10th Anniversary Update

[Lixma 06]

DCS Pony turns 10 this year  what would you like to see in an anniversary update? Bug fixes, new skins, more features?

 

[Doughguy]

Fixes.....

[Mr_sukebe]

150 octane

Fixes to the ram air/carb heat issue

[River]

Fix of tailwheel sticking out at certain FOVs. 

Gun barrell overheating not fixed after a repair. 

Cold air lever needs to be fixed. 

Overhaul of 3D model and Cockpit. 

Better sound, I find the in cockpit sound of the P 51 somewhat weird. 

150 octane fuel. 

More ammo belt options. 

Edited February 22, 2022 by River

[Nirvi]

A version without tailradar.

[Mogster]

45 minutes ago, Nirvi said:

A version without tailradar.

Why?

[Art-J]

^ I guess because it was more prominent on PTO rather than ETO (so I'd leave it on -30 but remove it from -25). Apparently pilots had mixed opinions about it because of "false positives" from your own buddies flying around you (the radar was unable to IFF), not to mention that Germans learned to home on it with their equipment.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Art-J

[ITA_WVoss]

17 ore fa, Mogster ha scritto:

Why?

The tail radar in the P51 was introduced after the war and with the advent of the Korean War.

[DD_Fenrir]

On 2/23/2022 at 6:46 AM, ITA_WVoss said:

The tail radar in the P51 was introduced after the war and with the advent of the Korean War.

Incorrect. There is pictorial evidence of AN/APS-13 equipment fitted to P-51Ds of the 357th FG of the 8th Air Force based in Leiston, Suffolk, UK in the spring of 1945.

My sources indicate trials were held by the 8th Air Force during the late Autumn of 1944, with the 4th, 355th and 361st Fighter Groups being officially equipped beginning March 1945.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[Callsign112]

Did a long range flight on the Marianas map last night. 100% fuel with external tanks. Was only able to get one external tank to work, so I thought I maybe found a new bug... until I found this

The mustang might be turning 10, but so are all its bugs. It would be nice to see all of these issues fixed.

[BitMaster]

Oh heck..it's 2022

 

Tempus fugit

 

edit:

IIRC this is not the case anymore. It's been a while since I flew it but "iirc" I was able to switch between all 3 external tanks. I really like to fly her fully loaded, LoL.

Take off on MAIN tanke, then empty the one behind you first, then do the wing tanks alternating to even out mass. I think that worked but it's a while ago.

Sure you had the pumps all on and gas in them ?

Edited February 24, 2022 by BitMaster

[Callsign112]

Did it last night.... seems to be still the case!

You only have booster pumps for the 3 internal tanks. Fighter sweep was selected to bring up external tanks as the load out, then Fuel was set to 100%. This put me to 105%

As long as the fuel shut-off valve is on, the correct booster pump is activated with the fuel selector valve for the internal tanks. One external tank worked, switching to the other would kill the engine.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Callsign112

[Callsign112]

I just checked the distance of my planned route in the mission editor, which was about 1640 km. This should be well bellow the P-51s range with external tanks, but I ran out of fuel before reaching my destination.

[Theodore42]

I've done some endurance flying the the Mustang. You have to configure your engine for distance rather than speed. So lower MP and RPMs. Also flying at the correct altitude is important.

Here is a chart to use for 75gal wingtanks:

You can see, for example, in Column I at "max continuous" (2700RPM at 46MP) at 20,000 ft with Hi Blower ON, the Mustang will run at 94 gallons per hour at 355mph TAS according to the chart.

In Column V at 2150RPM and Full Throttle at 20,000 ft with the Hi Blower OFF the Mustang will use 58 Gallons per hour at 285mph TAS.

So with this chart you can plan for any mission in the range of the Mustang and get to your IP with the amount of fuel you want at the time you want as fast as or as fuel efficient as you want.

[Callsign112]

Hey thanks very much for this. My flight doesn't fit into your chart exactly, but I should probably expect to be somewhere between 92 to 90 GPH. I was 5k feet at 2600/46. The problem was not the trip planning though, it was that one of the external tanks didn't seem to work.

Using your chart to estimate the GPH with a fuel capacity based on only one external tank, the range/flight time works out to be pretty close actually.

With only one external tank working, that means I was able to make use of 344 Gal. Taking 92 from the chart, that should give me about 3.7 hours of air time, and I was actually closer to 3.2 when I ran out of fuel. With an average speed close to 310 mph for 3.2 hours should give me about 1580+ km, which is real close to the actual distance covered.

The point being that using your chart, I am able to confirm I was able to use the fuel from only 1 tank. The question is why? Is it something I am doing, or a left over bug from 2014?

