Controllability Above 20k Feet

[mkel2010]

Any pointers for maneuvering in air to air combat above 20k feet or so? Trying to turn at much over a standard rate turn, the P-51 wants to stall on me, even with one notch of flaps. It's fine at lower altitudes. The AI don't seem to have this issue.

[=475FG= Dawger]

28 minutes ago, mkel2010 said:

Any pointers for maneuvering in air to air combat above 20k feet or so? Trying to turn at much over a standard rate turn, the P-51 wants to stall on me, even with one notch of flaps. It's fine at lower altitudes. The AI don't seem to have this issue.

Take a peek at your airspeed indicator up high. 
 

Stall speed increases by multiplying by the square root of the G. 
 

You don’t have much to play with up high. 

[razo+r]

53 minutes ago, mkel2010 said:

Any pointers for maneuvering in air to air combat above 20k feet or so? Trying to turn at much over a standard rate turn, the P-51 wants to stall on me, even with one notch of flaps. It's fine at lower altitudes. The AI don't seem to have this issue.

Either be fast enough or don't pull too hard. 

Also, don't compare with AI. They use different physics compared to players. 

[mkel2010]

4 hours ago, razo+r said:

Also, don't compare with AI. They use different physics compared to players. 

I get your point, but physics should be physics. It's a shame that after all the years of DCS' existence this hasn't been fixed.

[grafspee]

11 hours ago, mkel2010 said:

I get your point, but physics should be physics. It's a shame that after all the years of DCS' existence this hasn't been fixed.

Ai is no better then player. Every time you drop a wing ai get one step ahead. Flying at high alt require discipline, patience and gentle controls inputs. 

Ai fly perfectly so it does not drop wings while maneuvering. But physics apply same for player and ai.

[Slippery Pete]

I can almost guarantee you're flying with too much internal fuel, the aft tank needs to be completely empty for maneuvering in the P-51, and the same goes for the auxil tank in the 47.  These are endurance birds with large amounts of internal fuel much of which is not meant to still be in the tanks when dog fighting occurs.  You should be able to maintain a good 4G+ sustained turn rate above 20,000ft in a properly trimmed out, less than 60% fuel load, 51 with ease.  Much of this knowledge is lost on new players/ jet pilots to warbids who are used to flying with 100% fuel.  I think even Mover and Gonky were flying with the 51 fully loaded with fuel and didnt understand why it was snap rolling left and right too

[mkel2010]

8 hours ago, Slippery Pete said:

I can almost guarantee you're flying with too much internal fuel, the aft tank needs to be completely empty for maneuvering in the P-51, and the same goes for the auxil tank in the 47.  These are endurance birds with large amounts of internal fuel much of which is not meant to still be in the tanks when dog fighting occurs.  You should be able to maintain a good 4G+ sustained turn rate above 20,000ft in a properly trimmed out, less than 60% fuel load, 51 with ease.  Much of this knowledge is lost on new players/ jet pilots to warbids who are used to flying with 100% fuel.  I think even Mover and Gonky were flying with the 51 fully loaded with fuel and didnt understand why it was snap rolling left and right too

I will go back and confirm, but I believe the fuselage tank is empty. When you say 60% fuel load, are you referring to total fuel onboard?

[Art-J]

Yes, I believe Pete means total as shown on percentage slider in the mission editor. I seem to recall about 68'ish % means full wing tanks and empty fuselage one, but could be wrong. Frankly, for your training purposes, even that 60 is way more than you practically need, 'cause there are no WWII maps in DCS currently that would allow Mustang to really stretch its legs.

[Gunfreak]

Both Mustang and P47 can do a dogfight at like 20%  Spitfire and 109 should probably had 40% as they don't have very big tanks and in combat will drain them really quickly.

[River]

Pilot has no controllability over 20.000 feet because the devs gave him no oxygen mask.

2024 and beyond ... 

[grafspee]

1 hour ago, River said:

Pilot has no controllability over 20.000 feet because the devs gave him no oxygen mask.

2024 and beyond ... 

Because it is invisible mask. It still works. Lack of oxygen mask model is the least by far non essential issue with WW2 in DCS imho. And i hope that it won't be addressed until other pending issues got solved.

Edited May 23, 2024 by grafspee

[Theodore42]

I think in the 20-25k altitude the P-51 has more BHP that pretty much anything.

The P-51 is strongest sustaining high speeds. So at high altitudes fly to your instruments, mostly the climb indicator. If you climb too fast, you burn off your speed too fast, and you get less altitude for the energy used. And since you're going fast things have a problem keeping up with you. But if you end up going slow or getting into a furball then the P-51 isn't going to be as strong as other aircraft.

When you hear people say the P-51 uses "boom and zoom" tactics, they mean flying higher and faster than your enemy, diving down on them and "booming" them, then "zooming" up and away with your excess energy and superior airframe. If you deviate from these tactics then the P-51 tends to not be as strong. Of course flying online is whatever you can get away with while having fun; I'm just describing the tactics behind the design.

