Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

191 Excellent

1 Follower

About JG27_PapaFly

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1014 profile views
  1. I did a few level acceleration tests prior to the addition of Bodenplatte planes. Level acceleration under full realism, at 300m ASL, 50 percent fuel, on level autopilot. As shown in the diagram below, the Fw-190 and P-39 lead the pack above 350 kph TAS, and the Spit IX is the top dog below that speed. Because the diagram above does not show what the tactical meaning of the measured differences is, I've prepared following diagram. It shows how much time each plane needs to accelerate through given speed intervals. Here you see that the Spit IX needs an additional 5 seconds compared to the 190A5 to accelerate from 450 to 500 kph.
  2. Exactly, and you can adjust the response curves for the elevator and aileron trim axes for a more aggressive response. The 109 series, the 262, and the P-51 profit a great deal from this.
  3. That is easily corrected by mapping the elevator trim axis to the elevator axis. This effectively, and unrealistically, counteracts the high stick forces, helping to negate yet another genuine Fw-190 advantage. Map the aileron trim to the aileron axis and the mustang gets super maneuverable at high speeds.
  4. The success of this maneuver depends on your initial assessment of his energy state. If you underestimate his E state you find yourself trapped in a steep zoom, with little speed and therefore little maneuvering potential. Keep in mind that many red planes are great zoomers and are very easy to control (and to aim) in steep zoomclimbs down to walking speed. We employ this and similar maneuvers as aggressive team tactics. While one of us zooms right after the merge, one or two of us are close-by, ready for a swift deadly attack on an opponent who follows in the vertical. We call these maneuvers vertical baits. Even in this scenario one should have a plan B ready. That's why my advice is a less aggressive initial zoomclimb of up to 45 degrees. During this stage, we reassess the opponents energy and tactics. Should he have an energy advantage, we can quickly transit into a dive / unloaded extension. This buys some time and provides the higher speed necessary for effective defensive maneuvering. If however the opponent follows into the maneuver despite having less energy we can steepen the climb, eventually pitching back on an opponent that is now trapped I'm the vertical, with no speed and facing crossfire. The less steep initial climb is also a good way to slowly sucker the opponent into the vertical. He will often assume that you zoom moderately because you don't have the juice to go vertical.
  5. I use a simulation setup with a seat which is reclined 45 degrees, in combination with a force feedback Sidestick (msffb2), warthog throttles and mfg crosswind pedals. I'm thinking of switching to the FSSB R3 force sensing stick. http://realsimulator.com/html/fssb_r3_lighting.html There are four reasons: 1) Even after using my inclined simulation rig for six years, I still haven't found the perfect support for my underarm. This is easier with center sticks, where one can rest the arm on ones thighs. A stick that doesn't move at all is a logical step, as in the F-16. 2) The manufacturer promises unprecedented accuracy with the force sensing setup. They sell a new base for the warthog stick, which includes the force sensors for two axes. 3) Even a state of the art regular joystick has severe limitations due to the short travel of the gimbal. This would be a thing of the past with force sensing technology. 4) The warthog grips are in a different league compared to my MSFFB2 stick. More buttons, better ability to customize, and great look and feel. I absolutely love my warthog throttles. So, does anyone have experience with this product?
  6. Thanks for taking your time, this must have been a lot of work. Could you include a measure of variability as well in order to have an estimate whether the observed differences are statistically significant? Standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and CV (%) would work. As an alternative, you could plot box plot diagrams (can be done with Excel 2016). These include mean, median, as well as measures of the data distribution / variability.
  7. A head-on where both opponents are shooting is a tactic for the stupid, crazy, or desperate. We go to great lengths to get our squaddies to consistently and successfully avoid such two sided head-ons. Having one guy in a squad environment who for some reason likes head-ons has a very unpleasant side effect: you can count on him losing a plane in a head-on any time, and leaving his wingman alone and in a bad situation.
  8. That's music in my ears! All the best from JG27!
  9. I agree to most comments above. The key to your survival is what we call a clean close had-on merge. Place your opponent at your slightly high eleven or one o'clock and keep him there until about two seconds before he'd open fire. That's when you initiate a moderate g turn, crossing below his flight path, i.e. you transit from his low eleven o'clock to his low one o'clock or vice-versa. Many pilots get this wrong online. The point is to be very close to him at the merge without being shot. If you allow lateral separation at the merge you offer him the opportunity to perform an early lead turn into you, and be in shooting range behind you right after the merge. Assuming you did a good merge: Since you were below him all the time, he has most likely built up some speed, and reversing towards you after the merge will cost some time, especially if we consider the physiology model. You did this low turn just prior to the merge. It will sucker many opponents into a predefined turn i.e. towards you. So if you turned left at the merge, quite often the bandit will do the same at and immediately after the merge. Now comes your next move: maintain your turn for a few more degrees until you have tally on the bandit. If he is aggressively turning to get behind you, you can continue in what we call a placebo turn: put the plane into a step bank, and continue into a gentle, low g turn, giving up a bit of altitude. The steep bank angle will make many opponents think that you are turning aggressively as well, and they will turn even harder, just to find out that they burned their speed, and that you are leveling out to do a zero g extension (unloaded extension). Wave good bye, extend, and come back with more altitude.
  10. Awesome find Marder, thanks for sharing!
  11. Wow, thanks for sharing that valuable insight! Luckily, I addressed and documented a bunch of global FM issues 11 months ago. I've seen very little improvement since. Instead, we get more and more buggy FMs, which keep adding to my disappointment.
  12. Check out this video of a TF-51 training flight, and note how the instructor insists that no ailerons are to be used when near stall speed. It's because they are at the limit of controllability, and the adverse yaw induced by the ailerons would lead to a spin. And that is a clean ship at 20 inches of manifold, LOL. In-game, we can abuse the plane at maximum manifold and never run into controllability issues.
  13. The real mustang will depart from controlled flight if abused the way I do in my track. Heck, I'm riding the stall, full flaps and gear, maximum AoA, jerking stick, pedals, and throttle all over the place. The plane is far too controllable. Here's what Barry Schiff wrote about flying the real deal https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2007/august/pilot/north-american-aviation-p-51d-mustang "I reminded myself on final approach not to overreact to a botched or bounced landing by jamming in full throttle. It is possible at low airspeed for the Merlin to torque the Mustang into an uncontrollable half-roll into the ground. A go-around can be made safely with only 46 inches of manageable manifold pressure." And he describes a go-around from 100 knots. I merrily fly at more than 60 inches of manifold and 130 kph, slamming throttle and the other controls all over the place. That would never end well in a P-51. This FM is far too benign.
  14. Hi folks, I just had a ride in the P-51 under full realism settings. I'm very disappointed by the FM. With 35% fuel, it climbs 500 meters per minute, with full flaps and gear down, and at 140 kph CAS. It's a very bad arcade joke IMO, reminiscent of the Spit FM issues I posted in my vid 11 months ago. In addition, I miss the harsh stall and lower lift provided by the laminar wing. Check out the attached track. Track.zip
  15. I'd try to become a tactical advisor. Recruit some of the best pilots and teach them the science of air combat tactics. WWII Top Gun. That area has developed tremendously after WWII. I'd also try to get the message across to plane manufacturers.
  • Create New...