[Art-J]

On 2/25/2022 at 12:55 AM, Callsign112 said:

The point being that using your chart, I am able to confirm I was able to use the fuel from only 1 tank. The question is why? Is it something I am doing, or a left over bug from 2014?

Did you also try what was suggested in that old thread? I mean switching to externals only while lowering the MAP?

On the other hand, it might very well be a leftover bug for simple reason - how many do people you know who use externals and perform hour plus flights in DCS Mustang at all? You're the first guy in 8 years who brought up the issue again :D. That doesn't mean of course, that the potential issue shouldn't be fixed.

In either case, if the low MAP trick doesn't work, I'd suggest posting your important observations in that old thread, or creating a new on in bugs section, because Nineline, BN or Flappie sure as hell won't notice them buried as off-topic stuff in here.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Art-J

[Theodore42]

On 2/24/2022 at 5:55 PM, Callsign112 said:

The point being that using your chart, I am able to confirm I was able to use the fuel from only 1 tank. The question is why? Is it something I am doing, or a left over bug from 2014?

Hm, if you're only getting 1 wing tank working that sounds like a bug for sure. Maybe try repairing your DCS install?

In 2017 I did a lot with the Mustang, including an endurance flight. As in 100% fuel, full on reversibility and everything. I climbed like a b*#&# up to 20,000, used down to 25 gal in the fuselage tank and switched the wing tanks on a schedule. To make sure I had used up all the fuel in them I ran them dry. The fuel schedule was right on track with the fuel chart.

As for improvements, ED recently redid the cockpit and sound so I don't think those are on the table.

I'm interested in the 150 octane. I think this is code for "higher max MP." Some questions on this matter:

Does 150 octane actually change how the engine runs or does it just allow for a higher MP? IRL, would a mechanic be able to change our 1945 Mustang to 80MP or whatever if 150 octane became available? Or is the engine locked at its max MP coming off the assembly line?

Also, fix the ram air 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

22 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

I'm interested in the 150 octane. I think this is code for "higher max MP." Some questions on this matter:

Does 150 octane actually change how the engine runs or does it just allow for a higher MP? IRL, would a mechanic be able to change our 1945 Mustang to 80MP or whatever if 150 octane became available? Or is the engine locked at its max MP coming off the assembly line?

It doesn't change a thing, the engine works the same to my knowledge, it just prevents detonation at higher power settings hence higher manifold pressures are allowed without detonation occurring so you don't destroy the engine in the process. I'm not sure but I believe a little tweak in the carburettor does the trick, perhaps spark plugs also, but the engine was just cleared for that use if you use the higher octane with a same engine, nothing different in this case. But remember there were also other Merlin variants, not only the one we have available here, so I wouldn't know about other variants requirements with regards to game coding about possible differences they would need to reflect if used in the game. Anyway, I believe there were, possibly using different engine settings, not just fuel change, 72" and 75" cleared. More than that (80" like you say) I'm not that sure, rest assured you won't see in DCS crazy unhistorical MP.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Callsign112]

13 hours ago, Art-J said:

Did you also try what was suggested in that old thread? I mean switching to externals only while lowering the MAP?

On the other hand, it might very well be a leftover bug for simple reason - how many do people you know who use externals and perform hour plus flights in DCS Mustang at all? You're the first guy in 8 years who brought up the issue again :D. That doesn't mean of course, that the potential issue shouldn't be fixed.

In either case, if the low MAP trick doesn't work, I'd suggest posting your important observations in that old thread, or creating a new on in bugs section, because Nineline, BN or Flappie sure as hell won't notice them buried as off-topic stuff in here.

 

No I found the old thread after the fact, but plan on repeating.

Having said that, switching to an external tank after the fuselage tank was empty worked fine using the same MAP as before the change. The problem begins when I went to switch to the other external to help balance weight. The engine would cut out forcing me to switch back. I was able to completely use up all the fuel in the one external, and all 3 internal tanks. 

But as a modeled plane in DCS, having the external tanks modeled so that they work correctly are just as important as the ram air issues IMO. I don't see this observation any more or less important than the observations made about belt composition for example.

[FlyingTaco21]

Snap views for the fuel quantities would be nice. 

[grafspee]

On 2/26/2022 at 11:52 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

It doesn't change a thing, the engine works the same to my knowledge, it just prevents detonation at higher power settings hence higher manifold pressures are allowed without detonation occurring so you don't destroy the engine in the process. I'm not sure but I believe a little tweak in the carburettor does the trick, perhaps spark plugs also, but the engine was just cleared for that use if you use the higher octane with a same engine, nothing different in this case. But remember there were also other Merlin variants, not only the one we have available here, so I wouldn't know about other variants requirements with regards to game coding about possible differences they would need to reflect if used in the game. Anyway, I believe there were, possibly using different engine settings, not just fuel change, 72" and 75" cleared. More than that (80" like you say) I'm not that sure, rest assured you won't see in DCS crazy unhistorical MP.

