaner
05-11-2004, 01:56 AM
But I must admit that any of the aircrafts is not the best choice for a newbie

JtD
05-11-2004, 03:19 AM
A P-51 was about 30 to 50% heavier than a Bf 109, depending on fuel.

The standard DB605 engine in the 109 G-6 developed 1550 hp, the Mustang's Packard was about 10% stronger, depending on which fuel and manifold pressure it used.

30% heavier, 10% more power makes you climb worse.

At high speeds the P-51 will pull away, no matter if it dives, climbs or flies level.
Later DB engines developed up to 2000hp, which is more than the Packard could produce.

A slow turnfight should end in favour of the 109, it has a similar wingloading but a better liftloading and a better powerloading. That makes it turn tighter and faster. Basically the P-51 has a high speed wing, the Bf a low speed wing.

Forgotten Battles is not the right place to prove anything, as modelling sometimes is wrong. So is the low speed model of the P-51, at least in relation to the 109's.

Don't know what's wrong with considering the P-51 superior to the Bf 109 G-6 but admitting that climb and low speed turning were inferior.

Abbuzze
05-11-2004, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Metallicaner:
I have f"cking read BLACK ON WHITE several times, that the P-51 WAS better in any way

Someone said the P-51 was slower at climbing, but that's bull****, it had a stronger engine, and at the "downhill" I was talking about, the P-51 WAS 60 mph faster.

then again, it depends on how much fuel each of the planes have selected

Someone also said that the 109 climbs like a monkey compared to the P-51, it all depends on how much faster the 109 is than the P-51 "at that time" but say they are flying at 600 km/h next to each other, or atleast the P-51 behind the 109, the Mustang WOULD have kept up with the 109, if not have getting closer to it

and at those low altitudes, let's say a turn fight where both of the planes comes in from 300 km/h, the 109 WOULD have given up the fight in the end, trying to get away, but failed because it got beaten by the Mustangs strong engine at over 1600 hp's (which is far more than the 109's)

BTW, anyone wants to test it with me, a skilled 109 pilot with me in the Mustang flying behind each other for to prove this once and for all, with no shooting at each other, just this test...

I'm 249th_Metall in HyperLobby, and I live in an area that have GMT +1<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you have a real 109 and a P51 at home http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif -
As you allready said before, it depends to the situation, but you mentioned very often the 1600HP of the P51 engine (later version had even more hp..) but you forgot to think about the powerloading... every shoolbus have more HP than my car, but most of them would have problems to outaccelerate me...

for the climbing I have an interesting 100% not biased source.
http://www.101squadron.com/101real/101sqn.html

Keep in mind the Avia S199 was surly one of the worst "109" ever flown, it was a Czeck built 109 airframe with a Jumo bomberengine and a wideblade propeller which completly didn´t fit to the engines characteristic torque for example. The S199 also had gunpods, which slowed the plane down and gave a topspeed of 366mph....


Leo Nomis summarized the plane:

...With the lesser horsepower (of the Jumo versus the Daimler-Benz engine), the machine was found to have high take-off and landing speeds, while the narrow gauge of the undercarriage, along with a monstrous torque, frequently caused dangerous direction deviations on the ground. The aircraft was considered worthy once airborne but its potential for unmanageable behavior was indicated by the name Mezec which was standardly applied to it.

Flying the Types: a Comparison

Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could out-turn the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns (sic, actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7mm machine guns (a.k.a. .50 calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20mm cannon and two 7.92mm machine guns (sic, actually two 13.1mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)

Giddy Lichtman, at least, preferred the Mustang, however. (Lichtman, pers. comm.)

During his air combat career, George Lichter spent extensive time in P-47, the P-51D, the S-199, and the Spitfire LF9. He felt the S-199 flew like ****, saying "You really had to fly it all the time." He loved the Thunderbolt's power and armor and preferred it over the P-51 for combat duty. While he felt the P-51 was perhaps more maneuverable, it had an Achilles heel - its inline engine, which if hit would conk out quickly. The P-51's Merlin engine would give you 30 minutes at the absolute most after being hit. The P-47's radial could take enormous damage and still get you home.

Like many other pilots, Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. "It was an absolute dream. The Thunderbolt was like a truck, and the Spitfire was like a Porsche."

Jack Cohen, too, enjoyed the Spitfire.

