How do I properly fly the P-51D?

[Kurfürst]

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".

 

Its not the most powerful 109. That would be the fully rated 2000 PS model. As of now, we only have the 1850 PS model ;)

 

On the other hand you have the best P-51D that is possible, too, a late production block from March 1945, albeit like the 109K, not running on the highest historical USAAF boost rating allowed - but it has gyro sights, fixed dive charatartistics (earlier ones would have a tendency to porpoise in dive, you do not have to struggle with that), metal control surfaces, rear warning radar etc...

 

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.

 

In April 1944 there were no P-51Ds, just B/C variants without bubble canopy and often with just four machine guns. The D did not come until June-July, neither were any but testing examples running on 72" until then...

 

Specifically speaking - the variant we have in DCS did not come until about April.... 1945.

 

On the other hand the P-51D we have is modelled after the most optimistic performance numbers there is for 67" Hg boost performance, with SL top speed of 375 mph. In fact most trials showed about 10 mph slower realistically achievable top speeds, some as low as 359 at these ratings, and this 375 mph is quite close what was realistically achievable on the highest boost allowed.

 

In fact, you already have a very late production, fully upgraded 51D model from the wars end, modelled after very generous reference base specifications.

 

Those who want to "re-enact" the one sided affairs and their guaranteed outcome that were the 1944/45 air combats should start servers that make sure that P-51s at least outnumber Luftwaffe planes 10:1 on that server and should start in the air above the airfield they are trying to take off..... and then wait patiently for the LW to be seen (also historical :p ).

Edited March 17, 2016 by Kurfürst

[otto]

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.

 

That's only your truth.I see the fw190A as far better than any p51 d,h,z. If you see it differently that's just your opinion. And you forgot to mention the me262. This is just my opinion of course .

[NineLine]

Curious to know, is the 17K feet ceiling for the P-51 in the NTTR map discussed here "sea level" or AGL? Is it both the P-51 and TF-51?

Las Vegas is at 2K feet. So, if your sitting on the tarmac and you've set your altimeter to the current barometric pressure, your altimeter should show approx 2k feet already.

And how is, or is density altitude modeled in NTTR?

In Vegas on a hot summer day, that's got to be a performance killer for any piston engine'd aircraft of any size, I'd think?

 

Yes, please guys if you do test something or find something wrong, try and list as many variables as possible. They can all impact what you are trying to do.

[OneBlueSky]

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.

 

That part is fair enough. I don't bother with 2.0 as the map has literally less than nothing to do/see except flying around looking at sand, and it's alpha. So expect things to change a lot over time with it. I'm sure that particular point will be looked into.

[OneBlueSky]

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:

 

Incorrect.

[OutOnTheOP]

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.

 

That is literally the exact opposite of what pilots say about the Mustang. It is frequently called "pleasant" or a "Cadillac" because it had excellent handling characteristics. If you want to talk about aircraft trying to kill their own pilots, you're talking about the 109, and more specifically about it's horrid torque and narrow landing gear causing miserable takeoff and landing characteristics. And the 109 actually *did* kill many of its pilots.

 

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.

 

You mean real-world P-51 pilots have vetted the bottom end of the envelope. The real-world pilots are flying 40+ year old aircraft, and do not push it (particularly the engine) to its limits. They can tell you how it handles at 46" max continuous MP, but not what it can do at 72" WEP. Their aircraft are also not in original configuration.

 

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.

 

Sure, a 67" 51D is overmatched by a 1.8 ATA 109K, but by the same token, you could force match-ups between a Sopwith Camel and a 109K and then claim that it's "realistic" that the real 109K outperforms it. The fact is that 8th AF was using higher grade fuel by the time the 109K was out, and historically had boosted their engine ratings. The DCS Mustang does not get that boost. Kurfurst's inane rambling aside, the Mustang we get in DCS is not AERODYNAMICALLY representative of a late-war 51D, because it it missing one of the most important facets: engine rating.

Edited March 17, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[saburo_cz]

You sure about that???

 

 

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

I am trying to imagine how does pilot keep spring loaded switch during flight in UP possition for High supercharger. It is nonsence...

Pilot has two flight options for it, fully automatic or manual ONLY 1st supercharger speed.

3rd switch possition is only for test, nothing more...

[NineLine]

The fact is that 8th AF was using higher grade fuel by the time the 109K was out, and historically had boosted their engine ratings. The DCS Mustang does not get that boost.

 

As a side note, if you were flying historically correct missions, say at altitude in defence of bombers, the boost wouldnt/shoudnt make much difference up there.

 

 

Kurfurst's inane rambling aside

 

 

This is a warning to all... dont take this down the personal attack road. Next ones I see will be actual warnings on your account and bans as required in accordance with the rules.

[CHDT]

I repeat my question: what's the problem with the 72' setting ?

Are there some technical problems which prevent it to be added as an option for the DCS Mustang ?

[CHDT]

Easy solution: let DCS propose us "regular Hans" like the G-6 and the A-8 to fight against the current DCS Mustang.

Problem solved ;-)

[Nate--IRL--]

I've gotten the P-51 to 30K on my first try in Nevada. Anybody got a mission to show this 17K ceiling behaviour?

 

Nate

[NineLine]

I repeat my question: what's the problem with the 72' setting ?

