Zimmerdylan

Yeah...I have tried to record tracks of my problem but as we all know....the tracks are pretty messed up. But...You are correct! I am doing something wrong. "A shot in the dark - did You flip the mixture to emergency rich instead of run by mistake?" After all this time!! What was happening was that I was left clicking on the mouse and not right clicking. Makes a big difference as the left click brings it all the way down to rich and the right brings it to run. You cannot really tell the difference of the position very easily because of where you are in relativity to it. So all of this time, this was the issue. I just tried two times and both times had more than enough power to get to 20000 and do aerobatics. This just goes to show that there are no stupid questions and no wrong answers! Thanks to all of you for your suggestions and for putting up with my many posts about this problem. I am a very happy flier now. Again....Thanks all!!!!

Before I go into your guy's question: I am not new to the P51. I pre purchased it and have been flying it from day one. I know how to fly it, I know all of the procedures, gauges, and do everything according to the book. I also fly all of the WWII modules the same way and have no problems with any of them in this respect. It's a mystery. That being said: I do, but it doesn't matter. No matter how much power I try to pump into it, it just doesn't matter. The plane will inevitably lose it all in the climb. I have tried with everything maxed out, and with everything according to the manual. Both yield identical results. A shot in the dark - did You flip the mixture to emergency rich instead of run by mistake? No.....not the problem. wish it were tho.......thx. I have a dumb question. Is your supercharger going into high? If not, you will start to drop in power around 10-11 thousand feet. The supercharger really acts very strange at around 16000. I know the power will drop and I lose a lot of speed, but it's suppose to kick in around 15-17000, or somewhere like that. And it seems to because the plane jostles around and the engine seems to come to life. However, it's only temporary and the plane loses power immediately thereafter. I have actually tried kicking it in manually but it still doesn't work. my 2 cents... I've found that with 50% fuel and 2 500lbs and six rockets, (really heavy) coolers fully open on takeoff, clear terrain, accelerate to appox. 225-250 kts set 2700 and 46in, let speed dictate climb rate(usually 1500- 2500fpm) keep speed above 200 set coolers to auto, watch temps, keep coolers as closed as possible. the boost will stay at 46in until about 12000 ft then stat to fall, at this point keep advancing throttle ,but don't advance throttle ahead of prop lever as a rule of thumb. add rpms if necessary to maintain 46-50in, till hi blower kicks in. then readjust trim and coolers. 10-12 min to 25000ft Yes...and this should absolutely work. I have done exactly this countless times over the years I have owned this module but have yet to get it to 20000 feet. It's just crazy......... I experienced something similar to this, and noticed when i autostart I have the proper performance and when I manually start I have what you are describing. Perhaps try with an autostart ? You are in the ball park. I have definitely noticed that when I start the plane on the runway, I get up to 20000 with no issues. And when I auto start, I can get up there. But when I manually start.....it just doesn't get there. So something happens in the auto start procedure that's not happening when I manually start. And yes...I know I can just auto start but I have to solve this problem. I have gone through the routine over and over and over and am doing it correctly. I have gone into the tutorial and done the startup and still could not get up to 20000 after starting according to the tutorial itself. It may be a bug that affects certain people's planes when they manually start. Because I do everything to the letter of the book. It's driving me crazy........ Thanks for understanding my utter frustration guys. I have wanted to love this module from day one but only find frustration and disappointment in it. I own all but 3 modules and have no problems with any of their performance.

I know that many of you feel I am beating a dead horse with my constant complaints about the Mustang's underpowered engine. That's OK. But last night I finally got my chance to see if it was me, or the P51. And still, I'm not certain. It's friggin very annoying. I was in a server with another guy who had just purchased the P51. We both started from cold start, side by side. Both of us set our planes up exactly the same. We both took off from the same place and did the exact same maneuvers. I was out to see why I could not get this plane to 20000 ft. We started our climb up but the way we initially did our climbs was much different and it really blew me away. I set up my plane with 27-28 RPM, 50 lbs. manifold, @ a climb rate of 1500 FPM. He on the other hand, not knowing that the plane would (and always had as far as I knew) seize up after a sort time, went red line on both manifold, and rpm @ a climb rate of 3000 FPM. In the end, he got up to 20000 ft. in short order, while I stalled down to 100 MPH at 16500 feet. I had to give up. Neither of us made any other adjustments during the ascent. Out of frustration, I dropped down to around 10000 feet, recovered my air speed to 250 mph and decided to start the climb again. Only this time I would max out everything as my companion had. And holy friggin cow, I could not get that plane to 20000 feet for the life of me no matter the settings. What in the F*&^ am I not doing?????????? The P51 has so little power on my rig. It cannot be the DCS P51 because this is not the first time I've had people do this with me. And each time, they got up there and I did not. Each time we did everything the same. And this last time, the guy's engine was suppose to give in because he had it red lined for the whole flight. ED: What gives???? I'm not understanding any of this. I hate this plane at this point. I know that I'm not doing anything wrong. Yet I have had power issues from the first day I have flown it. I fly every other WWII module by the book and they're all perfectly the way people say that their suppose to be. But the P51 has always stalled out, under performed, and been a royal pain in my a$$ from the beginning. I know that others seem to be able to get this plane to do something, I'm not doing anything different than they are, yet my module on my rig has never performed as well as any other P51. It's annoying beyond words, and frustrating to the point where I'll just fly the thing into the ground every time I take off just because I hate flying it. Is there anything at all that anyone can think of that would make this module itself not perform as well on any given rig? I cannot think of anything but maybe someone else can. I had my companion observe me last night, and I had everything set the exact way he had his, yet this plane was not performing but a fraction as well as his. It's mind blowing.

I do not see all that much whining going on in this thread. I personally am only driving home the point that the P51 is completely outclassed by the axis planes. That's not whining at all. It's just the facts. In DCS there has to be a strongest, and a weakest. The P51 is the weakest. I believe that many here feel that way. I'm not asking ED to fix the issue because it doesn't need fixing. It is what it is. And for ED to make it the superior plane because of complaints would only create the void of another plane becoming the weak plane. And then people would complain about that. I personally have no issues with the P51 being what it is in DCS. Edit: I do have issue with the fact that you can run out of ammo trying to kill an enemy plane, even when your pounding them with lead. That's a bit much, and certainly should be corrected in my opinion. But I believe that many people know the Mustang as the heroic plane that won the skies of WWII for America from movies and documentaries and to have it be the way it's portrayed by DCS kind of berates that in their eyes. Whether it is true to history, I really could not say as I was not there. But I do know how it measures up in DCS. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't fly it. And if asked, I give my honest assessment of the plane. It's underpowered and does not perform as well as any of the other 3. That's all.

This video is the best I've seen for help learning it.

Try going back and turning the FFB on, getting out of the game, then going back in , turning it off again, and going back out of the game. Then come back in. Sometimes it doesn't switch off correctly. It may not work, but it may work. It has for me in the past. But yes...the issue is quite annoying. Especially what trigen is talking about. It'll get fixed.

I think that people go play C.O.D. or Battlefield with that mindset. At least half of the people that I know who fly the DCS servers are most definitely looking to get back to base safely. Myself included. Just look at all of the YouTube vids of dogfights. A majority of them come back and land afterward. What I am saying, and I believe that a majority of others believe to be true is that I bring the P51 back a lot less often than I do the Axis planes. I cannot really speak to the Spitfire at this point because it's still early in it's development and has issues. Between the overheating and other issues, I don't fly it air to air all that often. But as it stands right now, I know the plane that will bring me home the safest is the 109. The plane that I will get torn apart in a majority of the time is the P51. This may or may not be the case for others, but it's my experience. And judging by the number of folks not flying the P51 in the servers, ad the negative feedback I get about the P51 on TS, I would have to say that it's a pretty common scenario.

Exactly what I have been saying for a long time. I seem to get a lot of flack for it but it's absolutely true.

When I was a little boy, we lived right at the end on one of the runways at Right Patterson AFB. At that time there were still a fair number of F86's flying in and out of there. I remember that you could always tell the F86 no matter what angle you saw it from because of the long trail of black smoke. Sometimes it was pretty black, and others it was not as easy to see. But it was always there.

Yeah....I've taken this into consideration. I'm wondering what the future will bring for the Spitfire. As it stands, I don't really fight in it. I find it has a lot of issues that I personally (mind you, this says me personally, not the whole ED community)do not want to deal with in air to air. But all of that may change in the end. I don't mind that it's slower than the Axis planes because it still flies circles around the Mustang and can out turn the 109. But none of us know what the final release will look like. From what I understand, we don't really know what the P51 will look like when the Normandy map is released. It seems that there are many changes in store. But I have to say that the 109 is clearly the king of the DCS skies at this point.

What do you suppose happened???

You may be on to something with this statement. When you are going up against the AI 109 in the spitfire, you pretty much bring the fight into the Spitfire's element as the 109 will relentlessly hound the Spitfire in closed combat. In the servers, it may be easier for the 109 to take the advantage because of the slowness of the Spitfire. And yes, you pass out pretty easily in the Spitfire, and overheating is certainly a problem for many fliers too. So you may be on to something. But the P51 isn't going to do any better. I may just stick with the 109 for all of this. I know it's not going to fail me.

saburo_cz: "do not forget that on-line playing has nothing to common with real WWII air battles" <<<<<<<< True story.:megalol:

I would have to disagree with you on this. The P51 is substandard at any altitude in DCS. I can tear up the p51 at 20,000 as easily as 3000 with the 109. It's terribly underpowered (comparatively speaking) and not nearly as maneuverable as the other planes. Plus, as soon as the 109's attack, they're going to drop down to low altitude like they originally did in the war. The difference will be that the DCS pilots all are adept with the 109 and are pretty much able to take down p51s like flies. I'd be willing to bet that if they don't modify the P51, there will be major complaints about the whole deal. Unless ED changes the flight model and effectiveness of the weaponry, it will be the same old same old. Just go on any server. You don't see any P51's in the air to air for a reason. I know only a few people who bother with it any more. Please understand that I am not complaining about this. It's just the hard truth for some people, the DCS P51 is the least effective fighter (by far) that's available. There has to be a best, and worst in anything. The P51 has unfortunately taken the spot of least effective in DCS. Whether this is true to reality, I do not know. It really doesn't matter. But it is the least versatile in this sim. At any altitude......

This feature has always been problematic in the Mi8. It worked for a time, and then after an update, it stopped working, then they fixed it but not completely. Troops would not embark if they were under fire or if enemy were within firing distance, and then several updates ago, it went away again. It is also messed up for the Huey. I rarely fly the Mi8, partly because of the lack of this feature. I don't even use it as a troop transport in mission I create because it's pretty jacked all the way around on this. Too bad.................It's a nice module other than this issue, but unfortunately, its the feature I used most with it.

Wow......There certainly are a lot of different opinions on this. It goes to show how everyone is different when it comes to these details. I'll probably be skewered to death for this but when I saw the trailer for the Spitfire, I was totally turned on by the dirt and grease that was in the corners of the windshield. It looked great to me and added to the feeling of being enclosed in the cockpit by making the glass border more apparent. It was similar to the Mustang in that respect. But to me, but it looked better. So I was sold on that. It seems that others aren't so enthused about it. I have to say that I was disappointed by the lack of it when I first loaded the plane up and got in. As far as the canopy. I don't ever think of any Module in DCS as being "realistic". I watch all of these arguments about realism, authenticism, whatever and kind of chuckle to myself. These modules are a series of digital algorithms, numbers, and data. That's about as far from realism as you can get. It's not real. And to my mind, DCS decides what they feel if appropriate for whatever. I offer my feedback as to what I feel is right or not but it boils down to opinion in the end. Much of the time I see what people argue is not realistic or up to standard and DCS doesn't correct them. And in fact I have seen pages and pages of heated argument about the realism of a small detail, and in the end, it never got addressed. Probably because ED saw the whole thing a bit differently. Arguing whether an electronic rendition of a plane is real or not down to the level of detail I see it argued here at times seems kind of silly to me. So I gave up on arguing it too much. I fly the Gazelle a lot of the time. It's windshield is covered in dirt and dust. At first it was kind of annoying, but now I rather enjoy that it's there. I remember when the F86 had that god awful glare on it's bubble. There were times where you couldn't see anything but a white and grey sheen when you tried to look out of the top of your AC. It was not a case of realism, it was just too hard to do anything with that glare. I also remember the Huey having issues with debris on the glass and the protest that ensued. In all of the cases, the modules all ended up pretty OK in the end. So I'm not at all concerned with whether it's realistic or not, or whether it's going to be fixed. Just my 2 cents..............................

That's my point in my post. It seems that in the DCS Spitfire, even minimal overworking results in a catastrophic failure. And although running the engine at lower speeds and higher RPM or whatever isn't good for it and will lead to failure (According to Chuck's guide we're looking at minutes, not seconds), in DCS it's almost instant catastrophic punishment. I am not going to argue physics or the power of the Merlin engine, or it's failures. But common sense tells me that if this were actually an issue for the Spitfire in reality, it would be documented somewhere, or the pilots in documentaries would point it out, or even the knowledge that the Germans exploited such a big weakness. But I have searched and found none of this. Plus, if it were that bad that you could only climb for a few seconds before your engine started dying, there would have been a fix pretty quickly as in war, you cannot afford such a weakness. So although physics plays the biggest part of all of this, common sense plays just as big a part in figuring out the limitations of this plane.

I also have the X52 and have actually solved this problem if you are interested. I started by putting Vasoline on the bottom of the round quarter cup that's seated in the receptacle where the stick goes into the main box. It worked for a short time and made everything very smooth. But Vasoline seems to get whiped to the side after a bit and not lubricate very well, so you are back to that sticky feeling when you are doing precision maneuvering. So I went to axle grease. And it did a little better but I found something that works like a charm and I have not had to re apply. You take axle grease and mix in graphite with it and put it on. I have had it there for over a year and never had the problem again. In fact, I am not fond of the low tension in my X52 and have a washer inserted between the spring and the stick to make it much more tight and it still works very smoothly with the lubricant. Give it a try and you'll feel a big difference. :joystick:

Very cool! Thanks!

This thread gives me an opportunity to address my questions about this subject. A few days ago someone posted about the oil overheating while in steep climbs for very short times. He posted a track and indeed was only in the climb for a few seconds and the engine started smoking. I myself have had this issue while going air to air with the 109. It seems that the very first time I try to climb with him, I start smoking. I understand that people are saying that going under 180 with my RPM, and manifold too high will do this. But it always seems like an immediate catastrophe. Within 2 or 3 seconds, the engine seems like it's toast. The funny part of it is that I can continue the fight and usually down the 109. But in the end, I'm smoking most of the time. This is not a bit too sensitive? I know that I have watched videos of others who shoot down the 109 and they do the exact climb that I do to catch it in a stall and their engine oil doesn't seem to overheat. So what is the solution to this? I know that when I'm in a 109 and I encounter a Spitfire, all I do is get a little energy and go straight up. At least 50% of the time the Spitfire will start to smoke. And of course this does not work against the AI for obvious reasons. I have very few problems flying the Spitfire, but this is a huge problem for me. And, maybe because I'm doing something wrong, but it seems a bit extreme to me. I know that the guy who posted the thread on this gave up in frustration on asking about it because he was told nothing was wrong. So if this is the case, what is the correct way to do this without my engine smoking. Now....When I'm flying the Spitfire. Say I'm climbing at around 1500 FPM. My speed can be up around 220 mph, my Prop is @ 2700-2800, and my Manifold is around say 4-8 (really makes no difference). I look at my oil temp and it's between 85-90. I can reduce my climb rate but it does not seem to affect the oil temps. I can reduce my RPM, and my manifold and everything stays pretty much the same. I can even be in level flight, with my RPM @ 2700, Manifold at 6 and speed at 200, and my oil pressure will still be above 80. Sometimes I look at it and it's just below 80 and I haven't changed a thing. From everything I have read, the Oil temps need to stick around 80. Bottom line for me is that whether I'm a complete ignoramus or the plane is not right, I cannot figure the oil pressure out to save my life because it doesn't have a set behavior pattern the way I'm using my settings right now.

Could you guys maybe stick this thread up with the Sticky posts so that it's right there for beginners and those of us who want to reference it from time to time? You got to admit......It's very helpful.

