Crumpp

Thank you Jcomm!

Me too. I found myself on one map having the default tank installed. It was not much fun because the choice becomes having to reload the aircraft in order to try and compete with those exploiting the fuel slider. Has anyone ever ran a comparison of endurance on internal fuel to compare. I am sure it has been the argument used to justify the exploit, but the truth is the P-51 got its long legs from the addition of a fuselage tank and carried a whole lot disposable wing tanks. It's internal fuel capacity is the same as most World War II fighters in terms of how long it can stay in the air. Look at the P-51D's Take Off and Landing charts and plan the fuel consumption. Total internal fuel capacity (Wing Tanks) = 184 gallons. Yes there is unusable fuel included in that figure but it will only shorten our endurance slightly. First flight, Take Off, climb to 20,000 feet, Descend, Land. This does not include go-around or any reserve fuel. Taxi, Take Off, and Climb fuel = 33 Gallons Descent, Landing, and Take Off = 33 Gallons 66 gallons total to get up and get down from 20000ft. 184 gallons - 66 gallons = 118 gallons to fly around with... At our most maximum fuel efficiency, conducting a perfect flight we need: We are burning 48 gallons per hour at 20,000 feet. The is the LEAST amount of fuel the aircraft is capable of consuming and remain airborne. 118/48 gallons = 2 Hours and 27 minutes of doing nothing. Let's compare that to the BMW801D2 20,000 feet = ~ 6Km (6.09Km so we are a little conservative in favor of the Mustang) A little extrapolation puts our BMW801D2 FW-190A8 at 2 hours and 10 minutes for the same flight profile. A advantage of 17 minutes or 13.5 gallons of fuel extra which equal = 97lbs of weight. 97 lbs of weight = ~.4 degrees/sec rate of turn gain. It does not make a practical difference. The Dora would be much closer in the fact the Jumo 213 consumes less fuel than the BMW801. The BMW801 uses ~450liters and hour while the Jumo213 uses ~375liters and hour at 6 Km.

It is being used as exploit. Put the exploit in the game section where it belongs instead the sim. Folks are paying for a study sim. There is no point in trying to use the realism of the FM by developing the skills to turn the aircraft at Best Rate or its design performance speeds when it is just a race to take the least amount of fuel available. It is just as much an immersion killer as the first person shooter my kids play hopping around machine gunning everything in sight on XBox.

That is what I have been experiencing in the Dora since the last update.

Couple of points: Standard tankage would offer an easy solution for such options as was actually used by the 8th USAAF for example. It became the "Fix" for plug fouling in 1945. Wing tanks could be filled with 100/130 grade to taxi, take off, and ingress. 100/150 Grade in the wing tanks for combat, egress, and landing. Such options are included in separate menus for the German aircraft to take either MW50 or fuel in the auxiliary fuselage tank.

In playing online there appears to be some "room for abuse" in the aircraft loadouts. Players are able to take an unrealistic reduction in fuel capacity. To me, this is the aerial combat simulator version of the first person shooter jumping around with his weapon on full auto. Gamey and a big turn off that destroys the fun. I recognize this maybe the fun for others. What I would like to see if players having choice. That is limited by ED time and resources. 1. Keep the fuel on a percentage slider bar: This is open for abuse. Some may argue it is "more realistic" because you can only fill real fuel tanks with the amount of fuel you want. The counter to that in a real airplane, the only time you have too much fuel onboard is when you are on fire. So while in exceptional circumstances, aircraft take off with reduced fuel loads; those times are well planned and include fuel reserves. While General Aviation allows more freedom in fueling options and hence invites more inflight fuel emergencies......Government, Military, and Commercial aviation is greatly restricted in comparison. Yes, even in an market driven by high fuel prices and large transport category aircraft which do routinely take off without "full" fuel tanks; the amount of fuel is based on the weight being carried to keep the aircraft within acceptable limits and enough is carried to reach multiple planned destination (Take off/landing alternates) as well as a hefty reserve for both Taxi fuel and inflight reserves. In reality, aircraft are always overfilled with fuel whereas gamers take the minimum amount necessary to take off; turn a few times; and come back to base. The unrealistic practice is fostered by the percentage slider of those "gaming the game". 2. Modify the Loadout menu by specific aircraft to include only full tanks by fuel tanking options. This more realistically reflects the operating constraints of Military aviation. In other words, our basic choices would be Internal fuel (wing, or normal internal tankage), Auxiliary fuel (Rear fuselage Tanks or ferry tanks), and external fuel options (drop tanks or slipper tanks). The menu would reflect the individual design choices of the module for fuel tankage. For Example, it would look something like this: P-51D Mustang fuel options: 1. Wing Tanks 2. Wing + Rear Fuselage Tank 3. Wing + External Fuel Options (separate menu for fuselage/wing options) 4. Wing+Rear Fuselage Tank+ External Fuel Option The third option would be to include both types of menus, the percentage slider and the authorized load out model. The percentage slider would be included under the "game options" and tankage menu under the "sim" option. This way players and servers can have a choice.

