How do I properly fly the P-51D?

[Zimmerdylan]

Hey guys: At the risk of starting another pointless argument on the forums, I'm going to put this out there because I am so overly frustrated with this module at this point that I'm temped to just remove it from my computer.

I know that ED argues that this AC is correct to it's specs and since I am not a P51 pilot, I have a weak leg to stand on. But please hear me out and if you can, help me to understand why this module behaves the way that it does, I would sincerely appreciate it.

First of all, I am overly aggravated with it's poor performance against the Germen AC. I understand that the 109 was faster, lighter, bla bla bla. But the P51 (Even AI on AI) gets torn apart time after time in every test I put up. Even the tests that I am told to try by mods here. The tests always prove them dead wrong yet people's complaints or comments seem to fall on deaf ears. I would not make this statement if I had not tried these tests.

Example: you take 4, P51's and 4, ME 109's. Put them at 25,000 ft. Put 4 or 5 large planes up with them. Tell the 109's to attack the bomber group. Don't give them any other orders, just kill the bombers. Put the P51's in an escort posture directly above and behind the bombers. Within 3 to 5 minutes, every 51 is completely whiped from the sky with the 109's taking minimal (if any in 4 out of 5 times) casualties. And not one of the bombers will be touched. There is something wrong with this model. And I (a marginal pilot at best) can easily down a P51 in a 109 in one on one. I cannot keep up with a 109 at all....ever in a P51.

In the NTTR map, I can barely get the P51 up to 17,000 ft. The thing just does not have the power. I am fully aware of technique of getting there. And ask anyone, please post a video of you getting it there from the ground. I would truly like to see it.

I talk to many others on line who fly the WW II planes and most of them have just given up on the P51. I fly the 109 most of the time because of the serious lack of ability of the P51.

This last Sunday, I went to the DM air show here in Tucson Az. I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with 2 current P51 pilots, and a WWII vet who also flew P51's. And everything that all three of these gentlemen told me directly contradicts the DCS model of this plane. The guy who takes lessons from me is an A10 pilot who knows 2 of these guys and flies with them, he has sat with me while I have flown the P51 and from his time flying around P51's in air shows agrees that the plane is just substandard in it's performance. I might ad to this that he believes that DCS has created a great some and it is very detailed. And that many of the pilots are aware of DCS and have respect for what they are doing. However, he believes that the P51 just doesn't cut it in the performance department.

So......I know I'll probably be somehow taken down a peg on this. I just don't care anymore. I know what ED says, I know what I read, and I know what 4 guys that I know are actual pilots, 2 of whom I watched climb into this plane and fly it, one who I know flew it against the ME109, and another who is a combat flight instructor told me. And even if it was not superior to the 109, it is not nearly as hard as it is in DCS to get this plane to 20,000 feet. Please keep in mind that these pilots fly out of AZ and Nevada where the conditions are identical to the NTTR map. I just cannot believe that all of these guys, and the things I have researched are wrong.

Sorry ED but the P51 isn't right in my opinion. And I'm grounding her.

 

Just my opinion...............................................

[NineLine]

I am not sure what to tell you on all this, ED did exhaustive research, had actual pilots test it out and retest it, and verified by other pilots... so I am supposed to go to them, and report that some guy on the forums knowns a guy that knows a guy and says the P-51 is wrong... I'm sorry. Where is your data, where are your tests...

 

A good pilot (real or sim flier) cant just jump into DCS, never flown DCS before, not familiar with your controls (or whomevers controls) and get the same experience the same things they do in the real thing, you are sitting in a chair from staples, with plastic controllers with no sense of motion... so not knowing the time spent in DCS by these other pilots, I find it hard to take anything from your post other than the AI still need some love when it comes to WWII combat.

Edited March 16, 2016 by NineLine

[Mud]

I remember reading a post here a while ago about The Horsemen flying the DCS P-51D and saying you can't get any closer apart from hopping in their pit. I'm not sure what more you want on the level of acknowledgement of the flight model.

[msalama]

Just my opinion

 

Yes, pure conjecture from your part. How about presenting tangible evidence instead?

[Solty]

@Zimmerdylan.

