USARStarkey

Right now the Pony does turn better, as it should, but it is lacking other performance abilities whereas the 190 has some it should not have. High speed over 20k is what I am refering to. The Dora will overtake the pony right now over 25k--which is just nonsense. So even at 67inches some work needs done to get them "balanced" Without the 150 the thunderbolt is going to be a less than desirable air to air fighter vs very very late war German birds. It might still be more agile over 20k, but it wont have its speed advantage at any height vs the 109K and only at exceedingly high altitudes vs the Dora. If it had the 150 grade it would at least have parity over 15k.

No dispute there, given the above and the lack of 150grade, and as you mentioned--the aircraft selection

One would hope. But with the current engine it will be darn near impossible to spot a enemy below you at useful distances IE: as significant altitude advantage. Hopefully Edge helps alot with this. ED has now admitted the DMG model has issues, and hopefully it fixed soon, because the combination of poor visibility and weak guns will make BnZ next to useless.

It also wouldnt be very relevant in the scope of DCS in most cases. The loss of HP from wear in the space of a DCS mission would be negligible. Now if we had some kind of dynamic campaign, and you kept going on 4-6 hour missions where you ran WEP for more than 5min each mission, you could expect to see that engine die withing a few missions. I think a feature like that would be very interesting, as then spare engines could be a airfield resource just like ordnance is now.

5 minutes is a limit that has more to do with overall engine longevity than actual in-flight failure. WEP power testing to determine highest sustainable power usually lasted for hours not minutes. The risk is that if you run WEP constantly you have to keep a close eye on the temps, as you are running the engine very hard and the cooling system and other components are being operated on the edge of "safe" operation. You are also wearing the engine out faster in terms of its total life span. Take for example your car. If you ran your car all the time at MAX RPM/THROTTLE etc, you will most likely not suffer some immediate engine failure. However, if you run like this all the time, instead of driving like a normal person, you will reduce engine lifetime. Overclocking CPU's can have a similar effect. If you overclock within the thermal limits of the chip, you probabaly wont kill it out right or even within several years, but it probabaly wont last as long as a non-overclocked card. In short, if you ran the WEP for longer than 5min, a noticable reduction in engine life would occur. This means the engine on your mustang would have to be replaced more often between missions. This is also the reason restored warbirds today are not run at anything near full power to conserve engine life. Pilots in ww2 ran whatever power setting they needed for as long as they needed it to get out of trouble. It is true however that planes using MW50 and P-51s at 75inches had much shorter engine lives, in the area of 2-3 missions vs 5-10.

You should maintain WEP with 3000RPM when in combat. The P-51 can WEP indefinitely so long as there is sufficient airflow to keep the engine cool. Make sure you check both temp gauges during combat. COOLANT TEMP is the critical one. It almost always will be the first to overheat, and if you keep the temp below the redline, the chances of a engine failure are extremely slim. Basically, keep your Power at wep during the fight and constantly check that temp guage, if it starts to go red, you should throttle back until it goes back down, you can then usually throttle right back up to WEP so long as you gain some speed. In a emergency, you can operate over the red line for short durations, depending on how long you were at full power before hand. This is why it is smart to run mil or cruise before fights, so that you can push the engine hard once you do engage. I cannot emphasize enough though that I run WEP nearly the entire time I am in combat and I almost never ever have a engine failure.

So a while back Yo-Yo posted a chart showing DCS Final P-51 at 61inches Military Power vs the same ww2 report I posted at 61inches. The chart can be seen here. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1577405&postcount=7 To confirm the chart, I went and did some tests, because I feel that the P-51 is under-performing at heights over 20,000ft. I flew as level as is humanly possible. Do to this, I placed a AI aircraft in front of me as a reference, and found that placing the sight on the plane allowed for extremely accurate level flight. The test was conducted at 24,000ft, above which the SC can no longer maintain 67inches of boost. My goal was to determine max speed at FTH at 67inches so I could compare it to Yo-Yo's data for Military power. I presumed that I might be able to reach a realistic top Speed at WEP. What I found was weird. Top speed at FTH was 421mph. Only 1mph faster than the 420mph listed as the top speed for Military power at FTH. (This is far short of the 437-443mph often quoted for the Mustang at 24-26k.) So either the chart Yo-Yo posted is a typo regarding mil power, which I find unlikely since he compared to to the mil power curve from the AAF report, or something is wrong with P-51 power production in High blower. As a side note, I tested Mil power as well, and I was no longer able to keep up with the AI and stop speed fell to mere 413mph- which is 10mph less than the AAF test yo-Yo compared it to. At 67inches, the DCS 51 is 2-3mph slower than the AAF test at MIL power---not WEP. Compared to the WEP rating, it is 22mph slower(at 26k). In DCS FTH is 24,000-24300 or so. AAF reports show between 24,500 and 26,000. Top speeds at these heights at WEP are rated at 437-443mph. Top speed on the posted chart appears to be 431-2mph at 27000 and some change. I will post my track below, and encourage others to reproduce the results. However, please be careful on how you do level flight. I did the test as follows: I started at 365knots, due to the delay in power onset and the need to stabilize, speed increased to 374knots due to a slight dive. I then placed the piper on the AI and flew for a extended period of time waiting to see when the plane stopped decelerating for long period of time. I periodically checked the variometer to ensure that the piper being on the AI was indeed level flight. Sidenote: I realize the Dora is in beta etc. But some friends and I did some speed runs between the Dora and 51 and found that between 24,000 and as high as 30,000 the Dora was able to overtake and outpace the P-51. According to every piece of German and American data I have been able to find, at the power settings we have in game the Dora should be quite a bit faster between 14,000 and its FTH at 18,000 and over 23,000 the P-51 should start to gain the advantage. Once again, I ask that other people do the same tests and post tracks showing the results. speed run24000.trk

