Ala13_ManOWar

No, you can't , governor will keep working all the time to balance every little change to keep the rpm you chose. You can't control it nor directly, or indirectly, governor does all the time and that's why it makes no sense to try to "control pitch manually", you can't, not even in a kind of philosophical way, period. Still, what the hell wants OP out of that? rpm aren't still related to max speed without the proper MP to hold it. It just doesn't on it's own. But he wouldn't talk about that and just blame others about asking to try to help and understand what he means. We'll be kept in the darkness forever, I guess.

Because in a constant speed prop you DON'T change pitch, you SELECT rpm settings, and apparently now that's a problem to some people .

Yeah, thank you mate, didn't ever notice, I just yanked all over my playstation pad and the thing just flew… P.S.: really guys, do you even read?

Yeah, sure, you didn't even understood anything I was asking you, or gave any answer which were game related anyway. I (not anyone here) should have to be showing off my license every time people want to show to be more than others. That kind of classist stupidity doesn't come with me, yet people still think they're special just because they could afford a fancy driver's license. I could indeed but that doesn't make me special, nor it does to others mate. One doesn't need to be special to fly a plane, just needs to have the money… Now, is your problem game related, or RL aviation related? I think that stupid idea about you can go faster with lower pitch (which we can't control here since it's a constant speed prop) was addressed here in the past (if you think you're first to ask almost anything at these forums, you're more than naive…) and the short answer is, no, you can't. In 109 with manual control pitch you could perhaps squeeze a couple Km/H which makes no sense bearing in mind the extra workload involved and for sure absolutely useless in combat, but not in P-51 the way it is (as IRL). Are you willing to further and clearer explain what's really your problem, or you have no problem at all?

Yeah, of course mate, of course. Never knew this was gonna take this way, for starters I was just trying to gather info about your problem. And FYI, I guess my license was a present and I had nothing to do with that. Whenever you solo an complex GA with a constant speed prop (you can cut the bull<profanity> with the CSU which I don't care names, it's a propeller mate) instead of insulting others from your armchair call me back .

No, that statement is around this very same thread just probably buried deep down several pages earlier. We all have seen and know that, it was said like around December (to say something, would recall exact date).

Then again, you can explain what on Earth you meant with your statement and specially what's your point, or otherwise you're just plain wrong saying nonsensical things. Do you get that if not the other obvious things I said? On a side note, is English your first language? Maybe there's something with that and your apparent inability to explain what you're trying to.

What I mentioned, well it does, of course it does, but rpm setting alone can't make the trick, MP gives you the power to do so, not the rpm.

Nice vid, though you took a wrong Cyrillic name, there it says "Iliushin" I-16, ahem .

Yep, probably, it's being a while since I last had to check or use it. Still, I'd test that on a purposed ISA weather mission before anything else. Then if that's Ok, or not, whatever I might be able to check like different weather conditions and so on.

Probably "widow maker". The AT802 is well known among crop duster pilots for it's awful design characteristics (it's just a 602 made bigger without bearing in mind the consequences for the basic design), and it's a plane willing to kill you sooner than later with it's bad behaviour at manoeuvres.

I don't think so, it's spring loaded IIRC so you'd have had to keep it pushed on purpose for that. But it might well be mission related, hence my suggestion.

Yeah, try offline where you set ISA controlled conditions (15ºC, 1013,25mb) and check if it does go up at 14500ft or you see anything out of the normal.

I know you mention ISA conditions (hope you meant that), but auto change altitude indeed changes with the weather, it's not 14500 constant but a pressure and it changes from day to day according to the mission editor setting. I've seen days where it didn't push up until well above 20.000ft. Did you have perhaps the new wind and clouds activated at altitude? Maybe atmospheric pressure isn't constant throughout the map any more? Didn't test myself but it rings bell.

Funnily enough I always thought also it was like that, but then again OctopusG (I believe it was him) provided some info regarding the subject and it turns out type 24 always wore 4 machine guns only, while the kind with 20mm cannon was type 27, so it's not "an option" for 24 but a different type aircraft indeed. Interestingly, it was like that for other types also, type 5 with 2 cannons was a type 12 (not a gunned up type 5), type 17 (IIRC) 4 guns, type 18 2 cannons (or the other way around), and so on. They are different models, not just the former one "cannoned up", hence some tiny but still differences might appear also between them, different engines, oxygen system yes or no, radios or not, some had a reinforced wing spar or not, etc.