The AI always goes for the silly zoom when enemy is behind it, in which the 109 is superior. The P-51D seems to be currently faster than the K4, but it won't be able accelerate fast enough to get to it's max speed without going into a dive.

 

Don't worry, about it, you need to get a wingman or train yourself to be an ace. When fighting the K4 you cannot make any mistakes, and need to keep your energy high. If you realy do not want to die, and you do not feel confident enough to maneuver with one, you have to remember that what you will want to do is to keep your speed, attack the 109 and gain separation. That way you will be able to survive. It might not give you a certain kill, but you will be able to at least maybe damage him and survive.

 

 

The P-51D currently is pitted not just against any 109 or how WW2 ace Don Bryan would have said "normal 109". It is the K4, the Kurfurst, the last most powerful 109 made during the war. It is not representative of the "normal 109". The P-51D is running the factory standard 67'hg rating, while since April 1944 many P-51 units using the new engine (V-1650-7) were authorised to use 72'hg. That might seem like random numbers, but the difference is big. That is why it might seem underperforming.

 

What advice can I give you? Climb, dive and run. Do not dogfight the K4 if you are not confident that you can beat it. Never! Learn it's weak points, learn how to shoot deflection and how to avoid fire. And... well, try to become above average :)

[NineLine]

Yes, watch some of the vids Solty shares as well, he seems to have figured out the P-51 vs all.

[westr]

Well he is entitled to an opinion. If the AI vs AI P-51s are being defeated every time, and there is a variable there are they set to the same skill level? Then you would have to say the 109 is a far superior plane. I can take down a 109 in the mustang if the skill is set to good. High and above I have absolutely no chance in the P-51, unless I get behind one while he's attempting to take down my wingman. But it could be that the sucess the P-51 enjoyed toward the end of WW2 was largely due to the numbers of very inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots being sent up? That is not meant to be disrespectful in anyway because I don't know just saying is that a possibility. The other thing is as people often point out flying single player like I do is different to playing on the multiplayer servers. Does this take away the mistake factor? Human flyers make mistakes that you can capitalise on? I don't know would like someone's opinion on that. Id also like to know if anybody can give out some advice or feedback on any little tricks to get every last drop of performance from the P-51 something not obvious maybe, maybe I just need to improve? I love to fly her and she is a lovely handling aeroplane. But the 109 is devastatingly effective although in my opinion not as nice to fly. I'm sure this is just a trait of the aeroplanes.

[NineLine]

Well he is entitled to an opinion. If the AI vs AI P-51s are being defeated every time, and there is a variable there are they set to the same skill level? Then you would have to say the 109 is a far superior plane. I can take down a 109 in the mustang if the skill is set to good. High and above I have absolutely no chance in the P-51, unless I get behind one while he's attempting to take down my wingman. But it could be that the sucess the P-51 enjoyed toward the end of WW2 was largely due to the numbers of very inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots being sent up? That is not meant to be disrespectful in anyway because I don't know just saying is that a possibility. The other thing is as people often point out flying single player like I do is different to playing on the multiplayer servers. Does this take away the mistake factor? Human flyers make mistakes that you can capitalise on? I don't know would like someone's opinion on that. Id also like to know if anybody can give out some advice or feedback on any little tricks to get every last drop of performance from the P-51 something not obvious maybe, maybe I just need to improve? I love to fly her and she is a lovely handling aeroplane. But the 109 is devastatingly effective although in my opinion not as nice to fly. I'm sure this is just a trait of the aeroplanes.

 

Other things to keep in mind, when talking the AI, where are their fuel loads at, are you setting the 100% full in the middle of a scrum?

[westr]

Other things to keep in mind, when talking the AI, where are their fuel loads at, are you setting the 100% full in the middle of a scrum?

 

True. I shall experiment a bit with this later.

The other thing is as well is the flight model in A.I the same as the flight model we use when we fly? I genuinely don't know has it been updated to AFM?

[NineLine]

True. I shall experiment a bit with this later.

The other thing is as well is the flight model in A.I the same as the flight model we use when we fly? I genuinely don't know has it been updated to AFM?

 

No, most tests are better dont with real players, the AI fly like gods and run on SFMs. So the results can be very mixed, as I said the AI need to be tuned for WWII combat, I hope this will be addressed once we have more of a WWII environment.