Can the P-51 AI use wep?

Well that is good to hear.

Visually or functionally?

I didnt mean engine failure for that specific cause. For oil pressure sure, but I meant for other reasons. Like been hit in fights and been going back to base and then 15min later the engine just died. Ive also had runaway props that went for extremely long times. I flew the length of the dog of war server with a runaway prop just last week.

I dont know why the pilot didnt die, not something I cant control. As to the engine deaths, this is hard to determine. You can tell the engine is going under certain conditions and not in others. Also, it isnt necessarily a death. Depending on how dead, you might limp back to base. When discussing the destruction of the plane, I mean practical combat damage, not effects that happen 20min later. You might "kill" a plane by making him over-stress and engine without firing a shot, and he dies 40min later on his way back to base. In the tracks I'll put up soon, a average number of hits seemed to be 80ish. Still way too high. Weirdly, every kill seems to be engine related. I daresay none of this matters however. I could post 100 tracks and ED wont change a thing.

Oh wait, that is exactly what I said he said. Many- or some ways. etc. Turns out he didn't flat out state the ED sim was superior overall.

Nice deflection. I play games like the rest of us, but unlike some I don't bury my head in the sand when RL doesn't conform to the game, and pretend the sim is perfect so I dont have acknowledge my favorite game might not be the holy grail. So far as testing goes, I am finding downright impossible to fly with the needle on the variometer exactly at zero, regardless of trim settings. I imagine the real test pilots would have finer control with a longer control stick. I gain some speed in minute dives, then lose it again is minute climbs. Sometimes I hold level for some time. It never goes over 374 in level. I cant exceed that speed unless I nose down slightly, and I lose speed if I nose up. How do you propose I make it more perfect? Regardless of who is trying to prove what, its kind of hard to make a statement one way or another unless ED produces speed charts are full power for the 51 like they did with the F-15.

Right. Im trolling my own thread........ In the stuff posted on the Forum, the SME stated that in some regards the ED FM was more advanced. Not all. ED also has a video out there where they state the pilot anecdote is not something that care too much about regarding specific number values, but it is used for adjusting oddities in the aircraft and specific aircraft behavior. Perfect is real life.

As I recall, SME stated the ED Fm surpassed the sims in certain areas. Not all. What does ED need SME for if they are already perfect? Sounds like SME would need ED. But thats not whats happening.

Yo-Yo posted charts the differ with the flight tests..... Also when I say my flying wasn't perfect, I mean that I cant fly like the AI. Ive been doing more tests quite a bit this evening, and I cannot get the thing past 374 knots. Also, if someone else has tracks in perfectly level flight showing 440mph then fine. And speaking of the burden of proof, where are the ED charts at 67 inches for the human PFM showing that the indeed are accurate?

Beta it may be. But when its finished and whatever regime was referring to doesn't change because the supposedly penultimate calculations declare real life obsolete I don't think anyone will change their mind. Just because it is in beta does not mean the final product will be perfect. The USAF operates multi-million dollar sims that are almost certainly more advanced than what ED produces, and I have read quite a bit of pilot accounts that state the sims never quite represent the real thing.

Sure they do. And from what I can tell, the plane isn't matching it. USAAF did their own calculations and they stated 440mph, non unlike the 3 trials I posted. I think the USAAF knew what they were doing. Furthermore, calculations are just that. They are estimates, not real flight data. Guess what flight models are? Estimates. If the Fm doesn't match the RL data, it is wrong. Every other sim company has been this way about their FM's. They refuse to show their raw data, or where they got it from. Every ww2 flight sim shows variations in performance from sim to sim. I'm quite sure they all did their research as well, and they were just as insistent that it was all correct. Every simmer generation swears up and down that the sim is perfectly accurate where it counts. However, the difference in sim performance should be evidence enough that they are not definitive accounts of performance are are just estimates that routinely conflict with real world data. Everyone always wants to place their favorite sim on a pedestal because that is easier than admitting things are more complex than a sim shows, or is capable of rendering.