Well as far as the Spitfire was concerned, she was just the perfect aeroplane to fly. She had no vices - you did something wrong she'd turn around and say, you know, "don't do it again." Not like some of these American planes. I mean, you know they'd turn round and bite you the second you did something wrong. But the Spit really didn't have any faults - it was like flying a Tiger Moth. Very easy to fly. (Hyde 2000)

Cohen recalls that the Spitfire guns were harmonized to converge at 300 or 400 yards. He also had kind words for the Mustang:

She was fast. If anything slightly faster. But I think the Spit had the edge on her as far as manoeuvrability. Of course, the P-51 had the range. So that's why they could do the long trips even with the bomber boys. She was a very nice plane to fly, but that was only after they put a Merlin engine in it. (Hyde 2000)


With the ability of the S199 to outdive the P51, Gordon Levett surly meant the initial part of a dive when a 109 accelerated faster but for sure if he would dive longer the P51 would catch him- no doubt!!!

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
couldn´t restist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FatBoyHK
05-11-2004, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Don't know what's wrong with considering the P-51 superior to the Bf 109 G-6 but admitting that climb and low speed turning were inferior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. If dogfight is just about low speed TnB only then Japan would have won the air war hands down, but it wasn't the case... There are a lot of charactertics that make up to a great plane, and you just can't be the best at every department...A simple fact, why hate it?

Metallicaner
05-11-2004, 04:27 AM
Sure, I prefer the Spit myself, but anyway, how can that thing be real? Porches didn't even excist during WWII ( :P ) and at the end it says that the 109 would have catched the P-51, that IS wrong, the Mustang was a little bit over 60 mp/h faster, and.... yes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

VF-10_Snacky
05-11-2004, 04:35 AM
Not that it really matters to anyone, but here is what I have noticed in FB with the P51D-20-NA compared to the stats I've read all over this board and the net.
The P51D is too slow, period. I know I know I'm just an AmeriWhiner, but in all honesty the Mustang is too slow in FB. The Mustang had the distinct ability to get out of trouble by diving away from its aggressor at higher speeds because of it's airframe design and the fact that it reached compressability at much higher speeds than other aircraft of that time frame.
From what I can tell the Mustang was not known for its climbing ability although it could outclimb most aircraft just not the top of the line 109 and 190s of the time. In a dive it could leave them in it's dust and escape, but this isn't so in FB.
In level flight at max throttle I have had the Spitfire mk5 catch the P51D-20-NA and that just shouldn't happen. In a dive the P51 cannot execute one of it's strongest assets and dive away from trouble because it's too slow.
People complain that the P51 is easy to fly hence it is a noob plane, but people fail to realize the Mustang was designed to be easy to fly and very responsive to the Pilot. It was also designed to be easy to manage which is why everything from Mixture to Prop pitch is automatic. The Mustang was designed for a 23 year old LT to hop in with a limited amount of hours and be able to fight.

I really have no other complaints about the Mustang other than it's just a little too slow.
IMO the noob plane is still the LA7. If you are a Mustang pilot like myself then the last thing you want to see is an LA7. You can't outrun it, you can't outclimb it, you can't outdive it, and your .50 rounds do little damage to it's airframe. I have emptied an entire load of ammo into a single LA7 and watched it fly away with nothing more than a scratch and some leaking fuel. I hate the LA7!lol

"Son of a B**ch! that's gonna hurt!"

Maple_Tiger
05-11-2004, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is just plain wrong.

Lmao... Thats your opinion.


Didn't the P-51 have better power loading then the BF109?. The Pony was also more aerodynamic. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Over all the P-51 was a better plane. It is common knowledge that the Bf109 was out dated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that's the sort of response I would of expected http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Initial climbrates for a Mustang (51 D)would be about 3000 ft/min or around 15 m/s.

For a K-4 its about 4800 ft/min http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif
So for a so called out-dated design I think it did pretty well. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Your forgetting that most guy's fly the P-51 with only 25% fuel. Fuel plays a big part in climb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

altamont
05-11-2004, 05:14 AM
P-51 is a great plane in higher altitudes. BUT its not so good at lower altitudes. usually online dogfighting takes place at lower 300m-1500m altitudes. Its not so good there. Fly a LA-7 or La-5, 109... then again Fw-190 are not so good low but higher they can run with the mustang. 6*0.50 is devastating power. If you hit at a good distance its fuel leak,aileron damage instantly for your prey.

