some question of the P-51D.

[Whiplash]

But also note that ED surely had all the wind tunnel testing for all this, no doubt including the effect of the guns installed in the wings, rockets loaded and/or drop tanks and bombs.... so all that should be covered... Pilots input is only part of the equation.

 

Hold on, ED has actual wind tunnel testing data for a P-51? I had no idea it went that far. lol I assumed they had basic flight characteristic data that they derive some algorithm that theoretically resembled the FM of a mustang.

 

[Echo38]

And evry FFB stick should only render the force on ailerons/elevator. Not the guns and landing gear effects wich are unrealistic on a real stick imo.

 

Yep--IRL, gunfire will not cause any noticeable shaking force on the stick which is not also present throughout the rest of the aircraft. So having the joystick shake more than the surroundings, as the real stick does not, is unrealistic.

 

I had no idea it went that far.

 

Eagle Dynamics is owned by the Fighter Collection. The Fighter Collection also owns a number of real WWII fighters, including a P-51. Nick Grey, who flies that P-51, is the man who initiated the development of DCS: P-51D. He spent much effort working with ED to maximize the accuracy of the simulation.

[NineLine]

Hold on, ED has actual wind tunnel testing data for a P-51? I had no idea it went that far. lol I assumed they had basic flight characteristic data that they derive some algorithm that theoretically resembled the FM of a mustang.

 

 

if you want something that theoretically resembles an FM, I can point you to other websites ;)

[HellToupee]

That why i think that in joystick movement corenspondend with stick movement DCS is not realistic. I think it is harder to fly P-51 DCS then real one because we got different sticks ( much shorter) then IRL which mean we have much shorter movements. I think DCS to be more real and realistic should unfortunately find better solution to simulate these things. Now for me it isn't.

 

Thats why DCS P-51 is more prone to stall which much shorter stick movements then RL plane probably.

 

They have the solution, joystick curve you can set your required movement at any setting, i use 15 on the elevators and have no issues flying it on the edge.

[Der_Fred]

Originally Posted by Der_Fred It's the pilot.. not the aircraft... as Oleg Maddox has always said. :-) If that were true there would be no need to introduce new aircraft. It's a tired saying that doesn't bear repeating.

???? You conclusion is illogical :-).. Pilot capabilities does make a big difference. The more aircraft the merrier.. preferably more than one prop aircraft :-) Silver_Dragon: The DCS P-51 seems to be true to the RL counterpart except for a few items.. but we can live with that. One cannot expect it to be absolute, after all, it is just a PC game. I wouldn't worry about what others want to 'bleet' about.

[VH-Rock]

That why i think that in joystick movement corenspondend with stick movement DCS is not realistic. I think it is harder to fly P-51 DCS then real one because we got different sticks ( much shorter) then IRL which mean we have much shorter movements. I think DCS to be more real and realistic should unfortunately find better solution to simulate these things. Now for me it isn't.

 

Thats why DCS P-51 is more prone to stall which much shorter stick movements then RL plane probably.

 

I always said that.

 

 

BTW i wonder when ED would fix problem with force fedback shake stall effect which was disabled with 1.2.6 version? How long we would need to wait for these bug fix? I quit playing P-51 beacsue of these. Saw a few 1.2.6 updates since these bug but noone fix it.

 

It's only inaccurate if you have the wrong equipment... There are floor mount modifications out there that would do the job, so why should ED change the stang? ;)

[Echo38]

I say, making the sim wrong to match our wrong equipment isn't the answer. "Two wrongs don't make a right," and all that!

[Kwiatek]

I say, making the sim wrong to match our wrong equipment isn't the answer. "Two wrongs don't make a right," and all that!

 

We don't have wrong equipment. We got computers not cocpits planes - so all sim makers need to take care of it.

 

Majority of sim customers use standart joystick - with short stick and curvers really dont help here too much. Thats why playing such sim like DCS P-51 could be harder then flying real life plane in some area.

 

 

Moreover i use FF stick and atcually they also screw with FF effects like shake stall. From a few months we dont get fix it and next update info 1.2.7 not mentions also about these bug fix.

 

Very annoying expecially that ED looks like dont care about it.

[NineLine]

We don't have wrong equipment. We got computers not cocpits planes - so all sim makers need to take care of it.

 

Majority of sim customers use standart joystick - with short stick and curvers really dont help here too much. Thats why playing such sim like DCS P-51 could be harder then flying real life plane in some area.