No harshness intended at all, just a description of a thing quite commonly seen here. I don't blame them for trying to "aim" better, but if they think changing a hypothetical convergence they would get better results, well I don't think so. True that DCS features a "different" gun ballistics than other games out there, but if something for my taste it's just more natural and easily used and "understood" than those other titles. So I wouldn't really understand why some people's obsession (not OP, who only mentioned it and probably just read some comments somewhere from those) with a "convergence" as the source of all their problems. Since it's a more natural ballistic you just have to pay attention to real life, sincerely quite easier for me instead of learning a fake parallel universe ballistics . I just said that, get used to DCS ballistics and harmonization and it really works and pays off for the effort (if it really is an effort for anyone).

First, I haven't the faintest what CSU means here. Yes RPM selection is related to speed of the aircraft itself, but it's not the only thing getting you there. Without manifold pressure you would have no speed at all, that's because all the aircraft we have here boast a constant speed propeller, and that's how it works to keep the more optimal engine performance without headaches and any further management. The day we have a fixed speed prop, or variable pitch prop, you'll notice (and you won't be happy with the extra workload). Second, gun harmonization (at least you didn't talk about "convergence", that's new, thanks ), was somewhat standardised at factory, those were the best values determined by manufacturers, and despite old games featuring that as a thing, it wasn't a thing actually for 99,999% of the pilots, since we are 99,999% of the pilots and not top aces in command of a unit, you and we all are set at factory standards which anyway is the most optimal setting for the guns. It takes some while to adapt to them but I can tell you they work since most people complaining about convergence here are there only due to bad aiming and ill firing technique, proven by tracks any time they come to these forums to complain about it. One might think all the shots got there, then again you analyse the track and no shots were put at target. No, it's not planned to include any harmonization option in the game, as there were no option for real pilots but be set at factory settings and learn proper firing. Third, they do have mixture controls, but the ones we have actually boast automatic mixture controls, either P-51, Spit, P-47, Bf109 and Fw190s. There are mixture controls but why would you want to change that if auto mixture does it for you and way better than you?

I guess that's no bug, but a correction. Those flames should have never been visible during daylight in the first place.

And it tells a lot (good of course) of you to acknowledge it .

It's you sleeping here, no, a propeller don't give you any lift advantage no matter how efficient they are (which German propellers aren't more efficient than American ones, BTW). Smaller wings means higher weight per square inch hence higher wing load which means less manoeuvrability-turning performance. No, a D-9 doesn't turn better than a P-51 except at high speeds, it's in the charts, German ones also. Then again, you agree with something I already explained to OP and he agreed in the end with that explanation. Keep reading.

In fact, Fw190's turning performances (charts for reference) are better than some allied fighters, it's just it's better at high altitude and above (can't recall the exact number, but let's say) 400Km/H IAS and you know most people in sims don't ever hold that kind of speed nor they bother, they don't even try and just pull the stick all the way back and that's all, but that's no bad aircraft, that's bad management and lack of knowledge to take advantage of that. That's different and probably here you're thinking more on another titles, right? Bf109 used to be the best turning aircraft in DCS… Until they "nerfed" it? No. Until the Spitfire happened . If you know Bf109K4 in DCS then you know it's a good turn and burn aircraft depending on what you're facing, vs P-51? All the way. vs P-47? Yes, but careful, that beast can run and slip. Against Spitfire? You're the B&Z there, don't try to outturn a Spit IX. Bf109 isn't bad in that at all, but it's portrayed like that in other balanced games, yes, but not here mate. Though here we were talking Fw190 and yes, check 190 wing load, check engine power, check charts, the 190 wasn't designed to just turn, it could outturn other aircraft at high speed which perhaps was easier when they had all the performance advantage in 1941-42, but look at the numbers, Fw190A-8 had roughly the same engine than those early variants while weight was just way higher. It's not a beliefs matter, it's maths matter. Should we get an A-5, to say something, some day it would be probably a way better aircraft in that regard, lighter and a bit more nimble (a bit), but A-8? It was what it was. And since Dora is just an A-8 in another engine we got what it is. On top of that, think Dora's best performances are at altitude, something we almost never do in sims… the inline engine was mounted for high altitude performances, with that monster speed at ground level only being a side effect, but it wasn't meant to perform at low altitudes and yet it can, Dora is almost twin with the P-51. Just don't use it to turn like an ice skater. It's like it was always said, know your machine better than your enemy knows his and you'll be victorious every time. The other way around ends up badly usually.

