Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So I saw a speculation post on the P-38, and thought I would try to start one for one of my favorite planes... the Mustang!

 

SoI guess I am wondering how people feel it will stake up against  Luftwaffe, hopefully it will come soon!

Edited by -332FG-Buddy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect it to be comparatively fast up high and conserve energy well unless you try to change direction. I also expect fuel to last all day. As for hopes, I hope it sells lot's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just really hope that AI will be more competetive in P51. Im tired of fighting Spitfire all the time. P47 AI is good only as target practice for rookies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Voidhunger said:

I just really hope that AI will be more competetive in P51. Im tired of fighting Spitfire all the time. P47 AI is good only as target practice for rookies.

 

I don’t think it will. The AI is more suited to manoeuvrable aircraft like the spit. It always has since ROF days. An AI camel was way more dangerous than an AI spad. It’s just the flying style they have, turn and burn rather than use an aircrafts advantages (climb or speed) to win a fight. Not much can be done about it without a massive overhaul of AI behaviour I guess. (Which imo drastically needs to happen as it’s been years overdue). :salute:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bullets said:

 

I don’t think it will. The AI is more suited to manoeuvrable aircraft like the spit. It always has since ROF days. An AI camel was way more dangerous than an AI spad. It’s just the flying style they have, turn and burn rather than use an aircrafts advantages (climb or speed) to win a fight. Not much can be done about it without a massive overhaul of AI behaviour I guess. (Which imo drastically needs to happen as it’s been years overdue). :salute:

I know, i know , i just thought that mustang was more maneuverable than Jug. It will be boring experience with  Bobp without better AI.

I will be Hartmann with 300 kills in two weaks.😐

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see what sort of altitudes it gets used at.  Without the high altitude heavy bombers to protect there is not so much reason to operate at great heights, so the P-51 will be very much out of its element in some respects.  The Luftwaffe players may end up calling the tune as far as active altitudes go.  Rather like the VVS players do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

It will be interesting to see what sort of altitudes it gets used at.  Without the high altitude heavy bombers to protect there is not so much reason to operate at great heights, so the P-51 will be very much out of its element in some respects.  The Luftwaffe players may end up calling the tune as far as active altitudes go.  Rather like the VVS players do now.

 

I think the best solution would be to make the B-25 flyable, give bombers air start with entry and exit points in the map, and lastly increase the draw distance for ground targets. Then higher alts would be much more viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

I know, i know , i just thought that mustang was more maneuverable than Jug. It will be boring experience with  Bobp without better AI.

I will be Hartmann with 300 kills in two weaks.😐

 

Hence the reason I have not spent more than a hour in single player campaigns or career. :( Dogfights are just severely disappointing and no real challenge unless you are massively outnumbered where you just spend your time avoiding the crazy snapshots the AI can pull off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Without the high altitude heavy bombers to protect there is not so much reason to operate at great heights, so the P-51 will be very much out of its element in some respects.

 

The P-51 is not a slow aircraft at low altitudes. Even on 100oct it will do over 600kmh at sea level with bomb pylons. It's reasonable to expect our Mustang to do something like 610kmh at sea level, which is slightly faster than a 605DB 109K in this game and about on par with our D-9, and enormously faster than both the 109G-14 and the 190A-8, which will make up the majority of your opponents in any realistic scenario. It will do fine

 

P-51D_15342_Level.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The P51 will be able to keep up at low altitude with axis aircraft. Don't get in a turn, use energy and it will fare a lot better than a P47 and more important, more forgiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

It will do fine

 

I lived through The Great P-51 Wobble and P-38 Contra scandal of 2005.  I'm sure I'll be okay too.  :biggrin:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two weeks left in June... are we assuming everything's been pushed back a couple of weeks? Mustang early July now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not having 150 octane fuel for the allied aircraft is scandalous seeing as some axis aircraft in BOB have slightly performance enhancing modifications :(

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Two weeks left in June... are we assuming everything's been pushed back a couple of weeks? Mustang early July now?

 

Sounds like a reasonable estimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bullets said:

Not having 150 octane fuel for the allied aircraft is scandalous seeing as some axis aircraft in BOB have slightly performance enhancing modifications :(

 

Where the spit was concerned I think there was a lack of performance data regarding 150 octane. I think there is more data readily available for the P 51D so things might different for this bird. 
"We shall see", as they say.