[westr]

No, most tests are better dont with real players, the AI fly like gods and run on SFMs. So the results can be very mixed, as I said the AI need to be tuned for WWII combat, I hope this will be addressed once we have more of a WWII environment.

 

Ok well that's something we need to consider then definitely.

[NineLine]

Ok well that's something we need to consider then definitely.

 

Yes, most certainly. DCS isnt like other sims, I think the complexity of the FMs is well beyond what the AI can do and/or the sim itself can handle. I hope with 2.0 going forward we could possible change that, but no idea the limitations here.

[MAD-MM]

Now you can set P-51 on the same skill level against Dora, and nearly every time the P-51 is winning, compare flight models over the AI is not the best step.

There some video around where K4 win's against MIG-21 because it's AI.

[MegOhm_SD]

That's great to hear the AI may get some love with WWII.

 

One another note I have an F15 kill piloted by a human in my P51. I know I know.

 

But I will never forget that one.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Hey guys: At the risk of starting another pointless argument on the forums, I'm going to put this out there because I am so overly frustrated with this module at this point that I'm temped to just remove it from my computer.

I know that ED argues that this AC is correct to it's specs and since I am not a P51 pilot, I have a weak leg to stand on. But please hear me out and if you can, help me to understand why this module behaves the way that it does, I would sincerely appreciate it.

First of all, I am overly aggravated with it's poor performance against the Germen AC. I understand that the 109 was faster, lighter, bla bla bla. But the P51 (Even AI on AI) gets torn apart time after time in every test I put up. Even the tests that I am told to try by mods here. The tests always prove them dead wrong yet people's complaints or comments seem to fall on deaf ears. I would not make this statement if I had not tried these tests.

Example: you take 4, P51's and 4, ME 109's. Put them at 25,000 ft. Put 4 or 5 large planes up with them. Tell the 109's to attack the bomber group. Don't give them any other orders, just kill the bombers. Put the P51's in an escort posture directly above and behind the bombers. Within 3 to 5 minutes, every 51 is completely whiped from the sky with the 109's taking minimal (if any in 4 out of 5 times) casualties. And not one of the bombers will be touched. There is something wrong with this model. And I (a marginal pilot at best) can easily down a P51 in a 109 in one on one. I cannot keep up with a 109 at all....ever in a P51.

In the NTTR map, I can barely get the P51 up to 17,000 ft. The thing just does not have the power. I am fully aware of technique of getting there. And ask anyone, please post a video of you getting it there from the ground. I would truly like to see it.

I talk to many others on line who fly the WW II planes and most of them have just given up on the P51. I fly the 109 most of the time because of the serious lack of ability of the P51.

This last Sunday, I went to the DM air show here in Tucson Az. I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with 2 current P51 pilots, and a WWII vet who also flew P51's. And everything that all three of these gentlemen told me directly contradicts the DCS model of this plane. The guy who takes lessons from me is an A10 pilot who knows 2 of these guys and flies with them, he has sat with me while I have flown the P51 and from his time flying around P51's in air shows agrees that the plane is just substandard in it's performance. I might ad to this that he believes that DCS has created a great some and it is very detailed. And that many of the pilots are aware of DCS and have respect for what they are doing. However, he believes that the P51 just doesn't cut it in the performance department.

So......I know I'll probably be somehow taken down a peg on this. I just don't care anymore. I know what ED says, I know what I read, and I know what 4 guys that I know are actual pilots, 2 of whom I watched climb into this plane and fly it, one who I know flew it against the ME109, and another who is a combat flight instructor told me. And even if it was not superior to the 109, it is not nearly as hard as it is in DCS to get this plane to 20,000 feet. Please keep in mind that these pilots fly out of AZ and Nevada where the conditions are identical to the NTTR map. I just cannot believe that all of these guys, and the things I have researched are wrong.

Sorry ED but the P51 isn't right in my opinion. And I'm grounding her.

 

Just my opinion...............................................