VF-10_Snacky
05-11-2004, 05:18 AM
Yes and every bit of that fuel sits in the Aux tank behind the pilot which (if the fuel weight is distributed as it should be) seriously effects the COG (center of Gravity) of the P51 and henders its performance. I have yet to see anyone involved with FB directly clarify whether or not Fuel tanks are calculated into the COG of the aircraft. If fuel does effect COG in FB then I want my fuel in the wings, not behind the pilot. This could have a serious negative effect on the P51's performance.



"Son of a B**ch! that's gonna hurt!"

JtD
05-11-2004, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P51D is too slow, period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I fly the Mustang it is as fast as it should be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...it could outclimb most aircraft...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could outclimb mot American aircraft of the time, however, tactical support escorts or interceptors need a better climbrate than a long range escort. It's climbrate was mediocre. The FW 190A wasn't better, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In level flight at max throttle I have had the Spitfire mk5 catch the P51D-20-NA and that just shouldn't happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know that he started with the same speed and altitude you did? Did you have your radiator closed?

I know I only get caught by Spitfires if I start at a severe disadvantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can't outrun it, you can't outclimb it, you can't outdive it, and your .50 rounds do little damage to it's airframe. I have emptied an entire load of ammo into a single LA7 and watched it fly away with nothing more than a scratch and some leaking fuel. I hate the LA7!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Betweeen 2000 and 5000 and above 6000 your plane is faster. Keep your speed high and you can outclimb it. Only problem is you overheat a lot faster than he does. Still, flying at 4000 or 7000+ should give you enough advantage.

I frequently shred La's with short burst. Come in from above and shoot the engine, it works great. when he's trailing smoke, give him a chance to bail and if he doesn't, finish him off.

altamont
05-11-2004, 06:35 AM
yes the la7 is a son of a..... BUT when I manage to get one in my target and get its engine off the joy is unbelievable! I dont think the p-47,P-51,P-40 are the planes which can take the most of hits.Even a slightest hit to the back of an P-39 and the engine start smoking. Its the FW-190series and la-7 which can take just about anything. And that´s boring, its so much nicer to play online with every other plane than 190 and la-series. they should ban those planes!

BF-109 are the weakest. Its really annoying when the 109 always get its engine smoking from a slightest hit.

same with the japanese, I know that the selfsealing tanks weren¨t there BUT still its like paper.


But then again the Spitfire can run pretty long with the engine smoking. I´ve managed to hit a Spitfire in the nose with a 7.9mm Il-2 machinegun and the spit started smoking and still flew like crazy all over the sky. You dont score spits with Il-2 everyday and when you do its just not enoughhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

WOLFMondo
05-11-2004, 07:25 AM
Like many other pilots, Lichter loved flying the Spitfire most of all. "It was an absolute dream. The Thunderbolt was like a truck, and the Spitfire was like a Porsche."

How ironic, Spitfire like a Porsche! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by altamont:
But then again the Spitfire can run pretty long with the engine smoking. I´ve managed to hit a Spitfire in the nose with a 7.9mm Il-2 machinegun and the spit started smoking and still flew like crazy all over the sky. You dont score spits with Il-2 everyday and when you do its just not enoughhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 7.9 mm bullet is just going to bounce of the engine block though. Should a 7.9mm bullet really do anything bar make a small hole (or even just deflect of the skin) or a dent??!?

Spitfires were no P47's or IL2's but they weren't like Zero's either.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

frior-one
05-11-2004, 08:06 AM
i am on fb v 1.21 (only fly off line)..am i waisting my time getting to grips with the p51 version in this because of the armament of 6x12mm(IIRK)

