GrapeJam

Wasn't this chart done with newer thin bladed prop? The k4 we hvae in game is modeled with the old 9-12159 prop.

It's almost 4 months and we still haven't got the G suit, I wonder when are we gonna get it :-S

These were early P51Ds which lacked the dorsal fin and thus had lower critical mach number(oh btw, compressibility has nothing to do with control stiffening). The P51D we have in game is later model and has a dorsal fin, and could dive to mach 0.84 in an emergency, more than the 109 which had a critical mach of 0.80.

I think the new update broke spotting, now you can't spot plane beyond 1.5 km anymore.

Did the Mark V have the same engine, propeller, radiator system as the Mark IX as the late G6 and G14? :music_whistling:

And the G14 was pretty much just a renamed G6 variant :music_whistling:

Even the vast majority of 109s at the end of the war were still G6s.:music_whistling:

One of the main reasons the P51D had light was because of rear after CoG thanks to the aft tank, most modern P51D had them removed, so, yeah.

Neither

Same here, kept crashing over and over again.

If this was about balance then why is the 67"hg P51D going up against late 1944 BF 109 K4 and FW 190D9(with EZ42 gunsight)? :huh:

And as my pic's shown, the p51's pilot and 190's pilot leg position are near identical.

why should I draw the line according to the pilot's back instead of the seat? Is there only 1 sitting position human can do? Oh BTW, if you wanna talk parachute, the chute's placement is below the pilot's bum, not on the pilot's back.

Do you actually think that the the G limit increase is a linear gradient curve as the pilot's head position angle to the back? :megalol: New flash for your, it's not, the blood becomes significantly harder to drain from the head when the head's position is lower than the legs, much harder when the head's position is above. Because the P51's pilot can't lean his head against the seat like the 190's pilot. :doh:

Such difference, much advantageous :rolleyes:: Oh btw there's still quite a bit of room left for the P51 pilot to adjust his seath downward, thus raise his leg up even higher.

Yep, nevermind that in the pic, the 190's pilot's back was lying against the seatback, while the P51's pilot was not, why didn't you draw the line according to the seat's angle and not the illustrated pilot's back angle? Also why did you have to use the P51B's, we have the D model in the game.

oh sure it doesn't:

When adjusted for short pilot, the tall pilot's legs would have to raise higher to operate the pedals.

Yeah, except the rudder pedals on the P51 are also adjustable, and the one in the pic is for the longest legs position.

The FW190's pilot seat doesn't look that angled to me: And here's the P51D's pilot's seat, and it's adjustable:

25lbs boost is equal to 81"hg of manifold pressure.

Interesting enough I found this discussion.... http://forums.ubi.com/archive/index.php/t-245024.html

Source please? So far all we've seen from you is assumption, more assumption. Also you really like to push date, don't you?

Awesome! Seeing as the Merlin 66 is the same as the V-1650-7 on the P51D any chance of seeing the P51D using 81"hg boost(the same as 25lbs boost)? :p

The clipped wings Spitfire IX will still outturn any German planes that is not earlier than the 109E. The increase in turn radius over the normal wings version was very negligible, only 55 feet, and it actually had superior turn rate, especially in a climbing turn.