 

It does change a lot, problematic operation at low power ranges, spark plugs with different heat rating are required, i think it require use different oil too.

Operating engine at low powers ranges with 150 fuel makes couple problems, very high lead quantities makes spark plugs foul a lot, and low engine oil temp not allow to fuel evaporate fast enough from oil, diluting it do danger levels.  150 wasn't perfect. 

Only reason why use this fuel is for higher power settings, but overall 150 is worse then 130/100 fuel.

I could only see 150fuel as paid upgrade, because it require a lot of additional modeling to represent true 150 fuel operation difficulties, simply uplifting max MP w/o 150 fuel handicaps would be just not realistic.

Edited March 31, 2022 by grafspee

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I'm not sure those details are really important or could affect a simulation, at least a simulation to the level we have here. And that's acknowledging the complexity DCS already has, set aside lesser ones. But maybe it does

[Magic Zach]

Bug fixes and updates.
1) Canopy head limits tweaked/added
2) Spontaneous engine failure once WEP wire broken
3) No BHP-loss with hot aftercoolant
4) Cockpit control bugged (not working on some controllers)
5) Incorrect .50 belts
6) Landing light cone visible from specific external distances away (LOD issue)
7) Cockpit sunlight leak to the cockpit floor
8 ) Oil temperature occasionally rising 5C/s after startup until engine dies (rare)
9) Cooler door switches sticking in the forward or aft position if operated by mouse
10) Limited oil temperature range control (we cannot make the oil temperature as cold, or as hot, as is realistic to the Mustang)
11) Update the external model and textures

Edited April 15, 2022 by Magic Zach

[Theodore42]

6 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

2) Spontaneous engine failure once WEP wire broken
3) No BHP-loss with hot aftercoolant
5) Incorrect .50 belts
10) Limited oil temperature range control (we cannot make the oil temperature as cold, or as hot, as is realistic to the Mustang)
11) Update the external model and textures

2) I think the engine cooling programming used in DCS for warbirds is getting updated (still being worked on, is this correct?)

3) If this is in reference to the Meredith effect, it has been implemented by ED to their liking according to their data. To this day sources on the matter disagree on how much thrust is actually produced so if some hard data surfaces I'm all for updating.

5) .50 belts in reference to inaccurate tracers or belt quantity or being able to remove 2 guns for more ammo or something else?

10) do you mean temp ranges are unrealistic or are you referring to the engine cooling programming in DCS (that I think ED is still updating)?

11) there's downloadable textures but yeah, higher quality ones with the base game would be nice. Everyone knows the Mustang and ED may as well make it look as good as they can. I would think it a relatively inexpensive way to catch the eyes of potential new users to DCS.

[Magic Zach]

8 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

...

1) The new engine cooling model was supposedly applied to the Mosquito.  Might be linked to why ED hasn't fixed the smoking port engine bug on the Mossie yet, since release?  For the other birds though, there hasn't been any word as far as I'm aware, and for quite some time now.

3) A lot of this is answered in the later posts of the Meredith thread.  Tl;dr, while the Meredith effect is applied to the 51, it is in a way too perfect.  While closing the coolant shutter increases the pressure exiting the duct and giving a slight bump in speed, in DCS the system forgets that along with a closed shutter, higher aftercoolant temperatures mean hotter air charge, and a decrease in brake horsepower.  In reality, the best effect is achieved when the coolant shutter is about 1/3 open.  Close it more than that, and the BHP slows the Mustang back down.  In DCS, without that BHP loss, our 51 just continues to increase its speed, up to at least 85% more than data of the real Mustang shows.  As cool as it is to take advantage of the system and bank on this DCS Mustang "life hack", it doesn't follow data we have available, within the public's easy reach.

5) The belts for the .50s were supposed to have changed some time ago, to a more realistic loadout for 44/45.  We currently have a 1943 edition of belts, which includes a lot more AP, and a lot less API and I.  By 44 and especially 45, belts were much more highly equipped with API/I rounds...some nearly exclusively, minus the tracers.
However, according to Nineline from Jan 29, we're waiting on two brand new round types to DCS, M1 pure incendiary and M1 pure tracer.  We currently only have the M2 ball, M2 armor piercing, M8 API, and M20 API-T.

10) If you look at the Meredith thread, you'll also notice that we cannot reach the same highs and lows for our oil temperature as we should.  In as close conditions as can be represented, while our real example can control its oil temperature (via shutter) in a range from 48-90C, we can only control our oil temperature in a range of 51-76C.

11) I made those textures 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Magic Zach