As for the fuel, the manual says to keep 25 gallons in the fuselage tank for better turn performance  which is about 76% fuel. If you fly the aircraft as I described then 76% fuel is fine for performance but if you want to do crazy maneuvering in the P-51, a lot less fuel helps. (20% is still like 500 lbs or something).

[Roozter]

On 5/24/2024 at 2:28 AM, Theodore42 said:

As for the fuel, the manual says to keep 25 gallons in the fuselage tank for better turn performance  which is about 76% fuel. If you fly the aircraft as I described then 76% fuel is fine for performance but if you want to do crazy maneuvering in the P-51, a lot less fuel helps. (20% is still like 500 lbs or something).

So we should burn the wing fuel first and leave the fuselage last ?

[razo+r]

13 minutes ago, Roozter said:

So we should burn the wing fuel first and leave the fuselage last ?

25 gallons are desired for landing, not necessarily for fighting.

But to be honest, if you take more than 67% of fuel in DCS, you are either planning a scenic flight or if you land, you'll most likely have still more than 50% left in your tanks. 

If you are truly going for maximum performance, you are going to take as little fuel as necessary. So in that sense some planning will be required.

Edited June 2, 2024 by razo+r

[grafspee]

@razo+r Afaik we can not refuel tank separately like 50% in each tank. It will always top out wing tanks first. So if someone like to take 50% in wing tanks and 25% in fuselage he just can not do that in DCS. It would be nice to have this option since in many ww2 planes fuel tanks were completely isolated from each other and fueled independently each.

 

Edited June 2, 2024 by grafspee

[vgilsoler]

As per mustang manual, the fuselage tank only should be used when wing tank capacity is not enough for the mission. So it’s correct to fill first the wing tanks at 100% and then start with the fuselage tank. 

[Yo-Yo]

On 5/18/2024 at 8:42 PM, razo+r said:

Either be fast enough or don't pull too hard. 

Also, don't compare with AI. They use different physics compared to players. 

They use the same trajectory physics and the same energy possibilities (drag, induced drag and propeller effective power) as human. The only difference is that AI carefully manage energy never pulling excessive g.

[razo+r]

25 minutes ago, Yo-Yo said:

They use the same trajectory physics and the same energy possibilities (drag, induced drag and propeller effective power) as human. The only difference is that AI carefully manage energy never pulling excessive g.

Do they also obey the power limitations? Are they also affected by high engine temperatures/overheating? 

[MAD-MM]

59 minutes ago, razo+r said:

Do they also obey the power limitations? Are they also affected by high engine temperatures/overheating? 

@razor the player aircraft are currently also not affected by overheating exept the dora, dont know this will be forever or make it easyer for the player base to fly or only bug before ominous new cooling system arrive...
but before you could also run allways the P51 continuos with 61hg, as the rest of the WW2 birds, only community here started to make religion what you can what not out of it, the limitations was based on you are able to use the engine more then one flight in the real world without wear it down.
what is not anything we have to deal with it in DCS, because it is every flight brand new plane.

Edited June 3, 2024 by MAD-MM

[Yo-Yo]

4 hours ago, razo+r said:

Do they also obey the power limitations? Are they also affected by high engine temperatures/overheating? 

Yes, they have a copy of cooling system human plane has.

[mkel2010]

6 hours ago, Yo-Yo said:

They use the same trajectory physics and the same energy possibilities (drag, induced drag and propeller effective power) as human. The only difference is that AI carefully manage energy never pulling excessive g.

Very few human pilots - even at the highest skill levels - have ever been able to fly an aircraft "carefully manag(ing) energy never pulling excessive g." It would make the simulation much more realistic if ED were to introduce a randomization factor to this AI "skill."

Edited June 3, 2024 by mkel2010
Spelling

[Theodore42]

I saw on the History channel an interview with a fighter pilot who fought in the Pacific. He reported that the Japanese were "excellent stick and rudder pilots" but that they didn't have the training to jink vigorously or to fly in any non-standard way. This gave the Americans a skill advantage.

So, in that pilot's opinion, the ace AI would be exactly accurate to the Pacific Theater 

[mkel2010]

18 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

I saw on the History channel an interview with a fighter pilot who fought in the Pacific. He reported that the Japanese were "excellent stick and rudder pilots" but that they didn't have the training to jink vigorously or to fly in any non-standard way. This gave the Americans a skill advantage.

So, in that pilot's opinion, the ace AI would be exactly accurate to the Pacific Theater 

Even the best pilots make mistakes. "Excellent stick and rudder" did not and does not equate to perfect pilotage. Read Chuck Yeager or C.E. "Bud" Anderson's autobiographies. ED apparently didn't have human frailties in mind when they programmed the AI.

[Nealius]

Except for the latter half of the PTO the Japanese didn't have any good pilots. Instead of rotating the good ones out to train new ones, the Japanese military kept throwing them into the fray until they were all dead. This combined with Japan's traditional education style of "don't think for yourself, do exactly as you're taught," the majority of Japanese pilots had no knowledge or experience in tactical employment.

Edited July 3, 2024 by Nealius