VF-10_Snacky
05-11-2004, 09:44 AM
Well obviously I am doing something wrong then because even at those altitudes I am caught by aircraft I should easily be able to outrun or extend and gain an advantage on.
Are you having this speed performance online of offline??
If so what do you recommend I do?
Usually I am ok in the Stang as long as I have the Altitude advantage, but planes like the LA7 and 109(k-4) scare the hell out of me because I know they can merely point thier nose up and climb straight up as if they had JATO bottles on or something. With the LA7 it takes so many passes to just injure his plane enough to take it out of the fight that eventually you are going to lose the energy battle with him and be in a position where he can either climb to you (spiral turn climb) or have you on a level altitude forcing you into a TnB or down to the deck for more speed.
At least with the 109 if you have the advantage and can get a good engine shot he is out of it, the LA7 takes much much more.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P51D is too slow, period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I fly the Mustang it is as fast as it should be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...it could outclimb most aircraft...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could outclimb mot American aircraft of the time, however, tactical support escorts or interceptors need a better climbrate than a long range escort. It's climbrate was mediocre. The FW 190A wasn't better, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In level flight at max throttle I have had the Spitfire mk5 catch the P51D-20-NA and that just shouldn't happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know that he started with the same speed and altitude you did? Did you have your radiator closed?

I know I only get caught by Spitfires if I start at a severe disadvantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can't outrun it, you can't outclimb it, you can't outdive it, and your .50 rounds do little damage to it's airframe. I have emptied an entire load of ammo into a single LA7 and watched it fly away with nothing more than a scratch and some leaking fuel. I hate the LA7!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Betweeen 2000 and 5000 and above 6000 your plane is faster. Keep your speed high and you can outclimb it. Only problem is you overheat a lot faster than he does. Still, flying at 4000 or 7000+ should give you enough advantage.

I frequently shred La's with short burst. Come in from above and shoot the engine, it works great. when he's trailing smoke, give him a chance to bail and if he doesn't, finish him off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! that's gonna hurt!"

[This message was edited by Seawolf_195th on Tue May 11 2004 at 09:00 AM.]

JG5_UnKle
05-11-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your forgetting that most guy's fly the P-51 with only 25% fuel. Fuel plays a big part in climb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope I'm not forgetting anything. A Mustang with 25% Fuel is not going to outclimb a K-4 sustained.

It isn't going to out-turn it below 300Kph either sustained.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

LilHorse
05-11-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Metallicaner:
Sure, I prefer the Spit myself, but anyway, how can that thing be real? Porches didn't even excist during WWII ( :P ) and at the end it says that the 109 would have catched the P-51, that IS wrong, the Mustang was a little bit over 60 mp/h faster, and.... yes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, as for the Porche reference, yes, they did exist even prior to the war. And the guy was speaking in retrospect anyway.

Second, Abbuzze said that the P-51 WOULD catch the 109 in a sustained dive.

It's just hard to convince ppl that their favortie plane of legend couldn't do everything absolutely better than every other plane. Nowhere is that more so the case than with the P-51. This is why the standard issue joke around here for so long was putting "The P-51 won the war" into anything you could http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

Gone are the days here when the old salts who used to frequent this forum would be in a thread like this one with NACA charts, graphs, stats (a la Skychimp and others). But believe me, this subject has been done to death around here. One thing you learn from all this is that there never was a "best (insert catagory) plane of WWII". But every four or six months or so a whole new batch of folks come into this forum and start this silly debate all over again using the same old popular conceptions (or misconceptions).

My favortie fighter of the war is the P-47. Do I think it was the "best" fighter of the war? No, of course not. Certainly there were better fighters in certain flight regemes or in certain situations. But do I think it was a darn good fighter? Hell, yes. And that's all I need.

Used to be here that if you were new you quickly learned to take all your notions about this stuff and put it all in the backseat while you soaked up the knowledge that some seriously scary knowledgeble guys where just casually throwing around. I'm talking aeronautical engineering stuff.

Now it's just a "mine plane is better than your plane" thing that goes on.

JG5_UnKle
05-11-2004, 11:02 AM
Totally right LilHorse

It's getting more like every two weeks though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I don't get how people can't accept that although the Mustang was an excellent design (hey! German after all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) it didn't dominate on every facet of performance. Design is always a set of compromises and the Mustang is no different to other types.

A long range escort fighter with high cruise speed and excellent endurance is not neccesarily going to compete with a point defence interceptor like the 109 with regard to parameters like climbrate. It isn't that hard to accept - or is it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

JtD
05-11-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Seawolf_195th:

Are you having this speed performance online of offline??
If so what do you recommend I do?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do all testing offline. I don't see much difference between testing and online performance, however.

Best recommendation is probably training, don't know. Don't turn with La's, don't climb with Bf's. Keep it vertical. There is hardly more to it.