Are there some technical problems which prevent it to be added as an option for the DCS Mustang ?

 

The FM wasnt built with that in mind, so we dont have it, could it be added later? Sure. Are there any current firm plans to do it right now? No, and why would there be... its not a breaking or blocking issue. All this stuff is slated to get looked at down the road, fuel types and such.

[NineLine]

I've gotten the P-51 to 30K on my first try in Nevada. Anybody got a mission to show this 17K ceiling behaviour?

 

Nate

 

Thanks for checking Nate, did you use a canned mission, or make on yourself? Air Start or Ground, etc. I havent had a chance to check myself, but might be good to list a couple specific you used.

[Aginor]

I can try in a few hours.

[NineLine]

Easy solution: let DCS propose us "regular Hans" like the G-6 and the A-8 to fight against the current DCS Mustang.

Problem solved ;-)

 

Why, there are pilots that are able to handle the German aircraft in the P-51. It would be easier and quicker for you to keep practicing rather than ED building a G-6 and/or A-8 ;)

[Kurfürst]

Easy solution: let DCS propose us "regular Hans" like the G-6 and the A-8 to fight against the current DCS Mustang.

Problem solved ;-)

 

:music_whistling: :thumbup:

 

Yeah, uhm, good idea CHDT, I agree we need to have modelled the G-6 and A-8 for, uhm, balance, NO, historical, yes HISTORICAL reasons, as it is also not fair to Allied fliers us only have to choose from the K-4/D-9 and thus be FORCED upon to use overwhelming power. Addition of other models of 109/190s should be thus absolute modelling priority of course, and also, it should be FREE, since I for example MISTAKENLY wanted to buy a historically correct G-6 originally, and look what happened. A K-4. I was deceived, you see...! I need to be compensated with a.... uhm... free G-6? Oh come on, the TF 51D is free, too. We need to balance it with a free Luftwaffe plane. :music_whistling:

[Nate--IRL--]

Thanks for checking Nate, did you use a canned mission, or make on yourself? Air Start or Ground, etc. I havent had a chance to check myself, but might be good to list a couple specific you used.

 

The Nevada Airstart mission in trunk.

 

Nate

[Aginor]

I just tried it.

 

NTTR mission editor standard mission, took off from Groom Lake with 40% fuel, full gun ammo.

Version: 2.0.1.50747 (the current one)

 

I am not the best Mustang pilot, in fact I am far from that. I haven't flown it in months.

I eyeballed 160-180 mph as best climb speed, not sure if that was a good idea. I also let the charger on auto, which probably cost me a bit, and I didn't let the temperature reach the red markings.

 

I climbed to

25,000ft in 23 min.

35,000ft in 30 min.

 

So the average was over 1000ft/min. I did not notice anything special near 17,000ft, except that shortly before the supercharger kicks in (don't remember the altitude) you have to firewall the throttle to get a decent climb.

 

That being said: I never reached the rate of climb that is listed in several sources, those 1500 - 2000 ft/min, regardless of the DCS version. Dunno why. Perhaps my pilot skill. :D

 

I hope this is helpful.

EDIT: I wanted to add a track, but it only shows me taking off, immediately slamming into the ground....

 

 

EDIT2:

I tried again (this time I timewarped a bit to be honest :D)

Same mission, but with 100% fuel, and I risked a bit more, temperature-wise.

I climbed to 25,000ft in 20 minutes. The supercharger kicked in at around 16,000ft.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Aginor

[NineLine]

Yeah, tracks are kinda busted right now...

 

Anyways, if the OP can only climb to 17,000 feet, and others have no issue surpassing this, I have to come to the conclusion that some of his issues are self-inflicted...

[Mike Busutil]

I tested this again and was able to climb to 40,000' with no issues.

 

(Latest version of 2.0)

 

Creech airport

68% fuel (Default)

100% guns

No external stores

90% max weight

Spring - clear skies.

Temp- 21C

 

The only difference between this flight and the one I tested last night where I could not climb above 17K was this flight was made in the mission editor and last nights was a quick mission from takeoff.

 

Not sure if it will show anything or just bug out and crash but the track is attached.

[DD_Fenrir]

Yeah, tracks are kinda busted right now...

 

Anyways, if the OP can only climb to 17,000 feet, and others have no issue surpassing this, I have to come to the conclusion that some of his issues are self-inflicted...

 

Putting the mixture in "Emergency Rich" rather than "Run" during the starting procedure is the usual culprit in this case.

[Mike Busutil]

The FULL RICH position is an emergency setting to be used only in case of carburetor failure to ensure a sufficient fuel supply to the engine.

[Paganus]

If you think you're having trouble with the K-4, just wait until you run into a ME-262.

[Slazi]

Is it possible the OP is more a critisism of the AI and SFM rather than the aircraft modeling itself? Perhaps the AI 51s should be using different tactics?

 

I would still put this issue behind infantry AI.

[Aginor]

I respectfully disagree with you here, Slazi.

In my opinion DCSW is a flight sim first, so the AI of the planes is by far the most important one, followed by the AI of units that interact with planes, like ATC and SAM systems.

 

And it was already acknowledged that ED has to improve AI and the flight model it uses.

 

Still the OP also stated he has some problems himself, not only the AI. I think there might be something wrong with his supercharger. Leveling off at 17,000 happens if that one is not working.