Something tells me they didn't stick it in a wind tunnel. Modern P-51s are not flown at full power settings. And previous sim companies have had access to said planes, nothing new. Differ under what regimes? That last comment is completely non-sequiter. Perhaps you'd like to pilot a AMRAAM up ED's tailpipe and show them how it really is? :smilewink: I also remember you saying something not that long ago the PFM on the F-15 has flaws in certain flight regimes....double standard much?

My data is quite solid. Primary source data from actual flight tests. More than one. My point about the proportions is that if one plane is going to be wrong by a certain margin, they better all be. I don't doubt Yo-Yo's passion etc. But that doesn't mean these FM's are perfect. Real life data trumps a sim any day of the week. If the real data says one thing, the sim is wrong not the other way around. People have been making flight sims for years, and every time the Dev thinks they are perfect or near perfect and oddly enough, alot of passionate people over several decades have produced all sorts of variations in flight performance. Simulators are not the final word in aircraft performance. Assuming they are is just the easiest way of viewing things. Its nice to think the games we play are perfect, when they aren't. As I understand it, the DCS FM's dont differ hardly at all from SFM's of varying quality in level flight. The difference was described as being much more accurate during high AoA maneuvers. Also as I understand it, the DCS FM's simplify the naiver-stokes equations by pre-calculating as many foreseen variations on a flight surface as possible. It isnt done in real time because it is apparently impossible to do in game in real time with current CPU power. Im no expert on how DCS works, but I dare say its not perfect. One only has to look at the numerous errors in other aircraft, some of which are not FM related-like no F-15 data link- to understand that this game like others has flaws. Calculated values have always been at odds with RL performance. There is a reason that you have to test aircraft IRL and not just assume the design will function as intended. Therefore, the FM should be as close to the real data as possible. When you have several difference flight tests, each one consisting of a average of many different runs, the margin of error due any sort of calibration becomes a small issue. Especially when it is taken into account that any FM had to use data from the 40s as well, which means any calculations done are subject to similar errors. to just sit back and declare this is the most advanced sim ever, all the real data be damned is just ridiculous.

Hattrick I admitted earlier that my flying my not have been the most straight. Your charts are interesting and I'm not sating they are wrong. Could I see a track or Tacview to verify that you were flying level? I appreciate you taking the time to make the charts, If i see verifiable evidence that its flying those speeds in sustained level flight I will drop this.

My point in my last response is that the validity of any FM is just as flawed as any real test based on what you are saying. Sure, the gauges have inaccuracies, although without knowing exactly which gauges we cannot say how much. However, the flaws in 1940s instrumentation would be an issue for any raw data as well. When making the FM, I am sure you had to use raw data. That raw data would also be subject to the errors based on the stuff I listed earlier. So essentially, neither is perfect. Given that this is a virtual wash, a nod in the direction of the RL tests is necessary since the errors were discussing would have effected all nations aircraft testing. Right now, this might not be an issue. Ultimately this is a game, and within certain limits what counts is RELATIVE performance. So right now we have a Mustang that does 430mph. As best I can tell, we have a Dora that does 430mph. Given that there are curves showing both these planes doing 440 or higher, this is proportional. But will it remain so for the aircraft that are to come? If we get a BF-109 or P-47 or spit that clocks in at the more liberal interpretations of their performance where does that leave us? the 190, 51, and 109 all had top speeds of 440ish mph-estimated and real. If in game they all go 430mph, then it could be argued no big deal. But what if we get a 109 thats only doing say 420mph or perhaps it 440-450mph and is on the ideal side of things? Same goes for all the planes in game. Perhaps you already have and haven't said so, but now that 51 and these other planes will no longer being flying in vacuum, I dont think its all the unreasonable for the FM of the 51 to be re-looked at now that the details of its performance matter more than ever. At the very least it would be nice to see a in game curve of the DCS P-51 at 67"

This is a completely moot point. No, I don't know the exact variation of the old school guages, and based on your previous statement about percentages and what you "believe" neither do you. Furthermore this exact same point would apply to all the data gathered from the times ie: wind tunnel testing. I'd imagine the instrumentation used in the wind tunnel testing that you almost certainly had to use at some point to make the FM's had to have also used measurement tools from the same time period. More to the point, wind tunnel testing of the 40's is subject to error due to the variations in the tunnel itself, the composition and accuracy of the model being used, and the absence is most cases of various turbulent effects such as prop wash. For example, it was explained to me some time ago that you have to factor out things like tunnel ground effects--from which even more error can arise based on the measurements regarding the properties of the tunnel. This means that CL, Cdo, etc are all subject to some error for anyone making a FM. I'd imagine at some point that you, like every other sim maker, had to use data like this at some point in making the FM. This means that even the calculated values, whomever they are done by, are also subject to similar errors due to inaccuracy in test data used to make them. Essentially, all of these errors, testing or otherwise, are a virtual wash unless someone has all the data on every test, which probably doesn't exist. If it helps, those tests I posted are corrected to a NACA standard day to answer the question regarding temperatures and pressures etc.

Just like Flight Models.