Quick search found this regarding P51 and 150 octane, not sure if this in and of itself is enough, but if I read it right, it basically mounts up to + 25 MPH true airspeed at all alts below "Full Throttle Altitude." which I assume is the alt where you start to lose boost pressure.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/tk589.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it have the horrible wing stall it had in il2 1946 do we reckon? i could never keep the damn thing in the air in a turn fight, not that i should have been turn fighting her...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it will be similar to the current Spit Mk9 but much faster in a straight line and dive albeit with worse climb, turn, and acceleration ability. Also will likely take more of a beating as it is a more stout airframe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Melonfish said:

Will it have the horrible wing stall it had in il2 1946 do we reckon? i could never keep the damn thing in the air in a turn fight, not that i should have been turn fighting her...

 

 

 

A Jet Jockey's opinion of the real thing:

Quote

I haven't mentioned the stall characteristics of the airplane yet because they were no surprise. I expected a fairly wild ride (regardless of what the flight manual said), and I got it. We conducted what were essentially power-off stalls, both straight ahead and turning. We had the power way back at 24 inches and set 3,000 rpm on the prop. Straight ahead, we got a little bit of elevator buffet about 5 knots before the stall. At the stall the right wing dropped, quickly I might add, to about 45 degrees of bank. But as soon as I relaxed the stick, she started flying again, and it was very easy to pick up the wing with rudder. Turning stalls were started at 130 kias and the same low power setting. I rolled into a 60-degree left bank and pulled a nice 2G turn. About 90 degrees into the turn I picked up a slight buffet and, WHAM, the airplane quickly snapped into 135 degrees of left bank. Releasing stick pressure, right rudder and a little right stick quickly brought everything back to normal. I can only imagine the wild ride we would have had if the throttle had been up, as it would be in combat. Yikes. I think with time in the airplane, you'd get a good feel for where the limit is, but once you reach that limit, hold on tight. Not much margin there. Even the normally understated test pilots described the Mustang's stall and departure characteristics as "vicious." Again, my personal "respect-o-meter" for the boys flying combat in these airplanes went up a few notches.

From https://www.flyingmag.com/aircrafts/pistons/jet-jockey-flies-p-51-mustang/

 

Opinions differ (don't they always?) but I think the consensus, such as it is, is that the P-51's stall characteristics were less than optimal, possibly due to the 'laminar flow' airfoil.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Melonfish said:

Will it have the horrible wing stall it had in il2 1946 do we reckon? i could never keep the damn thing in the air in a turn fight, not that i should have been turn fighting her...

 

 

 

this was a good read :-

"Even the normally understated test pilots described the Mustang's stall and departure characteristics as "vicious." Again, my personal "respect-o-meter" for the boys flying combat in these airplanes went up a few notches."

 

https://www.flyingmag.com/aircrafts/pistons/jet-jockey-flies-p-51-mustang/

 

Edit: Andy beat me to it

Edited by Herne
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

should be best american fighter in game, but engine fantasy timers he gets will brake it or make it good in this game, like it did to other american airplanes in game

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

should be best american fighter in game, but engine fantasy timers he gets will brake it or make it good in this game, like it did to other american airplanes in game

 

So out of interest how would you change it ? Just have everybody flying around at max power for the whole flight ? What we have may not be a perfect solution, but going by the manuals is at least in my opinion a perfectly valid way to address the problem.

 

Certainly far more interesting to me than everyone at max power all of the time. 
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Herne said:

 

So out of interest how would you change it ? Just have everybody flying around at max power for the whole flight ? What we have may not be a perfect solution, but going by the manuals is at least in my opinion a perfectly valid way to address the problem.

 

Certainly far more interesting to me than everyone at max power all of the time. 
 

 

If you model it right you won't have everybody flying around at max power for the whole flight becase:

 

a) fuel consumption is going to become a problem really quicky (e.g FW-190D has a 500 liters tank and over 500 l/h fuel consumption at full power).

b)engine will start to overheat after a certain amount of time and will die if you don't pull the power back

 

No other flight sim on the market currently has those timers modelled, and they don't suffer from "everybody flies on full power all the time", except on maybe the airquakiest of the servers, though the same happens in BoX now. What we have right now is a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place, and the implementation of said solution is god awful on top of that.

Edited by 4./JG26_Onebad
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Herne said:

 

So out of interest how would you change it ? Just have everybody flying around at max power for the whole flight ? What we have may not be a perfect solution, but going by the manuals is at least in my opinion a perfectly valid way to address the problem.

 

Certainly far more interesting to me than everyone at max power all of the time. 
 

I would have it so when your using emergancy or boosted your engine temp will be rising faster, so that is the thing that is limiting use of max power, and player can easy see how long it can use it by monitoring engines temps, and re-use it when temps get lower (no need for fantasy and arcade type recharge we have now).