Yet many aeroplanes were built like that . Now you mention, Hellcat and or Corsair vs Zero? Built well after they knew Zero's capabilities, yet still they didn't design them as the kind of dogfighter some people think. Dogfighting isn't always and solely turn and burn, just that I don't believe nor I have to, I've seen the charts, either allied tests after the war or German ones (they're there, no secret on that) . I keep my comparison just for consistency sake, does anybody believe they designed Hellcat or Corsair with no turning capabilities at all compared to Zero or almost any other Japanese fighter? What could they have in their minds to do so?? No more questions your honour Then don't buy, but "behave badly" is your opinion, not how the actual aeroplane performed, keep that in mind. You're looking for a kind of combat (turn and burn, like every PS kid out there) that weren't the kind the aircraft was designed for. Whenever you want to use it the way it wasn't designed for it's bad behaved, sure it is. But what are you comparing to? Well, we were fine but here you slipped all the way. Only a couple Ta-152C were build according to sources (yeah, we all here are aviation nerds), they were still in really early prototype state. Anyhow, let's say some test pilot had to fight for his life in any of them (BTW the Ta-152H anecdote about Kurt Tank himself outrunning P-51s is known to be apocryphal… ahem…), but Ta-152C sported a DB603, so not even close to the Jumo 213 we have here, AND yes, the wing plant was redesigned (check your sources, it's not H model but still longer wings with rounded wingtips, it's a different one and since it never "flew" I wouldn't know it's performances) so it's a totally different aircraft and not just a closely related one, while D-9 sported the exact same wing as A-8 it was developed from. Assuming it was the superhigh performance aircraft they sell it were (funny they didn't manage to finish only a couple of examples before war ended, it's still debated if more than one BTW) no, you can't just compare it to D-9 straight away. Not even close. And still, I'm sure that wasn't a turn and burn aircraft, low lever fighter, yes, but no T&B… As said, charts are there, just check them, and search these very forums, you aren't the first one to "debate" this here (some folks even tried to tell aeronautical engineers they knew better ). But data is data while believes and hearsay stories are just that. BTW, I don't think FW190 in any flavour was a bad aircraft at all (or the couple we have in DCS, for the purpose), it is a quite good aircraft just meant to be used in a certain way.

True, those stand out next to other things, in still frames when you seek for it, while flying I hardly doubt that's the slightest problem. And true, a consistency might be desirable, but there are different publishers and each one of them follows their own work as a pattern, I don't think anybody can ask different people and third parties to work in the exact same way. It's consistent indeed in that quality wise is quite similar to other maps like Syria, or even ED's Channel, but every third party decides how to handle their optimizations in order to make it playable to everyone. It's not my place to tell them how to do their job.

They've to lower the poly count somewhere or even the NASA super computer would implode . After all, it's a flight sim, only in CA those details are relevant, whenever you fly by 400mph those things are invisible.

Yep, I hardly recall going "sideways" ever, somewhat unstable when mistreated and as per seen in any tail dragger on YT for instance (I have flown TDs IRL a few times, but never had to opportunity to skid it sideways) and specially… well in 2014 when it first came out and we knew nothing about it in a simulation environment, yes, it happened, but nothing wild or out of the norm in a TD. If something, I think the FM is milder, all of them are, after a while from release time and P-51 is no different in that. But too much? If you ask me I think the Pony is too forgiving compared to what it was, which means nailed behaviour IRL just harder to control on a PC with no feeling at all so they ease it a bit. You're right, planes don't travel down the runway sideways, the pilot at the controls put it that way. But a bit of practice makes magic. And don't try to compare it to anything you'd used before in PC, DCS in literally a unique software for the purpose, so it's either you know RL behaviour or nothing to compare. Well, I stand myself corrected… or not, it's still the pilot .