Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
I haven't notice as I don't let P-51 to go so low speed first :D, but engine stalls makes aircraft to drop a wing, and yes that's because engine torque. Try stalling with idle engine, you'll see how mild stalls are. That two points are stated in P-51 handbooks.I'm sure many of you have noticed that as the P-51 approaches its stall speed it rolls over rapidly (snap roll).Going on a hunch here....does the engine torque cause this effect as rudder authority is limited due to low airspeed?
Also, snap roll is an aerobatic manoeuvre and has nothing to do with engine stalls. A snap roll is a prohibited aerobatic manoeuvre for P-51 (but you can try in DCS as you don't pay the bills :smartass:) where you stall aircraft intentionally while in flight by suddenly pulling full stick back while kicking one pedal at the very same time, one wing stalls violently so a real "snap roll" is produced. Stopping roll at the time you desire (say fully horizontal again) is a really hard to master thing aerobatic pilots has to work. You have to fly at the right speed or it won't work at all even pulling/kicking controls.
Here, first manoeuvre, 0:12, that's a snap roll,
S!
-
Keeping on topic. Dora is awesome :lol:. Talking about manoeuvring speeds, this is an unintentional test happening a few days ago while testing flying some DCS newbies. 11:20 You can see how Dora easily outmanoeuvres P-51 at high speed and then keeping turn looses energy to see P-51 outmanoeuvring Dora. DCS 1.5.3, I don't see a change,
S!
-
1
-
-
True OT, I realized last post this isn't the Spit thread :doh:.
Trying to keep on topic about server dogfighting :music_whistling:, so your point is ED should try to balance the game to keep some equivalent performance in both sides. I don't like any kind of balance, that remembers me the old times. If 72" has a historic use I understand and I can agree that, but if the only reason for an out of standard manifold is trying to balance the game without further and real use data I'm not sure about that (while I'm a P-51 user).The semantics of all this is a bit silly. My point is simple: the K-4's got its average used-in-combat WEP rating, or higher; the P-51D has its lowest WEP rating. The result is that the 109 completely dominates the P-51 at low & medium altitudes, which is unfair and also not historically representative. The solution? Give the P-51D something close to its average rating, too. That'd be 72", which just so happens to be a historical contemporary combat rating, which is also a good competitive match for our 1.8 ata w/ MW50 109K.S!
-
But you realize the chart you're using as reference already gives you 385mph(619Km/H :shocking:) 67" @SL, even gives you 376mph(605Km/H) 61" @SL, and any of that's far from P-51D performance I think. Still something happens with that numbers.@Ala13_ManOWarYou have made so many points it is hard to realy tackle all of them. But let's try.
1. Please give me data that states "P-51B is faster than P-51D". Because that is another myth that flies around and I only might suspect it is connected to early P-51D models. Early P-51D's had problem with longdidual stability due to lack of the tail fin which created situations in which the D was loosing speed, but that doesn't concern us. We have a stable P-51D.
2. There are many reasons during the war concerning manufacturing that makes much more sense in a wider spectrum than just "produce plane A because it is better than plane B" while P-51B is certainly not "better" than Spitfire MkIX at everything. Check climb rates. It is a interceptor vs air superiority fighter type of argument.
3. You also misunderstood me. Two P-51B's in this test were using two different engines. V-1650-3 which was a standard engine on most 1943-44 P-51B's and very late B's V-1650-7 which is also the engine of the P-51D, that is why a "standard" B will not be faster (at least at low alt) than the D and this test show's that there are area's where the Merlin 63 is better than 66, but the reason for Merlin 66 aka Packard V-1650-7 is that allied plane's needed a better low level capability.
4. What can I tell you? It is not like I made those tests up and posted here. Those are not my projections. It is a data from the period. And there are tests that show P-51D outperforming the P-51B while both are at 67'hg, just as there is a test showing P-51B outperforming D at 75'hg. It just depends on many different factors and overall I think that the difference is barely noteworthy. What is sure though, is that P-51D would benefit from 72'hg immesly. Even if we take another tests that give it lower speeds.