 

But when we have to use this system we have, then atleast fantasy aspects that are not taken from manuals should be eaqaly effecting all airplanes and not favoring some like its now.
Now some airplanes use up timer for combat and emergancy at same time, while on some they get used separatly giving thouse airplanes unfair advantage that dosent come from any manual or real life numbers, either all airplanes should use combat timer also when emergancy/boost is used or they should not, thats not something taken from manual.
Also now you have on some airplanes recharge of 1min of emergancy/boost timer that takes 1min of flying on lover settings, but on others that same recharge of 1min of emergancy/boosted takes up to 3min of flying on lover settings, again something that is purly invented for this engine timers system that is not equal for all airlanes and creates big advantage for some airplanes that they didnt have in real, not taken from manual.
So you have then fantasy situations where:

-on 109 1min of emergancy/boost gets recovered in flying 1min on lower settings

-on P-47 use of 1 min of emergancy/boost gets recovered in flying 2min on lower settings

-and on Spit 9  use of 1 min of emergancy/boost gets recovered in flying 3min on lower settings 

how that makes any sence i dont know, if recovering time is not something that existed in real airplanes or manuals and you have to have it in game just because of use of timers then all airplanes should recover their ability to use max power eaqualy

 

Same engine in P-51 is in Spit9, so same time limits should be on both and same recharges, continues should be unlimited, combat 1h, and emergancy 5min, right? who knows what it will be in game, ill be suiprised if it will be same.

 

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would love to see regarding engine failure when running past limits would be a chance of failure starting at say 10% one minute past limit, then increasing exponentially as time goes on, so you can' push the limits, but have it be a real risk/reward type thing. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if they're using the P-51D NA-25 but if they are, cruising at 2600 rpm and I think 40 inches and 15 minutes of 60 inches and 3000 rpm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Herne said:

 

So out of interest how would you change it ? Just have everybody flying around at max power for the whole flight ? What we have may not be a perfect solution, but going by the manuals is at least in my opinion a perfectly valid way to address the problem.

 

Certainly far more interesting to me than everyone at max power all of the time. 
 

People have posted combat reports in this forum of the P-51 going 15 minutes at full WEP and 30 minutes at full WEP.  Having the engine seize and die after 5 minutes of emergency or even after 15 minutes of combat power is ridiculously unrealistic.  If you want proper engine modeling your going to need to model pre-detonation.

Edited by -332FG-Garven
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Melonfish said:

Will it have the horrible wing stall it had in il2 1946 do we reckon? i could never keep the damn thing in the air in a turn fight, not that i should have been turn fighting her...

 

To be fair to the lovely Pony, once you built up skills with it, and perhaps even more importantly, didn't attempt to turn with it with more than 30% fuel, it actually turned surprisingly good! You could easily surprise a cocky 109 or a Mc205, staying with it in a tight turn or even outturning them at medium speeds.

 

However, trying some hard manouvering with large amount of fuel it really resembled the untamed wild stallion, so I guess its name isn't a coincidence afterall!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, -332FG-Garven said:

People have posted combat reports in this forum of the P-51 going 15 minutes at full WEP and 30 minutes at full WEP.  Having the engine seize and die after 5 minutes of emergency or even after 15 minutes of combat power is ridiculously unrealistic.  If you want proper engine modeling your going to need to model pre-detonation.

and on top of that not having any indication that you cross limits when they are so strickt in game is big oversight when arcade system is to be used, and you cant see from cockpit that you recharged or that your timers are changed because you fly high or low as timers are not same on diff altitudes

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

I would have it so when your using emergancy or boosted your engine temp will be rising faster, so that is the thing that is limiting use of max power, and player can easy see how long it can use it by monitoring engines temps, and re-use it when temps get lower (no need for fantasy and arcade type recharge we have now).

 

Yes.

 

39 minutes ago, -332FG-Garven said:

People have posted combat reports in this forum of the P-51 going 15 minutes at full WEP and 30 minutes at full WEP.  Having the engine seize and die after 5 minutes of emergency or even after 15 minutes of combat power is ridiculously unrealistic.  If you want proper engine modeling your going to need to model pre-detonation.

 

Yes.

 

I think I saw a properly simulated thermal system on a developer wishlist a long time ago(along with fully simulated fuel tanks, etc) , but who knows when it could ever be delivered or how much work it would be to put in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Herne said:

 

So out of interest how would you change it ? Just have everybody flying around at max power for the whole flight ? What we have may not be a perfect solution, but going by the manuals is at least in my opinion a perfectly valid way to address the problem.

 

Certainly far more interesting to me than everyone at max power all of the time. 
 

Solution would be modelling multiple types of engine degradation instead of 1 engine damaged mode that will always lead to seizure.

Higher temperatures, higher fuel or oil consumption, less power output etc.

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I believe it will be similar to the current Spit Mk9 but much faster in a straight line and dive albeit with worse climb, turn, and acceleration ability. Also will likely take more of a beating as it is a more stout airframe. 

