Crumpp

Oh absolutely! :thumbup: That is the personality of the Spitfire. The experienced pilots who were used to the longitudinal instability love it. In fact, many complained when the bob-weights were added saying it ruined the "feel" of the aircraft. The heavy buffet, short stick travel, harsh accelerated stall, and longitudinal instability will have those new to the type complaining that you "porked" the airplane. Experienced players will come to appreciate some of those characteristics which help to stay in the envelope or contribute to the maneuverability. They will find they have the best level turning aircraft on the western front and an excellent dog-fighter in their hands. That is the dichotomy of the Spitfire and why it is discussed in Stability and Control engineering classes. Characteristics that in isolation are not that desirable combine in such a manner as to play off each other creating an end result that is desirable. It is like a beautiful woman and must be caressed around the sky to perform its dance! :smilewink: Something most pilots get used to in 10-20 hours of flying it. I am guessing, but I think players in DCS will like the increased stick force per G. If you implement it like the Bf-109K4, it will slow the stick acceleration increasing control.

Yep. I never had a problem in the P-51 vs K4. I shot down three of em on sunday in close quarter dogfights in the Mustang. Now, I baby the engine, watch my temps, and only use WEP in an emergency. I also enter turns coordinated and save power reserve for maneuvering.

Absolutely. Yo-Yo's interpretation of the P-51 is fantastic.

Here is an idea of the P-51's Stick Force per G range: You can see at a mid range CG location of 25.5% MAC, the Stick Force Per G is 8.3lbs/g. With that you are going to experience some two handed dive recoveries. That is a not a bad though. At the forward limit of 21.5% MAC, the Stick Force per G would be even larger and one could easily experience stick forces in excess of 90lbs. That article is a great piece of work. At face value some things are not representative of a World War II Operational aircraft but data points do give us some very good measured data points which can be converted to other conditions. Flight test comparison_P-47_P-51_Corsair_Hellcat (1).pdf

It is not a static quality. You can think of the CG limits in terms of stick force per G. The forward CG limit equals the maximum stick force per G the design can accept. The rearward CG limit equals the minimum stick force per G the design can accept. The POH is discussing the movement of the rearward limit of the CG due to radio and fuel tanks. The minimum stick force per G limit has changed from a normal 6lbs per G to a much too light 1 1/2lbs per G and the pilot will experience longitudinal instability in the form of stick force reversals. Nothing in the clip says a thing about the maximum stick force per G found at the forward limit.

Yep... :music_whistling: That is why some folks think the operational limits published in the POH are just a big joke to fool the pilots going into combat.

I am curious as to why you would think the higher cooling requirements of the Merlin 66 means it is more reliable?

No https://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/oil-temp-too-cold-what-to-do-update-problem-solved-14137

' I think this is a great way to get players to realistically think about engine management. Does the model allow for overcooling? Over-cooling is very hard on the engine and will cause premature failures as well. Oil should be hot enough to get rid of water/contaminants that collect in the crankcase during non-operational periods but cool enough not break down the lubricant properties.

Nothing Special for any of the engines.... As it should be!

Thanks Yo-Yo!

:gun_sniper: You go to SOTIC? Level II?

Absolutely!! Model it just as it was in reality! Who cares about time limits some Ol silly engineer set! :megalol:

Honestly, Take your frustration out on Rolls Royce or the RAF... They are the ones who set the limit. Complain to them if you do not like it. :thumbup:

It is more likely to fail at 10 seconds. Basically, some folks want to be able to ignore the airplanes limitations. Ask ED if they will model it that way for you!

5 minutes seems pretty clear. If you want to take your airplane beyond the limitations, feel free to do it.

I just went a quick round with a Dora Offline. The P51 is such a great fighter to fly. It really is the "Cadillac of the Sky". I love how honest the Mustang acts. It is just fun to fly.

It is modern pilots that complain....

Recalibrated using Joy.cpl instead of CH Manager.. Works now if anyone experiences the same thing.

:megalol:

The DCS Dora and P-51 simulate landings better than the multimillion dollar sims we train on in the airlines. Yo-Yo willingness to communicate with the community and knowledge really makes DCS top notch!

G-Endurance needs to be modeled! And the USAAF G-suit.... :music_whistling: :smilewink:

It is fixed

No, this is not correct and is just a consequence of trying to "simplify" a complex explanation.