Went online and had the same results. Offline everything is fine. The elevator feels completely different offline compared to online.

That is all you need to do really. :thumbup:

1.4 is the CLmax used by Mtt and the same value was derived by the RAE. I based an analysis off of that and the Clmax of 1.48. CLmax 1.4: CLmax 1.48 The bottom line is it does not make that much of a difference. It will not change the balance. The Bf-109K4 best rate of turn speed is still higher than the Mustangs. The Mustang can still turn at a slower speed with a higher rate than the Bf-109K4. A P-51D Mustang simply is not able to outturn a Bf-109K4 unless the Bf-109K4 pilot tries to follow the P-51 around the turning circle at the slower speeds the P-51 can attain. That being said.... It is not the machine that the Mustang needs to outmaneuver, it is the man in it. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2491319&postcount=86 The Bf-109K4 pilot is able to skirt the physiological edge of the blackout threshold. Depending the specific maneuvers and load factors used to get into that turning circle, his G-tolerance and G-endurance will change. The seat angle of the Bf-109K4 increases G-Endurance but does nothing for the pilots G-tolerance. The P-51 pilot on the other hand has a G-suit which increases his G-tolerance but does nothing for his G-Endurance. The P-51 pilot can pull a higher load factor at high speeds. He cannot sustain multiple G exposures for as long as the Bf-109K4 pilot though. The P-51 pilot can withstand a higher single exposure limit which means he can take advantage of the Mustangs corner speed. That is why the USAAF published variable load factor limits for the P-51 based on weight. Their pilots equipped with a G suit could take advantage of that G-tolerance. That means a Mustang that keeps it speed up and maneuvers is a rough customer for either German fighter. His time period to use that advantage is limited though by his shorter G-endurance. The mean is ~2minutes and 40 seconds. If he hits the G-endurance maximum exposure time, then his ability to handle load factor exposure is severely curtailed. It seems there has been some welcome changes to the physiology model. I know I have blacked out twice and lawn darted because I pushed the load factor limits too hard. How much load factor I am pulling is correctly a part of my "air combat" thinking. These aircraft were pretty well balanced combat platforms in reality. That is because in real life, things are three dimensional. That is why the P-47 shot down the majority of the Luftwaffe. It wasn't because of its aerodynamic performance on a piece of paper. In DCS we have a study simulator that is making three dimensional representations of these aircraft for the first time, I believe. The specific advantages and disadvantages are not equal, when you sum up the aerodynamics, stability and control, and pilot physiology technology the playing field is pretty much equal for the World War II fighters in terms of dogfighting. That is what makes it such an interesting time period and so much fun! Sorry for the long winded post! :)

Cpt Bryan says, "You pull the stick back and add some bottom rudder..." Yes, that is the correct control input for a snap roll.... Cpt Bryan finishes off the sentenece by saying, "AND you do a spin." Which what the Operating Instructions, USAAF Training manuals, and the aerodynamics say will happen in the P51D too. You sure this isn't more selective listening, Solty? "You will invariably wind up in a power spin." - Warning found in all P-51D material regarding snap rolls. I think there was misinterpretation on the History channels part. Of course we know that never happens! I am sure they did not misinterpret Col. Richard Candelaria either! :megalol: [ame] [/ame]

I agree. Yo-Yo has done a great job. I would have loved to be in the room when Eric first tried out the Dora! :thumbup:

Most likely the reader is misinterpreting something rather Cpt Bryan was able to perform something counter to the aerodynamics of the design.

Snap rolls are a prohibited maneuver in the P-51D Mustang. Most attempts end in a power on spin.

Thank you. Good advice. I go back and forth on the gun site. Trying to learn the EZ42 and I find you have to set up the altitude compensators correctly. I have definitely had more success with the fixed site though so I have to agree but it is very satisfying to get a kill with both the KG14 and EZ42 gyro sites. I nailed a Mustang at maximum range running for base a few days ago. I could not believe it worked! He did not know I was there so I carefully adjusted the site, let off a good squirt, and took his wing off. Snap rolls are a great defensive maneuver especially if you get bounced when your out of options. They take practice but pay off when needed. There is nothing in DCS that can follow a Dora's snap roll. Snap rolls are brutal on an airframe which is why they were prohibited maneuvers on some World War II aircraft. I have an anecdote somewhere at home of an FW190 pilot in the Mediterranean theater. He got bounced by Spitfire, snap rolled and shot the Spitfire down on the overshoot. Have you tried the lag displacement rolls? It seems to work very well in DCS offline. It puts the Dora pilot in a position you do not have to worry about accounting for the radius, offsets the angles, and allows your Rate advantage to eat up an opponent.