It will still be faster than Bf109K4 which will save it's pilot's life. Because P-51D is not a low level dogfighter. And should never be used as such. The reason you see so many people blow their engines, is that they push it to 67'hg and start turning and getting at speeds of around 200mph. Which will lead to not enough cooling on the engine and too much stress.
Why did I choose this test? Because it states the most about aircraft's conditon and weight and it is a data for a test, not estimation. It also show's 72'hg while most P-51 tests available on the net show 75'hg.
It very well might be similar to what Hummingbird was arguing. Where he stated that K4 "should" fly 610kph at SL, while other tests have shows 580kph and Yo-Yo's data gave it finally 590kph. So if 'theoretically' the tests that say's that the P-51B can reach 632kph means that P-51D can reach 610kph it will still help DCS P-51 player's to have a fair go at this.
This test is just one of many and probably many more from NACA, NAA and NASA and RAF, that ED can probably acquire with no problem.
S!
-
But that's a nonsense, B model was faster than D, we all know that. You can't ask for B performance in D model. Also, is that an actual measure or calculated theoretical values? IMO that 67 to 72" performance bump looks like a theoretical calculation. Never, ever, direct manifold changes makes direct speed gains as drag increases exponentially with speed. I don't know what but something out of usual is happening there.
On the other hand, it's well known Fw190D9 was the fastest low level out there with 610Km/H, so suddenly P-51B (not D) were 23Km/H faster than Dora using 72"? I wonder why they changed B model with D or even why they built Low level fighters like LFIX or MkXII Spits if they just could use P-51Bs outperforming the whole Luftwaffe. You aren't taking some data somewhere in their whole consideration.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Luftwhiner bitch but neither am I an allied whiner and if I fight those claiming the wonders nobody ever saw in Luftwaffe you both now describe wonders I never saw in allied fighters, and that's weird because germanophile has a redemption being war loosers but allied won the war so they gave the information they wanted, there's no point in saying P-51 was faster than 109K (yes, K model only) at all altitudes but they forgot to mention all this time. Not to mention some 72" manifold would worn out engines like hell, I see people blowing their 72" engines in DCS like dead flies falling.
The 72" (even 75" manifold I've seen in combat reports) is probably a fair claim (still out of all handbooks, even 1953 Korea F-51 war ones...) but I think you're missing something somewhere with all those fantastic performance claims (the same Luftwaffe fantastic claims does, I mean).
S!
-
If you say so, all right (but I usually "trust" handbooks...), but 72" will make P-51 faster than 109, where? Low level? medium level? high level?
S!
-
+1 :thumbup:.What people just dont seem to realize is, that however much you increase boost for the P-51.. at sea level the 109 will rape the Mustang! And people wishing for a G-10 or G-14 dont understand the problem at all. A G-14 may even outperform a K-4 at deck due to its engine design and less weight. A G-10 has exactly the same engine as the K-4 but is lighter, a bit drag-ier and has the better anti fighter armament (20mm MG151).The Mustang will however fly cirlces around a 109 at high altitude due to lower wingloading and blower design. So the only viable choice is actually to increase the altitude of the fight. The P-51 was designed as a high altitude escort and not a low level crazy dogfighter. But for some reason people dont want to hear that. :noexpression:
At 21000 ft the 67" Pony has ~ 1400 BHP while the B4 + MW50 109 only has ~1280 BHP. This discrepancy should increase with altitude.
I've said a couple of times, even for a 67" Ponny handbook states below 15.000ft going W.E.P. is pointless as you don't get more HP but engine damage is higher. So, what's the point to a 72", or 75" (as combat reports says) but get even better high altitude performance? Low level P-51 still will lose the battle. If something, going 72-75" low level you'll blow your engine up sooner.
S!