Sorry to hear that mate. About performances, that 17.000ft in Nevada is really strange, it intrigues me and I'll give a try because I've managed to climb up to 41.000ft with P-51 in Black Sea map, and I gave up when I get tired but could reach further, so 17.000 is really awkward. May be that's related to automated supercharger and you should manually change it sooner? And about your known people, you know a full equipped war P-51 wasn't any closer to the light modern P-51s out there. Those should be closer to the in game TF-51 with just a small fuel load and you know that's a completely different aircraft.

 

Also I get what you mean about combat, but keep in mind whatever the tough it is, 109K4 is a real beast compared to regular P-51 we have here, it was and performance charts for both of them are out there. That's a bad try to cheer you up, I know, but DCS just modelled the real deal as the crude reality it was so your chances are only playing smarter than your opponent, having the energy advantage, and so on. I know that can be discouraging, but IMO it's also stimulating as you can try to enhance your piloting skills learning how to defeat better performer opponents.

 

S!

[OneBlueSky]

Hey guys: At the risk of starting another pointless argument on the forums, I'm going to put this out there because I am so overly frustrated with this module at this point that I'm temped to just remove it from my computer.

I know that ED argues that this AC is correct to it's specs and since I am not a P51 pilot, I have a weak leg to stand on. But please hear me out and if you can, help me to understand why this module behaves the way that it does, I would sincerely appreciate it.

First of all, I am overly aggravated with it's poor performance against the Germen AC. I understand that the 109 was faster, lighter, bla bla bla. But the P51 (Even AI on AI) gets torn apart time after time in every test I put up. Even the tests that I am told to try by mods here. The tests always prove them dead wrong yet people's complaints or comments seem to fall on deaf ears. I would not make this statement if I had not tried these tests.

Example: you take 4, P51's and 4, ME 109's. Put them at 25,000 ft. Put 4 or 5 large planes up with them. Tell the 109's to attack the bomber group. Don't give them any other orders, just kill the bombers. Put the P51's in an escort posture directly above and behind the bombers. Within 3 to 5 minutes, every 51 is completely whiped from the sky with the 109's taking minimal (if any in 4 out of 5 times) casualties. And not one of the bombers will be touched. There is something wrong with this model. And I (a marginal pilot at best) can easily down a P51 in a 109 in one on one. I cannot keep up with a 109 at all....ever in a P51.

In the NTTR map, I can barely get the P51 up to 17,000 ft. The thing just does not have the power. I am fully aware of technique of getting there. And ask anyone, please post a video of you getting it there from the ground. I would truly like to see it.

I talk to many others on line who fly the WW II planes and most of them have just given up on the P51. I fly the 109 most of the time because of the serious lack of ability of the P51.

This last Sunday, I went to the DM air show here in Tucson Az. I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with 2 current P51 pilots, and a WWII vet who also flew P51's. And everything that all three of these gentlemen told me directly contradicts the DCS model of this plane. The guy who takes lessons from me is an A10 pilot who knows 2 of these guys and flies with them, he has sat with me while I have flown the P51 and from his time flying around P51's in air shows agrees that the plane is just substandard in it's performance. I might ad to this that he believes that DCS has created a great some and it is very detailed. And that many of the pilots are aware of DCS and have respect for what they are doing. However, he believes that the P51 just doesn't cut it in the performance department.

So......I know I'll probably be somehow taken down a peg on this. I just don't care anymore. I know what ED says, I know what I read, and I know what 4 guys that I know are actual pilots, 2 of whom I watched climb into this plane and fly it, one who I know flew it against the ME109, and another who is a combat flight instructor told me. And even if it was not superior to the 109, it is not nearly as hard as it is in DCS to get this plane to 20,000 feet. Please keep in mind that these pilots fly out of AZ and Nevada where the conditions are identical to the NTTR map. I just cannot believe that all of these guys, and the things I have researched are wrong.

Sorry ED but the P51 isn't right in my opinion. And I'm grounding her.

 

Just my opinion...............................................

 

The P-51 was and is a challenging plane to fly. It had pretty difficult characteristics that made it almost as deadly to the person in it as the enemy if they didn't know what they were doing. The same can be said of any plane, certainly, but the P-51 was a handful. Like anything else, you have to make the other guy fight your fight. You cannot expect to go up against a 109 pilot for example that roundly knows their plane and how to use it, try to fight their fight, and expect good results. The AI is pretty terrible to go from. It makes the most ridiculous choices (in every aircraft) at least 95% of the time. So the fact that an AI 109 shoots down an AI P-51or vice versa is meaningless as a benchmark. They fly on a simple model, and you can get an AI 109 (or 51) to shoot down more modern jets. It means nothing.