Please quote where I make any complaint about the FM, Solty. You are way too sensitive and very selective in the information you process. Relax and have fun. :thumbup: All I did was answer Echo38's questions. So put the anecdotes in context of my answer to Echo38. They simply confirm in real world experience what the math and science already tell us. Our physics model works! :music_whistling: Read: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2572940&postcount=32

Am I? You were making a statement that the Dora cannot win a sustained turn fight against the P-51, right? The statement above says that specifically and just as specifically it is not correct. The Dora has a better sustained turn rate than the Mustang. If you are not winning sustained turn fights against the Mustang in the Dora, it is because you do not understand where these aircraft realize their best sustained turn performance. Not a single word about instantaneous turn performance is mentioned. That is a different condition of flight.

Read the entire answer and do not just take away selective portions. Really?? Aren't you being somewhat selective in your information gathering? I had a controller problem which is why I did not start a thread in the BUG section, Solty. I was also joking with a new member of the community and did not know you were lurking in the shadows ready to have it take on some other meaning. Instead, I played for a few days and checked out every other possibility hence no bug report. Trust me, if the Mustang started suddenly being unable to competitively dogfight or match its performance numbers...that would also be a BUG. I don't know if you follow some of the threads in the community but more than one update has introduced errors and behaviors not intended by Yo-Yo.

BTW...Anybody know the stall speed of the FW-190? Any of them... Anton...Dora???? Oh yeah, it is not available. Where you set the stall speed makes a huge difference in the math. My analysis is set off the CLmax used by Focke Wulf in their engineering of the aircraft. Yo-Yo's matches close enough to return the same results for the system he is using because it appears he used some very good educated assumptions and detective work. He knows his stuff. That is assuming he is not holding out on an unnamed original source. The fact the end results agree within significant digits and relative performance is all that matters.

No, real airplanes are flown by their performance numbers. If you want to win turn fights like it was done in reality...learn to fly the aircraft like a real pilot.

Solty...branch out and learn about the other aircraft too! The P-51 is my favorite too. That being said, I know how to run the math when it comes to aircraft performance. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2369933&postcount=105

There is some "gotcha's" in the basic formula. Knowing the right units and data to plug into it is the hard part! That is the basic lift formula. It uses True Airspeed in Feet per Second (BGS) and the density found on a standard atmospheric model for the altitude you achieve that speed. You will need to correctly convert from Indicated to True Airspeed for the altitude you record the speed. You can also plug in SI (International Standard...Metric) units. Density (p) is slugs/ft^3 read off the chart. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html Area is your reference area. Typically it is wing area.

Headspace...weird huh? The M2 Aerial Weapon was lighter which caused the increase in ROF. That is also why it has slightly more restrictive burst limits over its heavier barreled ground based cousin. Excessive heat causes expansion.... (basic physics) Which causes friction....(basic physics) Which causes malfunctions.....(as the Browning engineers say) :thumbup: You wonder why the folks on the youtube videos thought it was "neat" and exceptional enough to record when firing those long burst? Not to say a fresh gun would have any problems for the first burst or two. In fact, 150 round single burst is the cook off limit for the lighter barrel aerial weapon. I would expect the heavier barrel of the ground variant to withstand a little more but even then you are risking it. It is still abuse of the weapon and not how it was designed to be employed. Like any tool, use it in a way it was not designed for at your own risk. Trust me, it is a bad feeling when your machine gun goes down when you really need it. People get excited real fast. This is a game. What are we trying simulate? How the equipment works and was employed or possibility? It would be possible to run around with your weapon on full auto jumping like a rabbit in the Xbox games my kids play in a real firefight. However, there are good physical reasons why real urban combat does not consist of jumping around with your weapon spraying on full auto....

https://books.google.com/books?id=nOVGjqUavScC&pg=SA2-PA12&lpg=SA2-PA12&dq=Machine+Gun+malfunction+overheat&source=bl&ots=sZm50YTsbz&sig=UkIkIUch3A3Vk6vRGCZ6Cc5ML4o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwionIPP-bbJAhVHTSYKHVwmD8E4ChDoAQgsMAM#v=onepage&q&f=false

BTW, All the Focke Wulf drivers I have taked too, (Oskar Boesch and Erich Rudorffer) all said they turned against the american fighters as a practice. Oskar credits the turn ability and low level speed of the FW-190A8 with saving his life over the Ardennes. They got bounced by ~60 Mustangs and Oskar spotted them at the last second. He did a break turn and warned his comrades on the radio but it was too late for most of them. http://www.argunners.com/luftwaffe-ace-oskar-bosch-with-18-victories/ Maybe Yo-Yo can ask Eric the next time he talks to him if he hasn't already.