LilHorse
05-11-2004, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

I don't get how people can't accept that although the Mustang was an excellent design (hey! German after all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) it didn't dominate on every facet of performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe.
P-47: Russian design http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG5_UnKle
05-11-2004, 01:23 PM
Not enough Delta Wood - Be Sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

Maple_Tiger
05-11-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P51D is too slow, period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I fly the Mustang it is as fast as it should be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...it could outclimb most aircraft...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could outclimb mot American aircraft of the time, however, tactical support escorts or interceptors need a better climbrate than a long range escort. It's climbrate was mediocre. The FW 190A wasn't better, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In level flight at max throttle I have had the Spitfire mk5 catch the P51D-20-NA and that just shouldn't happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know that he started with the same speed and altitude you did? Did you have your radiator closed?

I know I only get caught by Spitfires if I start at a severe disadvantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can't outrun it, you can't outclimb it, you can't outdive it, and your .50 rounds do little damage to it's airframe. I have emptied an entire load of ammo into a single LA7 and watched it fly away with nothing more than a scratch and some leaking fuel. I hate the LA7!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Betweeen 2000 and 5000 and above 6000 your plane is faster. Keep your speed high and you can outclimb it. Only problem is you overheat a lot faster than he does. Still, flying at 4000 or 7000+ should give you enough advantage.

I frequently shred La's with short burst. Come in from above and shoot the engine, it works great. when he's trailing smoke, give him a chance to bail and if he doesn't, finish him off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The P-51 is faster then the La-7 between 2000 and 5000m? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Lmao, lol.

The only time the P-51 is faster, would be at an altitude of 7000m and higher. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JG5_UnKle
05-11-2004, 02:08 PM
Nope wrong again - Mustang is faster than La7 between about 2200M and 5000M.

Then La7 takes over until just over 6000M when Mustang is faster again.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

Maple_Tiger
05-11-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your forgetting that most guy's fly the P-51 with only 25% fuel. Fuel plays a big part in climb http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope I'm not forgetting anything. A Mustang with 25% Fuel is not going to outclimb a K-4 sustained.

It isn't going to out-turn it below 300Kph either sustained.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



No, it will not out climb it, but it will just about stay with it. It also depends how much fuel the BF109K4 has to.



The P-51 with 25% fuel has lower wing loading then a BF109. Pony is also more aerodynamic. However, the BF109's wing creats more lift.

If the BF109 has atleast 50% fuel, then the P-51 could possibly win. But historical, I beleave, the P-51 would have about 50% fuel left when it might of engaded any enemy fightes. Thus, I beleave, it would be unlikly that the P-51 would win in a slow turn fight.

It's like this in FB. If i have 50% fuel in the Pony, then i will not even consider turn fighting lol. I know ill lose.



There are alot of factors to think about.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

geetarman
05-11-2004, 02:15 PM
I'm with Lilhorse - I'm a yank and think the Stang was a great plane, but, come on, it didn't do everything right!

Hell, I think the best plane in AEP, only if flown exactly right with no mistakes, is the Zero!!! You fly that well and any other plane is toast, period. Just drag them into a slow turn fight, don't get hit, and start mopping them up.

Back on point - I fly a P-38L almost exclusively. It can't out-turn, out-run, out- climb or out-dive the overwhelming majority of any 1943 and above AEP opponent. After months of using it and loving it, I now could care less.

I've learned how to fly it (fast), where to fly it (4000m and below) and when to fight with it (only at an advantage and against targets chasing a friendly or on a head-on). By following those rules, I get a lot of kills.

Learn the best way to use a Stang, stick with it and don't worry about whether a 109K could out-climb you.

JtD
05-11-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

The P-51 is faster then the La-7 between 2000 and 5000m?

Lmao, lol.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must have a great sense of humor considering you basically laugh your *** off everytime I mention the P-51. ;-)

I can get the P-51 to maintain 650 kph @3900 meters with 100% fuel, 100% power, rad closed.

I cannot get the La-7 that fast, it's limit is somewhere at 630 with 25% fuel, stage 2 charger, 100% mixture, forsazh engaged and rad closed. There is hardly any difference with stage 1 charger.

