ground handling and takeoff after patch...

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Did the patch make takeoffs/landings more controllable given the adjustments to the rudder hinge moments? Overall what improvements do you notice so far?

Thx in advance from a prospective DCS-p51 user :-)

Edited July 11, 2012 by jcomm

[VH-Rock]

I find the ground handling to be more controllable, although it still takes some getting used to. I can't say I noticed any difference with the take off though.

[effte]

I have only done very limited testing, but it seems somewhat more believable. Had a peculiarly wild ride in a crosswind though, but as I said - very limited testing as to date. Give it a shot! Well worth the money.

[DDSSTT]

I find landings to be much easier, not that they were hard before. Also, taxing is completely different to me. I couldnt taxi for my life before 1.2.0.. lol

[Ali Fish]

its easier. feels to easy, but maybe thats because it was hard before (not too hard though)

 

better for newcomers to the series IMO, if it were deemed unrealisticly easy, later they could update it. but its good for now.

[effte]

Military aircraft are designed to be flown by the worst pilot to pass through training, under the worst conditions, on the pilot's worst day, without an excessively large risk of things going wrong. They are designed to be flown for hundreds of sorties by the same barely competent pilot without an excessively large risk of something going wrong.

 

It shouldn't be all that difficult.

 

If you divide the community members into two groups, those who go "yeeee-haw!" and those who go "hmmm....?", where do you find most of the real life pilots?

 

Just a thought.

[Tango]

There are real-world pilots who go "YEEEEHHHAAAAWWWWW!!!!!!" so your question is not as simple as it first appears. :D Needless to say, those pilots don't live too long.

 

I wouldn't drive my car to the gas station last night (1 mile) because I already drove it too far with the light on. I walked and picked some up because I didn't want to risk the engine dying on the way there. That's me though.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Tango

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Thank you all for the feedback.

 

I've long wanted to have a good prop aircraft simulation. So far I have been coming back to my good old ELITE when it comes to realistic engine performance, acceptable flight dynamics inside of the normal envelope - it's an IFR sim...

 

All versions of MSFS, XPlane, etc... have so far failled at giving me what I want, so, and although I really do not like the military aspects of flying, I might end up buying DCS p-51 just for the joy of "flying" a realistic simulation ´:-)

 

@Effte: Been following all of your excellent posts! Thanks!

 

In RL I fly gliders "only"... since 1980, so, my other sims are SilentWings, Condor and SFS...

A few years ago I bought Flamming Cliffs, but my rig couldn't run it :-( Now I have an i5 2500m a Nvidia 450 GTX and 8GB RAM. Windows 7 64 bit Home. I believe dcs-p51 will run fine on it, even if not at max graphic settings...

Edited July 11, 2012 by jcomm

[mmaruda]

I just bought the Mustang yesterday, so I cannot really compare. Taxing, take-offs and landings are doable on the first try with no assists (I'm the bad kind of yeeeehaaaaw! pilot). However, once you do something wrong and start drifting... it's as if you were on ice, I don't believe even the Mustang can go sideways the way it happens in the sim. It's like Ridge Racer or something.

[OldCrow47]

Military aircraft are designed to be flown by the worst pilot to pass through training, under the worst conditions, on the pilot's worst day, without an excessively large risk of things going wrong. They are designed to be flown for hundreds of sorties by the same barely competent pilot without an excessively large risk of something going wrong.

 

NOT that it matters but, I think this statement is ridiculous. Nice thought though.

[effte]

Now, how to put it?

 

People who can put substance behind the opinions they express gain my respect.

 

That goes both ways, though.

[skouras]

the take off is still unrealistic..

 

the landing is improved but not close to the real mustang

[159th_Viper]

the take off is still unrealistic..

 

Trim acknowledged as a WIP. At present utilize 2.5 degree right rudder trim for take-off as opposed to 6.

 

 

 

.....the landing is improved but not close to the real mustang

 

You are gonna have to do a helluva lot better than that if you want your post to be given due consideration.

 

Care to elaborate so we can, if necessary, investigate the issue?

[Smokin Hole]

I don't think effte's comments are ridiculous. Scouts and fighters certainly were not intended to be flown by morons. But they were designed to be flown with relative ease by the lowest common denominator. The planes were mostly forgiving and stable. The P-51 is no different.

[tintifaxl]

I don't think effte's comments are ridiculous. Scouts and fighters certainly were not intended to be flown by morons. But they were designed to be flown with relative ease by the lowest common denominator. The planes were mostly forgiving and stable. The P-51 is no different.

 

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51accidents.php. :music_whistling:

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51accidents.php. :music_whistling:

 

Great link! Thx!

