some misinformation going on at simhq

[leafer]

I was searching for some P-51 related accidents and came across this some how.

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3838411/Re_Just_not_fun#Post3838411

 

I'm at work and can only be on the Internet for a few minutes at a time. I also do not posses the kind of knowledge a lot of you guys do regarding FM and such; I fly sim because I love the feeling of flying.

 

Unless they're right which I doubt, one of you guys ought to straighten them out over there. :D

[EvilBivol-1]

I think all we need to know is contained in the feedback referenced here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1836842#post1836842

[leafer]

Thanks, EvilB! I'll post it there.

[Fifi]

Was about to link the same...

Best reference i've seen so far! And what a reference.

[VH-Rock]

Indeed, So far, we know that Stephen Grey & Nick Grey (Owners of The Fighter Collection) have flown in the testing stage. Ed Shipley, Dan Friedkin, Steve Hinton, Stevo Hinton and Matt Nightingale (All regular Mustang pilots) have all flown it in our presence when we've done the live shows at Dux and all have absolutely loved it! I would tend to believe their feedback over anybody else's. For us to the formation aerobatics that we do in her, she has to be stable or it just wouldn't work. I wonder if they started shouting at bike manufacturers when they took the training wheels off their bike because it was to unstable? "That damn thing just wont stand up!"

Edited November 20, 2013 by VH-Rock

[Weta43]

Don't suppose you want to repeat everything in that post up to the bicycle reference ( :) ) over there do you ?

[VH-Rock]

Don't suppose you want to repeat everything in that post up to the bicycle reference ( :) ) over there do you ?

 

Will do, at some point today :)

 

*Edit* All done - will see if I can answer any questions over there

Edited November 20, 2013 by VH-Rock

[Yo-Yo]

Just few corrections: the in-flight sound recording was in 2012 and the first Nick Grey's reacton was not to the numbers only but to the plane's behaviour in general as well.

[VH-Rock]

Just few corrections: the in-flight sound recording was in 2012 and the first Nick Grey's reacton was not to the numbers only but to the plane's behaviour in general as well.

 

Will amend now, my apologies :)

[Scarecrow]

I can't believe anyone would even mention FSX in a flight model discussion.

I love the logic of "it's hard to fly, it must be wrong" :music_whistling:

[leafer]

Don't forget that ED modeled the stick travel to match the real thing. Not sure if I worded it right but this alone have killed many virtual DCS P-51 pilots. Basically I think it's best to fly with extended stick to realize its full potential.

[chaos]

I can't believe anyone would even mention FSX in a flight model discussion.

I love the logic of "it's hard to fly, it must be wrong" :music_whistling:

 

To be fair... flying any aircraft isn't that difficult. It does sometimes feel like DCS P-51 tries to kill you every time you pull a little bit too hard on the stick. This is where the problem lies. In DCS you're missing a lot of the clues pilots get in the real aircraft. It takes time for the simulation pilot to build up muscle-memory and stay out of trouble. No doubt the simulated aircraft matches real-world performance and behaviour... it's the virtual pilot who has to adapt to the FM and that takes a while...

Edited November 20, 2013 by chaos

[gavagai]

Some non-biased information about the P-51 versus other american fighters:

 

A few years ago, the Society of Experimental Test Pilots ran a flight test comparison of the F6F-5, FG-1D (Goodyear F4U), P-47D-40 and P-51D. Chief test pilot was John Ellis of Kal-Aero. Other pilots also participated.

 

The three radial jobs had versions of the R-2800 that produced appx. 2,000 hp, so differences in performance can be reasonably attributed to the airframe (and prop). The P-51 had a V-1650-9 Merlin rated at appx. 1,500 hp.

 

The P-47 had a Curtiss Electric constant-speed four-blade prop. The FG-1 and F6F both had Hamilton Standard three-bladed constant speed props (so only the airframe made the difference between these two). The P-51 had a Hamilton Standard Hydromatic four-bladed constant speed prop.