 

 

Moreover i use FF stick and atcually they also screw with FF effects like shake stall. From a few months we dont get fix it and next update info 1.2.7 not mentions also about these bug fix.

 

Very annoying expecially that ED looks like dont care about it.

 

 

Yo-Yo already commented on the P-51 and curves, he doesnt use them and he feels they arent needed for someone flying combat, its possible another person might prefer it, but what it all comes down to is patience and practice... and going into it realizing this isnt a flight sim from the 90's... this is the bar... way up here *hold hand above head*....

 

As for FF, I know its ongoing... I dont have a FF stick so I dont test obviously that part of it, but I see discussions on it all the time...

[Echo38]

We don't have wrong equipment. We got computers not cocpits planes - so all sim makers need to take care of it.

 

If the real P-51 has an 18" stick, and the sim models the P-51 as having an 18" stick, but we're using 6" sticks--then I can only conclude that our equipment is in the wrong, and not the sim.

 

I use no curves (linear, direct input), and I don't have a problem making precise movements except for in the very center. Some difficulty being exactly straight and level, but not too bad. It's my stick's fault, not the sim. A better simming stick (Warthog, perhaps) would allow me to make precise movements even in the center. A floor-mounted stick would be virtually ideal.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Echo38

[gavagai]

Let's not forget where this thread started. It began as a complaint about the P-51's stall characteristics. The amount of misinformation out there for the P-51 is staggering. Every air show you go to, every series on TV, every description in a history book..."the highly maneuverable Mustang...the best all-around fighter of WW2...the best dogfighter of WW2..." on and on ad nauseum. What many believe about the P-51D is propaganda. It's no wonder that the casual flight simmer gets a nasty surprise from DCS.

 

Over the years we have lost more P-51 aircrews to turn related accelerated stall than any of us care to remember.

http://www.warbirddepot.com/fighter_formation/documents/FFQP_Turn_Performance.pdf

Edited December 7, 2013 by gavagai

[Merlin-27]

...Every air show you go to, every series on TV, every description in a history book..."the highly maneuverable Mustang...the best all-around fighter of WW2...the best dogfighter of WW2..." on and on ad nauseum. What many believe about the P-51D is propaganda. It's no wonder that the casual flight simmer gets a nasty surprise from DCS.

 

The casual flight simmer flies the DCS: P-51D? :lol: Well, he won't be casual for long.

 

Are you saying the Mustang is NOT "highly maneuverable"?

Can you definitively dispute claims that it was the best "all-around" fighter?

Do you think the WWII P-51 pilots themselves were fueling this "propaganda" with their many many testimonials?

 

Of course you will hear more pro-american claims from American sources. And as you know you will see pro-spitfire claims from British sources etc. etc. etc. It would be pretty odd to go to an airshow in America and hear the announcer claim Nazi aircraft were superior and the Mustang stalls too easy.

 

I've always viewed the heated WW2 fighter disputes as futile since every aircraft had different uses, aircrews, resources and so on but to say the Mustang doesn't deserve the accolades is pretty silly.

 

Since I was a little boy reading every aviation book I could find, I knew the P-51 Mustang was a challenging aircraft to fly and it makes mastering her that much more enjoyable.:joystick:

[NineLine]

I still wish I could find this quote again, but it was from a WWII pilot, I think an American but I cant find it... anyways he said something to the effect if you are having fun flying it, its probably not a WWII fighter...

[gavagai]

Merlin,

 

Do some research on the properties of a laminar flow wing. The same property that minimizes its drag also decreases its possible angle of attack before departure.

 

Of course the Mustang deserves accolades, but not for all the reasons usually cited. It was a great escort fighter that provided cover for B-17s and B-24s and reduced their loss rates.

 

But the most maneuverable? Not a chance. Just ask someone who has flown the Mustang and a "Nazi" plane that would never receive much praise at an American airshow:

 

 

:thumbup:

[Echo38]

Gosh, that interviewer was terrible! Just about every question he asked was a "leading question."

 

I do not doubt that both of those pilots are experts--one doesn't get to fly old warbirds without being that. Still, I can't help but question the suggestion that the Me 109G has a superior turn rate/radius to the Spitfire V. I can't say that it isn't accurate (as I haven't flown any of them myself, of course), but I'd be very surprised if that were so!

 

Say, who was that first pilot?

Edited December 8, 2013 by Echo38

[Merlin-27]

Merlin,

 

Do some research on the properties of a laminar flow wing. The same property that minimizes its drag also decreases its possible angle of attack before departure.