 

The 109K was a superior plane on paper. By that time in the war, Germany had lost so many experienced pilots that it's advances were marginal in practice, but ace to ace, the P-51 would have had it's hands full even on the best of days. But that stands to reason. It was a long range escort. It was heavy, had to fly high and efficient and the 109K was designed to go up and knock things out of the sky in a hurry. It didn't need to cross vast distances and worry about efficiency. It had more power, it was lighter, it could out turn the P-51 any day of the week, it had a superior armament. It was a hot rod. The P-51 was faster top speed for top speed, but also a damn sight heavier, couldn't turn with the 109 at all, and had horrid stall characteristics compared where thanks to slats and other advancements, the 109 was easier to manage at higher G's or lower speeds.

 

The P-51 requires a specific style of flying to meet with success. If you try to turn and dogfight with a 109, especially a competent 109 flier, you're going to have a really bad time.

 

There's nothing wrong with the flight model. It's been vetted by real world P-51 pilots and more than one at that. It's just not meant to be flown how people seem to want to fly it. Learn to make the other guy fight your fight.

 

The P-51 isn't poorly modeled because you or others have a hard time with the 109K or the 190D. That's history, it was outmatched. They were better performers. Much like heroic P-51 pilots of the war, you have to learn to make them do what you want, because you cannot under any circumstance compete with them doing what they want. Unless the guy you're flying against is new or bad, or you're flying against AI. Then of course it's easy enough no matter what they're in.

Edited March 17, 2016 by OneBlueSky

[Mike Busutil]

In the NTTR map, I can barely get the P51 up to 17,000 ft. The thing just does not have the power. I am fully aware of technique of getting there. And ask anyone, please post a video of you getting it there from the ground. I would truly like to see it.

 

 

I often do a lot of high altitude flying in the P-51 with both wing tanks. I jumped in the cockpit tonight with 68% fuel and no external stores to make you a video and I too am seeing an issue with the climb performance in DCS 2.0, she pretty much flat lines around 15-17K.

 

I would agree that this is a bug and not correct. :book:

[some1]

There's nothing wrong with the flight model. It's been vetted by real world P-51 pilots and more than one at that. It's just not meant to be flown how people seem to want to fly it. Learn to make the other guy fight your fight.

 

Well, the first il-2 game 15 years ago was also vetted by real world pilots and see how far we got from there.

 

But maybe those pilots simply didn't try to get above 17'000 feet in DCS 2.0.

[Solty]

Sorry to hear that mate. About performances, that 17.000ft in Nevada is really strange, it intrigues me and I'll give a try because I've managed to climb up to 41.000ft with P-51 in Black Sea map, and I gave up when I get tired but could reach further, so 17.000 is really awkward. May be that's related to automated supercharger and you should manually change it sooner?

 

S!

Supercharger gear is fully automatic, you cannot change the gear from low to high blower in P-51D both in DCS and IRL.

[Aginor]

My opinion on this:

- AI sucks. All AI in DCSW sucks. BIG TIME. It can only handle planes with a lot of engine power. Turn and burn FTW.

- Comparing AI against each other in DCSW is pointless, unfortunately, because even AI F-15C lose against WW2 planes in a gun fight.

- Fighting human against AI doesn't work either. The flight models the AI uses are SO wrong. They do maneuvers you cannot do, they don't overheat their engines and so on. Sucks. It is not THAT bad in modern planes, but the WW2 planes? Nope.

- In the real world those planes were not the common match. There were not many K4s in real life. They were vastly outnumbered and many of them were flown by young pilots who had no experience. No wonder they got their asses kicked big time.

- when looking at the performance keep in mind that in real life nobody flies with full fuel. the P51 is a long range fighter with LOADS of fuel. I is meant to fight with 50% or so, while the German planes will have a short way to get to the fight. I typically fly the P51 with 30% fuel if I want to do aerobatics or fight. IIRC it still has more range than the 109 then.