 

Because of the age of the aircraft, structural loads were kept to 6g max. Engines were fueled with 100LL, which limited MP by four inches on the radials. Power was limited to maximum continuous settings (except for

take-off & climb to 10,000 ft., when military power was used), superchargers were limited to low range. Altitude did not exceed 10,000 ft (so bomber escort altitudes were not reached).

 

Some of the findings:

 

CLIMB brake release to 10,000 ft.

Hellcat quickest at 4min 15 seconds, followed by the FG-1 at 4min 44 sec. However, the F6F required 100 lbs of continuous right rudder making it very tiring to operate. The P-47 trailed the FG-1 by a few seconds. The

P-51 came in last.

 

LEVEL ACCELERATION at 10,000 ft. using METO to max attainable speed:

P-51 accelerated from 110 KIAS to 242 KIAS in 133 seconds.

P-47 accelerated from 105 KIAS to 223 KIAS in 130 seconds.

F6F accelerated from 100 KIAS to 220 KIAS in 115 seconds.

FG-1 accelerated from 100 KIAS to 230 KIAS in 162 seconds.

 

STALL normal (straight and level decelerating at 1 kt/sec.) and accelerated (constant 3g turn decelerating at 1 kt/sec.)

Aerodynamic warning:

Best--P-47, with buffet 5 kt above stall.

Worst--P-51, no buffet or other warning.

FG-1 and F6F buffeted 2 kts above stall.

Decreasing aileron effectiveness and increasing longitudinal stick forces

were noticeable in all except the FG-1.

Height loss, accelerated stall:

Best--P-47, 100 ft.

Worst--P-51, 500 ft.

FG-1 and F6F both 150 ft.

 

Behavior during accelrated stall:

Most predictable and controllable: P-47 and F6F. Both could be flown at will into the pre-stall buffet, which at no time was heavy enough to present problems with tracking, and held at maximum usable lift coefficient with ease. Sideslip became noticeable as wing heaviness correctible with rudder. There was little tendency to depart controlled

flight. The FG-1 suffered severe airframe buffet shortly before the stall, but at the stall there was a strong g-break and rapid right wing drop--no matter which direction the turn. Careful left rudder could prevent wing drop,

but then at the stall the aircraft became very unpredictable, bucking and porpoising, with a tendency to a sudden departure. The P-51 gave no warning whatsoever of an accelerated stall. At the stall, the aircraft departed with complete loss of control, achieving 270-degree of roll before recovery. Departure was accompanied by violent

aileron snatch strong enough to rip the control stick from the hand. In short, the P-51 suffered from a Part I deficiency.

 

SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE at METO at 10,000 ft.

The F6F out-turned the other three by a conclusive margin (1g). The other three were all about the same.

Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed, implying very rapid energy loss when turning at the structural limit. The F6F was in light airframe buffet at 6g at Vmax; the P-47 experiencedlight buffet at 4.8g. The FG-1 and P-51 were buffet-free up to 6g.

 

MANEUVERING STABILITY stick forces/g at Vmax

FG-1--5 lbs/g (too light)

P-47--7.5 lbs/g (ideal)

F6F--12.5 lbs/g (barely acceptable)

P-51--over 20 lbs/g (excessive)

 

STATIC LATERAL DIRECTION STABILITY steady heading sideslips

All aircraft except the P-47 exhibited moderate or greater adverse aileronyaw. Worst was the F6F, followed by the FG-1 and the P-51.

 

ROLL PERFORMANCE

1g 360-degree right (left slower--F6F worst, P-51 best)

FG-1--81 deg./sec.

F6F--78 deg./sec.

P-51--75 deg./sec.

P-47--74 deg./sec.

3g 180 degree right (left slower--P-51 and F6F best, FG-1 worst)

P-47--66 deg./sec.

FG-1--58 deg./sec.

P-51--55 deg./sec.

F6F--48 deg./sec.

 

DIVING ACCELERATION 30 deg. dive from 10,000 ft., 5,000 ft. begin pull-up, level off at 4,000 ft.