 

I've done plenty of reading on near laminar flow airfoil design. How does that change ANYTHING I stated? The Mustang remains highly maneuverable. To say otherwise is asinine. I actually agreed with you, but the fact that stall warning is less than ideal doesn't make is a "bad" design as you are implying.

 

Of course the Mustang deserves accolades, but not for all the reasons usually cited. It was a great escort fighter that provided cover for B-17s and B-24s and reduced their loss rates.

 

So in your experience they don't usually cite the P-51D as an escort fighter? Quite odd.

 

But the most maneuverable? Not a chance. Just ask someone who has flown the Mustang and a "Nazi" plane that would never receive much praise at an American airshow:

 

Obviously you're not paying attention. Where was "most maneuverable" stated? Not by me. And you missed my point by a NAUTICAL MILE.

 

How many times are you going to post this same video? :doh:

 

[aracas11]

stick

 

build an extended stick to roughly the same dimensions as the real P51

stick i did you will think it a lot less twitchy in fact it`s superb .

[msalama]

What's the fuss? The Mustang was one of the best energy fighters of its time, but it certainly wasn't a t'n'b machine. And neither was it unambigously "the best", because no plane ever is. So again, why the brouhaha?

[gavagai]

I've done plenty of reading on near laminar flow airfoil design. How does that change ANYTHING I stated? The Mustang remains highly maneuverable. To say otherwise is asinine. I actually agreed with you, but the fact that stall warning is less than ideal doesn't make is a "bad" design as you are implying.

 

You and I should have this conversation sometime on teamspeak. It would go much better. When they fix ffb I'll be back in the air.:thumbup:

 

P.S. It's not the absence of stick shake that makes 1.2.6 unplayable for me; it's that ffb ends up delaying my keyboard and joystick button inputs. When I first noticed the absence of stick shake, I almost thought it was intentional on ED's part to better simulate the P-51!

Edited December 8, 2013 by gavagai

[BitMaster]

It's the pilot.. not the aircraft... as Oleg Maddox has always said.

:-)

 

It was said by Chuck Yeager in this context and not Mr. Maddox.

 

Quote:

 

"As Chuck Yeager puts it, "it's the man, not the machine": a superior pilot in an inferior plane will win every time. If the rescuer is very good, he can make any set of tools look better than the tools you are using. It is a mistake to assume that it is his tools that caused the project's productivity to improve. Of course, given pilots of equal ability, the tools then make a big difference."

 

 

Give credit to those who did the actual deed, not the ones just repeating their words :)

 

When Chuck approached the barrier of sound he didn't know if he was gonna make it, nor did he have a respawn button. That makes a big difference when referring.

 

 

Bit

[Shahdoh]

It was said by Chuck Yeager in this context and not Mr. Maddox.

 

Quote:

 

"As Chuck Yeager puts it, "it's the man, not the machine": a superior pilot in an inferior plane will win every time. If the rescuer is very good, he can make any set of tools look better than the tools you are using. It is a mistake to assume that it is his tools that caused the project's productivity to improve. Of course, given pilots of equal ability, the tools then make a big difference."

 

 

Give credit to those who did the actual deed, not the ones just repeating their words :)

 

When Chuck approached the barrier of sound he didn't know if he was gonna make it, nor did he have a respawn button. That makes a big difference when referring.

 

 

Bit

 

:thumbup:

[gavagai]

So, in a duel between Georges Guynemer in a Spad 7, and an air force 2nd Lt in an F-16 (with no real combat experience), we expect Guynemer to be victorious?

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

I say, making the sim wrong to match our wrong equipment isn't the answer. "Two wrongs don't make a right," and all that!

 

:thumbup:

[Merlin-27]

You and I should have this conversation sometime on teamspeak. It would go much better. When they fix ffb I'll be back in the air.:thumbup:

 

P.S. It's not the absence of stick shake that makes 1.2.6 unplayable for me; it's that ffb ends up delaying my keyboard and joystick button inputs. When I first noticed the absence of stick shake, I almost thought it was intentional on ED's part to better simulate the P-51!

 

Roger. Get back in the air, man! :D I'll show you laminar flow!

 

Seriously though, I hope the FFB gets fixed. We can't afford to push good pilots away from this sim.

[cichlidfan]

So, in a duel between Georges Guynemer in a Spad 7, and an air force 2nd Lt in an F-16 (with no real combat experience), we expect Guynemer to be victorious?

 

:doh: