[DBS]TH0R

No need. I've dissipated enough energy as it is. Apologies for OT.

Indeed, nice find. That prop hanging was among one of my first impressions when I took her for a spin the first time.

Funny you should say that since we have seen the opposite from you, twice already. Apparently the document from 1944 is more accurate than the revision from 1954 that replaces it (after 10 years of service life!). Had you looked more closely you would have seen that the initial 1944 version is by large a direct copy from 1943 manual for an earlier version of the same plane. And all subsequent variants from 1945 to 1947 have more and more pieces from the original 1943 document deleted (that contradict one another) - up to the complete revision in 1954. But the latter one doesn't cater to your theoretical arguments. :) Here is a friendly advice to you: stop quoting others and selectively picking data which suites your theoretical arguments that you read somewhere and apparently take for granted. Instead, if you feel that something is off, do the math yourself. That way people might actually start listening to you since you do have some interesting things to say. Also, passively insulting people that their comments are "false and completely illogical" doesn't help you in winning them over either. EDIT: Referencing.

Seeing how there are people who say 109 dominates P-51 in a turn, and others who get out turned by P-51s which is similar to various combat reports when all variables are not considered... I say this sim is spot on. :) That. :thumbup: Fire up the game, take both planes in the air and do some measurements instead of quoting others here. There are simply too many variables to consider. From pilot skill, plane loadout to the actual controller used and possible curvature settings. Preferably record a track.

:thumbup: Don't jinx it! :D

And which documents might that be? You yourself favor older documents instead of (more) modern revised ones. ;)

Why I asked for details. TF-51D's that fly around nowadays are much lighter and faster, feature slower stalling and landing speeds due to no ammo, center fuel tank and armament (and no ammunition that weighs significantly). If one was to do a proper test, then these bad boys need to be armed and set up in war time condition.

^^I am inclined to agree with this. This document from Aug 1945. also uses the same chart, p.95: http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3842 And it says there: "The take off and landing charts can be used in determining runway distances required". It also says on the following page: "Remember: figures are approximate, always allow for a margin of safety." I know the above is speculation but there is no mention of flaps on TO, not even in the after TO checklist in this document. EDIT: Looking again at the link Hummingbird provided, the only mention of flaps is at the bottom right of the V-1650-3 engine chart values. If I read it correctly it says: "OPTIMUM TAKE OFF WITH 3000 RPM. 61 IN.HG. X 20 DEG. FLAP IS YYY OF CHART VALUES". I can not make out what does X & YYY stand for, &, BOS, 80% or something else... Now I do not wish to catch at straws here, but you have to admit that this is not even remotely defined as the data from F-51D Flight Handbook.

More details, please.

And no where is it mentioned they are with. So who do we trust? Since in the F-51D link I posted it clearly states its values are with flaps up, from a plethora more variables clearly defined. Pages 70 and 78 are not available in the link above. Instead, I see similar charts that "hold" your arguments and feature two different engines, V-1650-3 and V-1650-7. Yet the results are worse for a more powerful -7...

Yes, let us get back to the topic. Earlier here Hummingbird posted some values. His starting arguments were: To be more precise: & Since my German is rough at best, I revered to the available P/F-51 manuals i.e. primary sources Hummingbird claimed to have read. Already in post #185 I had a hunch something was off with the values and how Hummingbird presented them. First I supplied a link to the P-51D pilots notes in post #174. Now I had a look at the available F-51D Flight Handbook here: http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/p-51mustang/an-01-60je-1-flight-handbook-f-51d.html Lets start with p. 37 (document page 31): ... and on the following page: By looking at the figure A-4 on p.109/110 (document page 103/104): - Values closest to the standard atmosphere +15° Centigrade / ZERO WIND @ Sea Level and hard surface runway: GROSS WEIGHT | GROUND RUN | TO CLEAR 50ft OBST. 9000 LB (~4082kg) | 1000ft (~305m) | 1750ft (~533m) 10000 LB (~4536kg) | 1250ft (~381m) | 2100ft (~640m) On the bottom of the page it says clearly: Now lets get back to p.38 (document page 32) and look again at the 3 pages GrapeJam originally showed in post #159 which features values for a take off with flaps down 15-20 degrees: GROSS WEIGHT | GROUND RUN | TO CLEAR 50ft OBST. 10000 LB (~4536kg) | 1100ft (~335m) | 2100ft (~564m) Between flaps up and down, at 10000LB the difference is ~46m! I have no intention of speculating the appropriate ground run distance for the equivalent P-51D weight of 4300kg and a ground run of 365m on "beton runway" Hummingbird posted here for Fw-190D9. However, in the light of the "normal take-off procedures" shown in the F-51D Flight Handbook, by looking at this source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51d-na-46-130.html We can see that at the gross weight of 9611lb (~4360kg) take-off (no wind) ground run equals 1040 ft (~317m) - and fits plausibly in between available values listed above. I don't know if Fw-190 manual states flaps must be used on take off or not, but by all accounts they should. All in all that is a whooping ~48m shorter ground run distance than Fw-190D9 shown in the figures above, and presumably without flaps. Thank you. That is ~55m difference in contrast to ~46m for the Mustang. With the available info here, I think you will agree that it is plausable P-51D's minimal TO distance with flaps will be below 310m with the starting one at the roughly same weight being ~317m. Airfoils and planes are not my expertise, but I am am an mechanical engineer by profession. And I know that you need to look at the problem from various angles, i.e. all variables are important. Seeing how this is the second time you have cherry picked values that suite your arguments, I will place my faith in Yo-Yo's FM / CL figures.

Personally I don't see a reason for using lables for anything else but for what they are used now. Maybe stop them from showing up behind canopy bars and behind clouds but other than that... Fix the spotting ability in EDGE so no other workaround solutions are needed. Except he is forgetting the current DCS engine is of a similar age back from Lock On days. And it too looks blank and empty in certain areas while cities look alike, just like in old IL2.

So you keep mentioning that in several threads now. What exactly are you referring to?

Very true. Spotting and rendering are two different things. What you describe is exactly how it is in BOS, even to some extent in old IL2. What I showed before are extreme ranges in clear perfect weather. Even though it is rendered in BOS, at 9.5 km I would be hard pressed spotting a lone fighter before it gets closer.

Please read what was posted here and explained many times already. No, the 4K resolution will not fix (make it visible) something that the engine isn't rendering past 2 miles no matter if you use 25K resolution. The argument about old IL21946 solution and low resolution doesn't apply, since there dot wasn't able to be anything other than a dot (as I demonstrated few posts back). Therefore engine doesn't render anything but a blob that on a high resolution still looks like a dot. In a modern flight sim such as IL2 BOS all planes are nicely visible all the way up to 9.5km. They do not need to be rendered any further since the sim doesn't feature heavy 4 engine bombers. No matter what kind of FOV you use in BOS the plane will still be clearly visible, just like in old IL21946. Instead of the old blob/dot, BOS renders plane shape and type - thanks to the higher resolution. And yet, tanks are still very hard to spot from anything above 2km. As for the label solution you are suggesting here - none of us here is expecting to see tank from 10km with a naked eye. [emoji1]

This might put things into perspective: Fw 190D has a more powerful engine.

Source if you will, please.

Same here, ever since IL21946. Although lately I find myself using just the fixed sight to get a better feel for the shots under the nose.

I didn't say it was complicated. Just less work. I quite enjoy CEM in the 51. Was referring to the overall experience and advantages.

What is even more interesting in that video is how he fights to hold a straight line. Hence I used it as a reference when I was reviewing MFG rudder pedals over year and a half ago. :) I know the camera messes it up a bit, but God listen to that in-cockpit sound. :geek: Wish we had something like that in-game...

Thought this would be interesting to share: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2007/August/1/North-American-Aviation-P-51D-Mustang

I disagree. In P-51 one always needs to check the gauges, temperatures in particular, and mess about with radiators, prop pitch and power settings. In Dora on the other hand, my view is hardly ever on gauges during combat. I have much more time for situational awareness and only need to adjust power settings & flaps when needed. I do prefer the K-14 though.

I will have to agree with OP. Everything about this bird screams perfection. Those electrical switches feel as if I am driving a Mercedes. Fw-190 was an engineering marvel. For instance, on Anton you could replace the whole engine in about 1h. With P-47 on the other hand, this was a 3 day job. :smartass:

This is why I mentioned it: EDIT: Which means that unless Dora also took off without flaps normally, so called "normal distances" can be disregarded since they do not represent both planes in the same configuration. EDIT2: As if the first edit wasn't enough, it is interesting by what logic would one want to, in a thread where maximum performance is discussed, use values achieved with undefined variables such as power setting, pilot skill, flap position etc. It says so nicely in the POH that these values are "average estimates and safety margin should be used". The information I have is that P-51s usually took off at no more than 55" and often in formation. If we were to discuss TO distances here, then we should only compare the minimum values that were achieved in best possible configuration, i.e. flaps down and maximum power. Or flaps up and maximum power for the sake of Cl arguments. EDIT3: This source states P-51D TO ground run, at "Gross Weight - Take-Off 9611 lb" equals 1040 ft ~ 317m. How much is "just over 310m"? Source (and weight) if you will, please? EDIT4: In contrast to distance of 1100 ft (~ 335m) @ 10000 lb, this source on the other hand (which also uses F-51D data and clean stall speed of 101MPH @ 9000 lb Hummingbird originally claimed here) states 1000 ft (~ 305m) ground run distance @ 9000 lb.

Interesting. Also, since TO distances were compared in this thread (F-51D GrapeJam posted shows ~1100ft and P-51D POH shows ~1400ft), it is worth noting that P-51s took off without flaps. As many veterans will confirm - unless absolutely required because of a very short airstrip.