[VH-Rock]

Great link! Thx!

 

Indeed, a very interesting read. It looks like this aircraft could be lethal to the new pilot.

[OldCrow47]

Effte's point is that the P-51 here should be somewhat easier to operate than it is. It would certainly seem so. Pilots in WWII transitioned to new fighters in very short time. Something like here read this, take the test, then we will give you a verbal exam and BTW take-off is Thursday. But, don't make broad sweeping generalizations like he did. Example, the F-104 is a military aircraft. Do you think that statement applies? Was it not, as were all MDS, designed for a specific mission? Certainly not dumbed down to lowest common human denominator. (F-104 is an MDS...mission design series in the jargon of the military.)

 

I have struggled for hours learning to handle this P-51 on taxi and take-off. Pilots in WWII had their hands full if the sim is accurate!!! I would not have survived the training. Now, it's not so tough after learning not to overdo the control inputs and keep up my timing with the aircraft. Once in the air, I never lost an aircraft. Landing is easy if you pay attention and fly by the numbers.

 

The patch hasn't changed much for me beyond better taxiing control. Just first impression, I need lots more time. -Jim

[Smokin Hole]

Look up C-152 and you'll find similar stats. Believe me, I'm not trying to be contrary. But I've talked to many pilots who have flown mustangs and other fighters. Most recently the instructor who checked me out in a Pitts S2C described flying a Mustang and found it to be honest and unsurprising with flying qualities very similar to an AT-6.

[Smokin Hole]

The F-104 also had very good flying qualities and some amazing engineering. The boundary layer control gave it approach speeds approaching those of jets with, errrr, wings. :-) I don't believe many idiots flew it but I do know that it wasn't designed for Bob Hoover. It was designed for the middling guy in class who lucked into selection into fighters.

[159th_Viper]

Most recently the instructor who checked me out in a Pitts S2C described flying a Mustang and found it to be honest and unsurprising with flying qualities very similar to an AT-6.

 

And then there are accounts and observations of current Mustang pilots who say the exact opposite :)

 

Who is correct?

 

I'll see if I can find the links to the articles - was most interesting to read the diametrically opposite views when describing the characteristics of the same airframe.

[effte]

(Edit:The accident list...) Seems fairly typical to me, with the unsurprising exception of a large number of engine failures, aerobatics/show related accidents and collisions on the ground.

 

If you read through the list and check the detailed reports, you'll have a hard time finding events related to the subject of discussion here.

 

All aircraft can be lethal to a new pilot. They are all even more lethal to the not-so-new-but-not-yet-very-experienced-pilot. Most accidents caused by pilots happen when they have accumulated a few hundred hours. Complacency sets in, but is not yet countered by a wealth of experience.

Edited July 12, 2012 by effte
Fast-moving thread, making the reference unclear.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Rudder authority at low speed was fairly limited in the previous version, which I think is what made takeoff in particular a bit tricky. It has now been improved, making it easier.

 

I'd have thought the rudder authority is now more like what it is in the real thing, as they tend to be fairly powerful control surfaces, especially in tail draggers.

[louisv]

Perhaps it is honest and unsurprising for someone with a lot of experience with high powered tail- dragers.

 

Maybe not so predictable for a cessna pilot !

[Yo-Yo]

its easier. feels to easy, but maybe thats because it was hard before (not too hard though)

 

better for newcomers to the series IMO, if it were deemed unrealisticly easy, later they could update it. but its good for now.

 

Yes! Placebo effect as strong as it can be...:)

 

Nothing was changed in FM EXCEPT tail wheel behaviour and reaction... the only moment you could see the difference is when you taxiing with stick fully forward. If you feel landing or TO more easy - it only means that your skill are growing.. :)

 

I wrote it on the testers' forum and now duplicate here: just for fun and in scientific purposes I forced two female volunteeers to TO in Mustang. The sim background was 0 minutes in Mustang for both and not more than 1 hour in Su-27 and Su-25 for one of them several years ago.

 

The main condition was that I must not touch a joystick to fix their mistakes but only instruct.

The result was that both ladies could manage to safe TO after 5-7 attempts in full real mode of course w/o TO assistant and autorudder.

 

The main advice for them was : ANTICIPATE!

And this is a key to the TO - ANTICIPATE. When you have no acceleration info you must train the ability to calculate the secon derivation of the attitude in your brain. That's the point. That's why real pilots say that in-sim flying is harder than in RL.

 

Is it hard to ride a bicycle? No. "Bicycle is designed for the worst drivers" . But if you try to ride the most correct simulated bicyle, I bet, most of you will say that it's too hard or impossible.