-
Thanks mate!! :smilewink: Anyway it won't get better, if something will get worst so I'll try to learn ASAP.I hope you can get better, or over it ( your health problem ) as soon as possible Ala13!Having to use a button for toe brakes is difficult, but a friend from India uses exactly the same method, with no rudder pedals, and he is slowly mastering even the Mig-21 :-)
No changes in 1.5.3 for me since yesterday I tried. I just went quick mission, ramp start, but I doubt weather conditions can change that bounce. Try using keyboard brake just in case.
S!
-
Forgot to mention, my situation is something out of usual but funny thing is I still can taxi P-51 or Dora without further notice.
S!
-
Right now I notice it really a lot. For health reasons I'm not able to use pedal brakes any more so I'd to set a Joystick button as brakes. Even using button the smoothest I can (many short brakes) 109 bounces like mad so taxi is a really tough matter. Of course all the way stick back. I don't know if the real thing is like that but it's weird.
Not only the bounce is there, but now while using "button brakes" I'm not able to right turn the 109 on ground at all. I know an only button means both brakes but still she should respond even a bit while full right pedal is depressed. I play tail wheel lock on/off but still it's impossible to me right turn the 109 without right brake push :(. I know mine is a particular condition, but it's frustrating now.
S!
-
Negative mate, that's a conception mistake. @SL, and if QNH = 1013.25 and Tª = 15º C, then and only then TAS = IAS. Whatever other atmospheric conditions TAS =/= IAS even @SL.At sea level IAS and TAS should be the same, only difference being wind. If you turn off wind then it will be the same. :)S!
-
Sorry if I sound like that (or may be you read my words like thatYou know what's funnier .Thinking that using words like luftwhiners makes you better than us :lol:.
).FYI there was a time when you could call me also a Luftwhiner mate, old Il-2 Russian bias (and german undermodel) was soooooo exaggerated and evident (even though fanboys said it wasn't, and of course Ruswhiners, if you didn't knew that also existed
) I also claimed for real world performances for Germans so we could fly some closer to RL. Of course sane questioning things is fine and leads sometimes to real progress, I also do sometimes (but yes, not ALL the time, I've better things to do). The problem is when that questioning becomes a raison d'etre for some people, so deeply it doesn't matters what devs give to them they'll criticize everything just because it doesn't match what they are expecting when the reality is you can't expect a thing because anybody but a bunch has flown those birds. Yeah, some pilots left writings about their experience but if you aren't even a pilot, if you haven't even experienced what real flight is, how can you possibly know what they meant by those writings? You just DON'T (nor I of course as I don't expect a Cessna to fly like a Warbird...) so using that as a supposed prove of anything is just childish but a bunch of people seems to keep doing it without realizing how a deep simulation we have now with DCS (the one we dreamed since old times I've to say) and that you can't just say "this guy said that, module has to be wrong because I can't do it". You've to agree that behaviour doesn't help AT ALL.Anyway I didn't meant any bad by using the old Luftwhiner name, but you've to agree with me it soooo funny they're the very same people whining the same things through the years (in my case a lot of years listening to them, believe me :lol:). So you can't call me a Luftwhiner any more because I'll always look for realism, sure, but I get tired a lot ago of the full time complaining about Luftwaffe aircraft coming from some people, and we switched to DCS just to find them again... :D Call me naive, but I really thought for a while with a so detailed simulator they wouldn't raise from the shadows as DCS is so detailed and match so closely charts that they wouldn't have a thing to complain about. As soon as 109 was released I was proven wrong of course :thumbup:.
S!
-
Many people fly it, but even if still happens in 1.5 IMO you shouldn't notice with a rig like your signature says, so may be some further problem?No one does fly this module?I think no body has complain about FPS drop, right?
S!
-
Have you seen the real deal? It's modelled just like that. BUT, 10 doesn't means you're limited to 10.000m, if you go higher the needle will keep turning and as you know you're over 10K you would be able to read until 20K without further notice, as IRL.is it historical correct, that the altmeter in the goes only up to 9999m? even in old 1946 in the FW it goes up to 12K+.S!