Aircraft P-47 FG-1 F6F P51

 

Start Speed 110 kts 100 kts 100 kts 120 kts

Max Speed 350 kts 348 kts 315 kts 350 kts

Time 23 secs 32 secs 28 secs 25 secs

All aircraft except the P-47 needed retrimming during the dive.

 

AGILITY

g capture of 3g target, held for 5 seconds.

G capture and hold was easiest in the P-47, predictable and accurate. F6F overshot the target by 0.2g. P-51 and FG-1 both overshot by 0.5g

 

Heading Change Time (180 deg at METO, 220 KIAS at 10,000 ft.)

FG-1--8.5 sec P-47--9.7 sec F6F--9.9 sec P-51--10.0 sec

 

AIR-TO-AIR TRACKING 210 KIAS at 10,000 ft. (straight & level into a 3g turn to the left building to 4g followed by a hard reversal into a 4g right turn.)

FG-1 best, followed by P-47, F6F and, trailing badly, the P-51. Lateral corrections in the P-51 were difficult thanks to the very high stick forces. During one run-thru, an effort at a longitudinal tracking correction that put 4.5g on the plane led to a sudden departure and spin.Poor forward visibility in all aircraft (P-47 worst, FG-1 best) made air-to-air tracking difficult. Depressed sight-line aiming difficult to impossible.

 

AIR-TO-GROUND TRACKING (90-degree roll into a 30-degree dive from 200 KIAS at 5,000 ft. into a 3.5g right rolling pullout to a 90-degree heading change initiated at 2,500 ft.)

The P-47 was far and away the best, accelerating 125 kts in the dive, no retrimming required, with crisp control response. Accurate target tracking very easy. FG-1 next best. 100 kt. acceleration. Agressive lateral corrections required. P-51 similar to FG-1 in acceleration and

control response, but with heavier stick forces. F6F also accelerated 100 kts., but stick forces increased 20 lbs and rudder forces became so high they interfered with accurate target tracking.

 

THROTTLE & PROPELLER RESPONSE

MP response instantaneous. Hamilton Standard propeller response quick and positive. Curtiss electric prop (on P-47) sluggish in response, delaying RPM change by 3 seconds in a change from 2,000 rpm (cruise) and 2,550 rpm (METO).

Radial engines required pilot to manage cowl and cooler flap settings. Merlin engine had automatic control of oil and coolant radiator flaps.

[jib]

Don't forget that ED modeled the stick travel to match the real thing. Not sure if I worded it right but this alone have killed many virtual DCS P-51 pilots. Basically I think it's best to fly with extended stick to realize its full potential.

 

Yeah it flies great with my 2 foot stick extension!

 

 

If anything it is a little to long, I sometimes feel like putting negative curves on it because it is a full body workout moving it from one side to the other.:joystick:

[Oscar]

We all play with the stick settings. Hell, I've swung from one end of them to the other trying to find a happy medium. It's really hard to get HOTAS settings that can simulate and account for 20lbs of force. What I'd be curious to know, given the FM, is what a baseline stick setting looks like for this aircraft that provides what could be considered an "actual" or "realistic" feel relative to the real aircraft. Maybe it's not a matter of whether the FM is right or wrong. Maybe it's a matter of us virtual pilots not knowing exactly what the stick settings should be that pair up with the FM provided.

 

Rock, could you post your complete and current settings. You guys doing the aerobatics should be our best source for this data.

 

Edit: jib, do fly that thing standing up.....lol?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Oscar

[VH-Rock]

Hi Oscar,

 

I currently use a Saitek X-52 Pro. I have a curve of 28 for Pitch / Roll and a curve of 17 for the Rudder. Anything else you need to know?

[Pman]

Hey Guys,

 

When I first started in the Mustang it was a handful to fly even to the point that I would swear it was impossible to land.

 

As with Rock I was with the pilots from the Horsemen as well as Steve Hinton Jnr and they loved the Sim, I have spoken with Nick Grey quite a few times about DCS P-51D and every time he expresses how close it is to the handling of the real aircraft.