 

Is the P51 not completely realistic? Maybe not. I can't tell. There seems to be something fishy in NTTR, perhaps a different atmosphere model or something? I don't know. To me it felt fine climbing to 30,000ft over the caucasus (back in 1.2.x I don't fly the P51 much to be honest).

[Solty]

The P-51 isn't poorly modeled because you or others have a hard time with the 109K or the 190D. That's history, it was outmatched. They were better performers. Much like heroic P-51 pilots of the war, you have to learn to make them do what you want, because you cannot under any circumstance compete with them doing what they want. Unless the guy you're flying against is new or bad, or you're flying against AI. Then of course it's easy enough no matter what they're in.

That statement is wrong. It was the German plane's that were closer to beeing "outmached" by P-51B (109G6, Fw190A6/A7) and P-51D (G14, Fw190A8.). The D9 and K4 were plane's trying to match that performance.

 

Truth be told they never were realy "outmached" because they had still some better performances like the Fw190 roll rate, protection and firepower and 109's climb and low speed maneuvrability. :book:

 

Surely P-51D doesn't fall into category of outmached, especially historically, where it is portrayed as the perfect plane of the war:hehe:. In DCS it is a bit less powerful though than it should be for the time period it is set in, and I know I start to sound a bit like broken record, but the historical 72'hg would balance thigs out and no one could say that it is "outmached" by any of it's adversaries. It would be very much on par.:cry:

[Pikey]

Read your post OP, your feeligngs are well meant, before you give up please try ONE thing in the spirit of trust.

 

Go and play versus other players, on the Caucasus map. (not AI)

 

NTTR does have some differences in feel which I think were intentional but not yet fully realised. I can't comment why or if i'm even correct.

The AI does not adhere to the same rules as the PFM and therefore it is not matched and so may feel frustrating, it doesn't for me but then I can deal with them beating me because I understand this.

 

In player combat you get to see the full range of pilot and plane capabilities exposed in more ways than you can imagine in the machines as they were designed by ED, not in some artificially simulated way. You see great players, poor players, players doing unexpected things, catch people out, get jumped for not paying attention and generally have an experience that doesn't conform to a sterile sandbox which will keep you alive, give you little jumps and run your excitement and emotions through a range of differences.

 

Compare and comment on the plane in that environment. It's different and I would put the planes differences at a far less of a deciding factor than pilot skill and experience, which is entirely more realistic, something like 10% of 109's were lost in takeoff and landing accidents....hell that's seriously real!!!

 

If multiplayer is a concern there are no combat servers you can find to fly with, if you are at the point of gicving up for it then PM me, I'll put one up and I will let you post up here that you shot me down 5 times and you found Multiplyer to be a lot more realistic, okay?

[CHDT]

Just curious, what's the problem with the 72'hg setting, as it was a real use setting and not "over the top" (1) ?

 

 

(1) by "over the top", I mean, when we get the P-47, if I would ask a special P-47M with a engine boosted to 3000 ps !

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Supercharger gear is fully automatic, you cannot change the gear from low to high blower in P-51D both in DCS and IRL.

I haven't tried recently but it was possible in older versions and I have done it. May be it's changed at any moment.

 

The only useful moment for manual control would be as said, a high DA day where you find out of power too soon before automated supercharger works, so you can manually force high blow sooner to get plenty of manifold pressure again.

 

S!

Edited March 17, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Mike Busutil]

Supercharger gear is fully automatic, you cannot change the gear from low to high blower in P-51D both in DCS and IRL.

 

 

You sure about that???

 

The supercharger switch is a three position spring loaded switch (Low,HighAuto)

 

You can manually switch to High at anytime as long as you hold the switch in that position. :book:

 

 

Also from the P-51 flight manual (Page 30)

 

"The supercharger works in either low or high blower mode, selection of which can be automatic or manually set by the pilot. In normal operations, high blower mode starts automatically from 14,500 to 19,500 feet, depending on the amount of ram air being delivered through the carburetor. The supercharger increases the blower-to-engine compression ratio from a low of 5.8 to 1 to a high of 7.35 to 1.

The supercharger can be controlled manually by a switch on the instrument panel. The switch has three positions – AUTOMATIC, LOW, and HIGH."

Edited March 17, 2016 by Mike Busutil