JG5_UnKle
05-11-2004, 03:20 PM
He doesn't know what he's talking about - that's why he's laughing so much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm off to do a quick and dirty test with the K-4 and a 51D to see which one climb the best (groan) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

JG5_UnKle
05-11-2004, 03:53 PM
OK Here we go :

Test conditions - Climb to 3000M in QMB (from 100 M) Track recording starts immediately - Radiator closed and full power right away.

Overheat is on (only climbing to 3000M) and rad is closed as mentioned.

For P-51D-20 with ONLY 25% Fuel (of 3 tests)
Best climb to 3000M 2mins 16 seconds (270 Kph sustained).
Worst climb was 2:30 (320 kph sustained)

For Bf-109K4 with (wait for it...) 100% Fuel
Best climb to 3000M 1min 56 seconds.

I only tested the K-4 once as it seemed a bit obvious I needn't bother anymore, I reckon I could do it quicker. LMAO indeed.

So that is a K-4 with a full 100% fuel load easily outclimbing a 51D with only 25% Fuel.

I can test a K-4 with only 25% fuel if you like http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

I have tracks if you need em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif or still won't accept it.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

Maple_Tiger
05-11-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:

The P-51 is faster then the La-7 between 2000 and 5000m?

Lmao, lol.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must have a great sense of humor considering you basically laugh your *** off everytime I mention the P-51. ;-)

I can get the P-51 to maintain 650 kph @3900 meters with 100% fuel, 100% power, rad closed.

I cannot get the La-7 that fast, it's limit is somewhere at 630 with 25% fuel, stage 2 charger, 100% mixture, forsazh engaged and rad closed. There is hardly any difference with stage 1 charger.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I just took the La7 and P-51D out for a spin at 3800m


La7 633kmh TAS.
P-51D 652kmh TAS.

I figured becasue the La7 was faster on the deck that it would be faster all the way up to 6000m.

This is good to know.

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

Maple_Tiger
05-11-2004, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
OK Here we go :

Test conditions - Climb to 3000M in QMB (from 100 M) Track recording starts immediately - Radiator closed and full power right away.

Overheat is on (only climbing to 3000M) and rad is closed as mentioned.

For P-51D-20 with ONLY 25% Fuel (of 3 tests)
_Best climb to 3000M 2mins 16 seconds _(270 Kph sustained).
Worst climb was 2:30 (320 kph sustained)

For Bf-109K4 with (wait for it...) _100% Fuel_
_Best climb to 3000M 1min 56 seconds._

I only tested the K-4 once as it seemed a bit obvious I needn't bother anymore, I reckon I could do it quicker. LMAO indeed.

So that is a K-4 with a full 100% fuel load easily outclimbing a 51D with only 25% Fuel.

I can test a K-4 with only 25% fuel if you like http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

I have tracks if you need em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif or still won't accept it.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Guess that explains why this BF109K4 that tride to out climb me, but was later shot down. This happend two nights ago night in a coop.


Where you using manual prop pitch on th BF109?

Capt. 361stMapleTiger.
http://img52.photobucket.com/albums/v158/Maple_Tiger/FBAA2.gif
Proud member of the FBAA and Nutty Philosohpy Club.

JG5_UnKle
05-12-2004, 01:02 AM
Nope - auto prop pitch.

Remember - 100% Fuel in the K-4 too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

LEXX_Luthor
05-12-2004, 02:41 AM
That is reasonable. Just remember that when fully fueled 109K rockets to max altitude its almost out of fuel. I know that's not important on the death match servers.

Anybody ever test P~51 endurance or range? What was it 8 hours or so?

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Uber_Numpty
05-12-2004, 06:19 AM
I wouldn't worry about the comments that some people make, you can fly what you want, the way you want, when you want. The main thing is that you're there doing it and it's fun. It's the buzz of playing with real people online that's the thing...
Everybody gets shot down by somebody sooner or later regardless of who flies what and its DM/FM or whatever...

Infact this may be off topic but to my mind the ground is way too uber, the way it often comes climbing towards me spinning at great speed and then kaboombaa its all over the place,
maybe this should be looked into...

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/Uber_Numpty/Eastfortune_Spit.jpg

Vickers Supermarine Type 380 Spitfire LF.XVIe
C/N CBAF-IX-4596 TE462 (7243M)
1945 (East Fortune Air Museum)

[This message was edited by Uber_Numpty on Wed May 12 2004 at 05:30 AM.]