 

As has been pointed out we do alot of very close formation work with the Mustang, something we wouldn't be able to do if the sim really is as unstable as they claim.

 

Personally I put their reaction down to armchair pilots and lack of experience, DCS Mustang is another level entirely when compared to FSX and IL2. Neither of which model a true flight model.

 

I currently use the TM Warthog and have a curve of 31 and rudder of 23 on Saitek pro line pedals. If that helps :)

 

It just takes alot of practice, but when you do "get it" you will wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

Pman

Virtual Horsemen #2 - Right Wing

[Yo-Yo]

I'd like to add that a bad habit to use sweepy style moving a joystick is a bad habit went from games, where unreal longitudinal balance curves are used.

In real Mustang it can cause PIO...

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/691942-IL2-46-s-P-51D-v-my-experience-in-quot-Crazy-Horse-quot-TF-51D-Forums

 

The experience of DCS P-51 and MSFFB2 caused me to feel that I am slightly undercontrolling the plane (that logically follows from the difference in the force and stick travel), and it was easily corrected using visual angular velocities, g and so on.

[NineLine]

I wonder if more needs to be done to convey that some curve manipulation is needed to adjust for the differences in the real world and the flight stick sitting on our desk.... especially to people new and trying to get into the P-51D, whether they are new to DCS or flight sims all together...

 

We all play with the stick settings. Hell, I've swung from one end of them to the other trying to find a happy medium. It's really hard to get HOTAS settings that can simulate and account for 20lbs of force. What I'd be curious to know, given the FM, is what a baseline stick setting looks like for this aircraft that provides what could be considered an "actual" or "realistic" feel relative to the real aircraft. Maybe it's not a matter of whether the FM is right or wrong. Maybe it's a matter of us virtual pilots not knowing exactly what the stick settings should be that pair up with the FM provided.

 

Rock, could you post your complete and current settings. You guys doing the aerobatics should be our best source for this data.

 

Edit: jib, do fly that thing standing up.....lol?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I wonder if more needs to be done to convey that some curve manipulation is needed to adjust for the differences in the real world and the flight stick sitting on our desk.... especially to people new and trying to get into the P-51D, whether they are new to DCS or flight sims all together...

 

It's not possible to get a true representation on a desktop machine. You'd need a really good quality force feedback stick, and it would need to be bolted/weighed down (stick forces are much higher than most sticks portray); not very practical. Plus you don't have the sensation of g etc.

[NineLine]

Well I didnt say a true representation, but it seems most people do some sort of curve adjustment for the P-51, and new people seem to need to find this out the hard way... just seems like info that could be better communicated.

 

It's not possible to get a true representation on a desktop machine. You'd need a really good quality force feedback stick, and it would need to be bolted/weighed down (stick forces are much higher than most sticks portray); not very practical. Plus you don't have the sensation of g etc.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Ah yes apologies; it was just me lamenting the shortfalls of desk top simming rather than disagreeing with what you'd put, which was perfectly true.

[leafer]

Man I am terrible at searching. There is a video from one of the testers where he synced the DCS p-51 take off with the real mustang video and was able to matched the take off roll rate performance to the t. If anyone can find it please share it here.

[EvilBivol-1]

[westr]

I wouldn't worry to much about it my friend. I think there will always be people out there on other forums bashing DCS P-51 but when I hear that pilot feedback on the DCS P-51 told them they had it spot on I tend to believe them. I love to fly the DCS P-51 and there are times when I fly her and in combat I can get a little frustrated because I don't think she is easy to fly. But that's more to do with my inconsistencies not the sim. That said I get better and better at it with experience and like the real P-51 she is a really effective fighter when you get it right. As for stability I remember reading about the P-51. When she had the Allison power plant she was apparently a dream to fly very smooth a joy. When the merlin was introduced the mustang became on edge and skittish but that doesn't mean she was a bad aeroplane quite the contrary she became a wonderful fighter and in the hands of a good pilot very effective.