While people have the choice to quit or stay if an employer is asking too much, it's not always as easy as people think to just walk away from a job like that. Many people who work in these places cannot afford to quit and are under qualified to do much else. While they do pay competitively for the worker base they hire, they are relentless in the way they treat their employees much of the time. They ask a lot more from them that many of you may think. I worked in a warehouse for Target's on line stores several years ago as a seasonal worker. It seemed like a great thing at the time. Was extra money for Christmas. Seemed pretty cut and dry, and they said that it was a great opportunity. I had no intention of staying on after the holidays as I didn't need the work. I was just more curious than anything. But I soon realized how demanding and heartless these huge corporations could be. To start with, they gave me test to see how well I could handle my tasks. The test in question was not really hard at all, although quite a few applicants failed it. Basic math, spelling, mechanical puzzle stuff. Nothing that any high school kid couldn't pass. After I was tested, I was taken to another waiting room where they weeded out the people they didn't feel were right for them. They had live interviews where you sat at a desk and answered questions about why you wanted to work there (odd for seasonal if you ask me) and what you would be willing to do at your job. And of course they gave you a test questioning your morals and if you were a tattle tale. Needless to say that the whole thing was set up to pick out the people who would make the least amount of waves, work the hardest, do whatever they were asked to do, and report any bad conduct. It was so painfully obvious that they were looking for work horses. The job itself entailed walking between 18-30 miles every shift. Loading carts, cutting a lot of boxes, and restocking inventory. The warehouse I was in was 2 million square feet, situated on 4 floors of metal grate walkways and shelves. On top of your 18-30 miles of walking, much of it was up and down flights of stairs. My first 2 weeks were probably the most painful of my whole work career ever. Including my military service where I went through both Air Assault School, and jump school. My feet were covered in blisters that first night. I got home, soaked them in salt, cleaned em up, and went back for more pain the next night. It was truly something. And you did not stop moving no matter what. The work conditions weren't great. The shifts were set up in 10 hour runs. And yes...you still did 5 days a week. But it was set up so that they divided the work weeks up into odd hours so that they could pull more than 40 hours out of you and not have to give you over time. It was very screwy. And of course, you could protest, or report them but they had a whole line of lawyers right there to smooth it all over for them. I remember having a 4 hour class at my orientation where they made it very clear that if we got out of line, or if we talked about anything that went on inside the pant to anyone on the outside, or if we even breathed the word “Union”, they'd take legal action against us. And in fact, they made all of us sign gag orders. And I know that it meant nothing, but the average person with no real education doesn't. So people were really scared of them. Cameras down every isle. You were never alone. They monitored everything you did all of the time. Very 1984. I quit the job around Thanksgiving when they asked for volunteers to work Thanksgiving day. They told us there would be overtime. So I signed up. The next paycheck I had tallied that I was going to get 16 hours over time. Not so. They rearranged my hours so that I got only 4 hours over time. I was furious. And so was everyone else who worked that Thanksgiving. I went to the office and asked for an explanation and they gave me some ridiculous story about how they put so many hours on last week and the overtime didn't kick in until this that and the other. I was pi$$ed. At the end of the shift, you were suppose to turn in your ID card. I turned mine in in 3 pieces. I had cut it up with scissors. I handed it to the shift boss and asked her how she slept at night knowing how her employer and her exploited people who they knew weren't going to protest. And I left. They followed me to my car and actually asked me to stay. They told me that they were going to hire me full time after the holidays. With a pay raise. I got in my car and told em “My soul isn't for sale”. But the bottom line here is that even though the others knew they were being cheated and it was probably illegal. They were not about the say or do anything. They could not afford to lose the job, and were afraid of Target. I get that. All I can say is....Thank god I have options in life.

Hmm.....I was in the Nevada map last night and got shot by a SAM in the Gazelle. Poof.....completely disappeared. Just a black puff of smoke and it was gone exactly like you are describing. I restarted the mission, got hit a second time and it was exactly the same. I wonder if it's a bug? I'm use to seeing my AC careen to the earth in a crumpled mass.

If you are going to get a Warthog HOTAS soon. Then your X45 shouldn't be a factor in determining whether you purchase helos or not. Especially since you said that you also have rudder pedals. You are all set to fly helos amigo. Picking any module is a very personal thing. I know that I have purchased modules half heartedly on the advice of others and they have never made it on to the runway really. So what's good for me may be a disappointment for you. So it's hard to give advice on something like that. What I can tell you is that the 109 is hands down much better than the P-51. I love the P-51 as a fighter and purchased it pre release. Now I never really fly it because every WWII module released since feels, and performs (IMO) better than the P-51. But again.....You should be your own judge. I usually don't come to the forums for those kinds of answers. TS and the servers are a much better indication of what's what. You don't even have to ask, just look at what people are flying and listen in on what they're saying. You will see definite trends about what's good and what people are not so happy about. Forums are too political for such things.

I read that post. I'm of the "Lets wait and see" school of thought. As it stands, I know lots of people who are pretty disenchanted with the P51. Me being one of them. I sincerely hope that we get something that's competitive with the other WWII planes in DCS. I love the P51 but I won't take the ED, P51 out and fight with it. Not air to air anyway. If DCS charges for it (I'm thinking they're aren't inclined to do that after reading the other thread). But if they did, I'd pass. I purchased it once already and it was not up to standard. I have accepted that about it. But would not pay twice for something that I feel I should have gotten the first time around. I love ED and appreciate what they've done for fight simming. But the P51 is where we seem to have a difference of opinion.