-
:lol::lol::lol::lol: Indeed, but it's funny the first twenty hundred times you see the very same, in the very same people throughout years or in new people who take the "duty". After that it becomes really boring and tiring to keep reading the same sick minded propaganda rubbish.Because that's just the way it has always been in every WW2 sim I've ever flown, regardless of how the planes in question are actually modelled. Tedious, stupid and boring, I know, but what can you do? Bah, just ignore the whole slinging match and let the mods worry about it...I myself find it the funniest when some people start using historical documents as proof of their thesis about the flight model, but usually carefull omit the documents or parts of the same that do not support, or can be dangerous to their thesis :)
They usually pick one paragraph and stay silent about the one just next to it, quote just one sentence or a part of it, interpret in a convenient way or show a graph but don't mention specific conditions when some test was performed etc. :) This gets quite tiresome sometimes but also funny when people get caught doing this. Of course, it's a more universal thing than flight sims though and is pretty common for any discussion.
Even funnier is apparently they commit the same mistakes in quite different simulators over the simulation history (even though DCS is a previously unseen point of view and quality simulation) , that's not giving the Luftwhiners their mighty machines making them invincible even when they are obvious bad fighter pilots just because some pilot sometime said this airplane was wonderful (a great clue in FM making) and they shoot down many aircraft so modern virtual pilots must be also great aces just reading that sentence :music_whistling:.
S!
-
2
-
-
Yeah, that's the "no detailed" damage model :thumbup:. Of course I would like to see more "gore effects", but that battle damage you can't even figure out are the awesome stuff.
S!
-
I don't think "a WWII version", just when vehicles are available (like now) you will be able to drive them, I suspect. But a drivable free vehicle would be nice indeed, may be a willys :) .
S!
-
Sorry, butSS-Obersturmführer :pain: .S!
-
May be you're just feeling the different atmospheric conditions? I haven't tried much Nevada yet, but I noticed the low pressure/high temperature day in the Huey quick mission. High Density Altitude days can really make an aircraft feel different.
S!
-
Interesting!! I learn a lot of English slang and vocabulary around here with comments like that. Thanks m8 :lol: :thumbup:.Mostly I wanted to reassure everyone that its still coming... lot of naysayers out there spreading silliness...S!
-
You can only say that if you weren't around here for quite time. There was indeed an old Me262 post, it just fall down. Now with Spitfire and P-47 in sight it's time to look after Me262. That's all.and why it took him over a year for a Community Moderator to to make a thread is what is concerning.Theirs Controversy regarding kickstarter and what is, and isnt affected since the trade off to ED is also Concerning. No official statement from the Devs about DCS:WW2 or DCS:Me-262. I can under stand wanting to brag about the spitfire as its near completetion, but its been over a year,soon to be 2 with nothing offical,
S!
-
Mate this thread IS something. It was started by Sithspawn with this statement,Nope,Have you seen anything that it IS? Not even the Typical "Soon"tmJust realized we didnt have a discussion thread for this bird, who is looking forward to a ED PFM experience with this one... I know I am.There was people who already paid for this bird in kickstarter, what makes you think ED won't fulfil with that deal? ED is complying with the original RRG planeset.
S!
-
The thing is you fishtail when you mess around with the throttle instead of going all the way forward :smilewink:.I don't know how I feel about just slamming my throttle forward and fishtailing left and right until I am airborne. I prefer a more slow, straight rolling but smooth takeoff.S!
-
I'm still wondering what situations did you find where that fuel load option was a so huge real problem for you. You mean flying a P-51 and you find a 109 or 190 with low fuel load so they beat you more easily than usual? You mean flying a 109 full loaded you found an unloaded P-51 that was able to beat you in a T&B fight? Please give us some details.You can and it is not a realistic thing either.Nobody takes reduced ammunition but fuel is ok.....
S!
).
:pain: .
P-51 snap roll
in DCS: P-51D Mustang
Posted
Yep, I've use it many times in the old Il-2 years. Some times it can save you, but also you kill your energy completely so it's an absolute last resource manoeuvre. In DCS with a highly detailed FM as we have and how energy management works I don't think is any good in combat.
In my squad we called it "the drunken monkey" :lol:.
S!