Chuck_Older
05-12-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

I don't get how people can't accept that although the Mustang was an excellent design (hey! German after all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) it didn't dominate on every facet of performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe.
P-47: Russian design http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't this like saying the Mustang is a German design?

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

DONB3397
05-12-2004, 08:00 AM
I think he was saying that the designer, Eagleberger was of German extraction/descent. It's reaching. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Osirisx9
05-12-2004, 08:07 AM
I still think that if flown right the P-63 is the best US build aicraft in AEP. I do admit that the DM is a little too strong, but the aircraft does everything else well. I kill K4s and 190s with ease.

RAF238thOsiris

WOLFMondo
05-12-2004, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:

Back on point - I fly a P-38L almost exclusively. It can't out-turn, out-run, out- climb or out-dive the overwhelming majority of any 1943 and above AEP opponent. After months of using it and loving it, I now could care less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure about that although im sure someone will do a test. I was on 161st_dedicated (great server by the way) for the last few days flying the P38 doing ground attack. I'd climb to 3000, travel to 10k short of the target, dive, attack and zoom climb and I was most definatly beating anything that followed apart from a BF109 k4. I was watching P63's, Yaks, La7's P51's, FW's all try to catch up but none could when I was zoom climbing back up, even when the sustained climb began about 2000 meters I was still going up quicker than most persuers. Granted those conditions are not a direct comparison and the fuel and load outs will have an effect but its how it happens when in the game and thats whats important.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

JG5_UnKle
05-12-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
I think he was saying that the designer, Eagleberger was of German extraction/descent. It's reaching. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edgar Schmued was the designer and yes he was German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

lrrp22
05-12-2004, 09:06 AM
Yep, a typically American creation- designed by a German, made great with a British engine, and flown by just about every imaginable ethnicity (and that's just in the USAAF).

The driving force behind the design and production of the Mustang was North American's President: 'Dutch' Kindleberger... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
I think he was saying that the designer, Eagleberger was of German extraction/descent. It's reaching. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edgar Schmued was the designer and yes he was German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DONB3397
05-12-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Yep, a typically American creation- designed by a German, made great with a British engine, and flown by just about every imaginable ethnicity (and that's just in the USAAF).

The driving force behind the design and production of the Mustang was North American's President: 'Dutch' Kindleberger... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

Edgar Schmued was the designer and yes he was German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right, Kindleberger and Schmued! Duh. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif Didn't they also have a vaudeville act?

And do you know how many generations they were in the U.S. before this team designed and built the Mustang for Great Britain? I mean, I'm of German extraction, too. And English, French, a little Swedish, Dutch and Irish. It's a problem we have. After a few generations, we just get to be Americans. I guess that's why we're not quite as aware of ethnic handles and origins; we forget them.

Which is no excuse for not remembering Kindleberger's name accurately in my post. Sorry.

lrrp22
05-12-2004, 10:00 AM
I'm pretty sure Kindleberger was born in the U.S. but Schmued came straight from Messerschmitt as an imigrant.

Schmued once commented that he had had the Mustang design in mind for years but knew that he would never be allowed to build it at the BF/Messerschmitt AEG.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Yep, a typically American creation- designed by a German, made great with a British engine, and flown by just about every imaginable ethnicity (and that's just in the USAAF).

The driving force behind the design and production of the Mustang was North American's President: 'Dutch' Kindleberger... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

Edgar Schmued was the designer and yes he was German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right, Kindleberger and Schmued! Duh. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif Didn't they also have a vaudeville act?

And do you know how many generations they were in the U.S. before this team designed and built the Mustang for Great Britain? I mean, I'm of German extraction, too. And English, French, a little Swedish, Dutch and Irish. It's a problem we have. After a few generations, we just get to be Americans. I guess that's why we're not quite as aware of ethnic handles and origins; we forget them.

Which is no excuse for not remembering Kindleberger's name accurately in my post. Sorry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck_Older
05-12-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
I think he was saying that the designer, Eagleberger was of German extraction/descent. It's reaching. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Edgar Schmued was the designer and yes he was German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer
http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

Schmued was cheif designer. He was not the only one who developed or even designed the airplane. A lot of the airflow data came from the NACA and from Curtiss. When you come right down to it, every "American" is actually from someplace else, except for Native Americans.

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

JG5_UnKle
05-12-2004, 11:39 AM
Of course not, most aircraft are designed by a team. It was more of a throwaway comment made in jest http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Anyway we are now way off topic!
Book Link on Schmued (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560989947/experiairplam-20/102-6870444-1008934)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg
JG5 Main Site (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer)
Public Forum (http://www.alucinor.com/eismeer/forum)

LilHorse
05-12-2004, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

I don't get how people can't accept that although the Mustang was an excellent design (hey! German after all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) it didn't dominate on every facet of performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe.
P-47: Russian design http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't this like saying the Mustang is a German design?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, exactly. I was just playing along. These quintessential American planes having German or Russian (Alexander Kartvelli for the P-47) designers. In a way that's what sorta makes 'em quintessentially American.

LilHorse
05-12-2004, 11:52 AM
The P-40 design came straight from "Berlin". Get it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

JtD
05-13-2004, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maple_Tiger:

I figured becasue the La7 was faster on the deck that it would be faster all the way up to 6000m.

This is good to know.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should download IL-2 compare, link should be in the "Sturmovik Essentials" thread. It gives you a good overview, esp. as far as speed is concerned. I wouldn't rely on climb and turn tables, though.

If you had a look at this, you'd already know about good Mustang performance around 4000. Problem for the La is it has to change kompressor gear at about 4000.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>WOLFMondo:

I was on 161st_dedicated (great server by the way) for the last few days flying the P38 doing ground attack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Witnessed that and was seeing you were going to win the server singlehandedly, so I moved into place to intercept with a 109 G-10, but you didn't show up anymore. There were just IL-2's, La and P-51's coimg in to shoot me down. P-38 is a great plane at low altitudes.

Abbuzze
05-13-2004, 01:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Osirisx9:
I still think that if flown right the P-63 is the best US build aicraft in AEP. I do admit that the DM is a little too strong, but the aircraft does everything else well. I kill K4s and 190s with ease.

RAF238thOsiris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little to strong? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Sorry the DM is simply silly!!
Everytime I attack the P63 with the 30mm, it is no problem put 4 hits in it from a 90 deg deflection without any serious result ( I love to count the funny dark clouds from the impacts!). After another 3 or 4 hits the engine is starting to smoke. To shot of a wing- it´s like New years day and Christmas at one day- I think I saw it one time- not sure! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif
couldn´t restist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dem4n
05-13-2004, 05:34 AM
I think everyone believes the USAAF or British a/c to be overmodelled, because in the war they were beaten by the german planes.
Technically the planes are better, but in the war germany had the experts and the experience over the American pilots. An American would be an Ace with 10 victories. While a german expert was middleclass with 60 or 70.
Near the end the masses of american planes were just to great. German economy was failing.
In Il2 you have that experience on the American plane side so the technical advantages are noticable. IMHO

http://www.photodump.com/direct/MjrKoenig/lrg1543.jpg

"I don't know what weapons well be fighting with in WWIII, but in WWIV it will be sticks and stones." -Einstein

LilHorse
05-13-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dem4n:
I think everyone believes the USAAF or British a/c to be overmodelled, because in the war they were beaten by the german planes.
Technically the planes are better, but in the war germany had the experts and the experience over the American pilots. An American would be an Ace with 10 victories. While a german expert was middleclass with 60 or 70.
Near the end the masses of american planes were just to great. German economy was failing.
In Il2 you have that experience on the American plane side so the technical advantages are noticable. IMHO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The USAAF and RAF were not "beaten by the German planes". Spitfire and P-47 pilots were up against many German experten and they held their own just fine. There are anecdotal accounts of German fighter pilots who flew on both the Eastern and Western fronts and they consistantly remark that the Western front was much more deadly for them. I believe the numbers also bear this out.

As for the comparative ace status- first off it's five victories to be an ace. Second, the best way to compare records of fighter pilots is averages over a given number of missions. German pilots racked up huge scores in part because they were never rotated out. Or if they were it was only for a breif rest and they went back into the fighting (you either got the Iron Cross or the wooden cross). American and British pilots were rotated out after about 30 missions. It's believed that if U.S. and British pilots had to stay in service as long as LW fighter pilots did they'd have racked up comparable scores.

geetarman
05-13-2004, 01:07 PM
Dem4N's post is laughable