 

So... not similar? 😁

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think folks will load up their P-51's with 100% fuel and try and get into a hard charging turn fight and utterly fail in the 51, declare it broken, IL-2's devs are stupid, Luftwaffe bias/ VVS bias, etc...

I think for most of the MP servers the P-51 won't even need more than 50% of it's fuel to have more than enough time to transit to the target areas, have a long sweep period, etc.  By all accounts the P-51 with about 35-50% fuel turned just as well as the 109, if not better, at medium altitudes and markedly better than the 190A series.  Another factor with the 51 is like the 47 it helps to drop some flap when getting into a turning fight. 

In "basic" hands, IE guys who think it'll handle like a Spitfire with 100% fuel and fight it like that...the 51 will be easy pickings for a sharp LW player.  

In the hands of someone who knows the 51's limitations and how to set the plane up right, it'll be a holy terror to virtually everyone it comes across. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Herne said:

 

So out of interest how would you change it ? Just have everybody flying around at max power for the whole flight ? What we have may not be a perfect solution, but going by the manuals is at least in my opinion a perfectly valid way to address the problem.

 

Certainly far more interesting to me than everyone at max power all of the time. 
 

 

First of all why there are time limits.  Is it something in the motor heating up that gets to a critical point, or is it a matter of engine wear and something exploding 200 hours down the line?  If it's heat you should get overheating damage after a point, and the cooldown should be based on how easy you fly with the engine after that.  If it's an engine maintenance issue then create some sort of points system that can affect your rank for overdoing it or the quality of specific motors over time (which would require individual plane/engine tracking).  Maybe if this game had a more robust system of forcing the player to actually 'own' the aircraft they're flying, or some maintenance factor in career mode, and a/c become limited then wear and tear begins to become a factor.  Make some sort of rank system where you can't get another aircraft if you keep destroying engines through overuse.  If it's still a problem in MP then just keep the code as an option.

 

To answer the question should people fly around at full power online?  Why not, if it's what happened at points in real life?  Why have an arbitrary timer limit the performance of some aircraft and not others?  Maybe it makes MP a little more 'fair' but it kills the immersion/historical experience for certain planes, especially in single player, and makes the player feel like they are being punished for deciding to use certain planes.  I wouldn't expect the p40 to be able to be flown at 100% throttle if in real life it started shaking apart after 5 minutes, but the different combat power times compared to german and russian aircraft really feel weird.  I don't buy the 'it's in the service manual' explanation because it's a maintenance issue and no one would throttle down in a combat situation so that the plane could fly another extra 100 hours in the future.  Nor did they jump into the air and fly to target at full bore.  Right now we have the latter (noncombat flying) modeled correctly and the former, the combat part that the game revolves around, is fantasy.

  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CAFulcrum said:

Maybe it makes MP a little more 'fair'

It doesn't do that. But then the buck for the "why does the engine blow up so fast?? I know it doesn't becuse it is my opinion!!" blame doesn't stop at the devs but at his Majestys playbook. Online CFS is extremely competitive, any interpretation from the dev side will ALWAYS be seen as bias and this can of worms better not be touched when you have an "official" solution at hand.

 

It is a reasonable strategy from the dev side, but it neuters the team that didn't require the last % of performance from their toys as they were winning either way. Conversly it makes the losing team much better as we have "fair" numbers online, whereas in reality they were not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per the Mustang and fuel - having fuel in the center tanks during combat was a very bad thing.  When P51s did escorts the burned the fuel in the center tank first - then the drop tanks.  The wing tanks got them through combat and home.  In a tactical, relatively short range environment I would not take more than 50-60% fuel.  I doubt (but admittedly do not know for sure)  that real Mustang pilots flying out of Holland ever filled the center tanks to fly a few hundred KM.

 

Anyhow, the Mustang should be a very good, very fast plane, but not obviously superior to the 109K and 190D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

think for most of the MP servers the P-51 won't even need more than 50% of it's fuel to have more than enough time to transit to the target areas, have a long sweep period, etc.

 

This is the same for the P-40 l, I've never put fuel above 50% and both at half fuel should allow for long distance flying and give you better maneuverability in dogfights. I seem to remember a quote of a p-51 with full fuselage fuel will dogfight like a flying cow

Edited by TheOldCrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheOldCrow said:

 

This is the same for the P-40 l, I've never put fuel above 50% and both at half fuel should allow for long distance flying and give you better maneuverability in dogfights. I seem to remember a quote of a p-51 with full fuselage fuel will dogfight like a flying cow


It'll be unstable and it's power to weight (or is it HP/weight for props) is below ideal for mixing it up.  By the time the 51's were expected to encounter fighters on their escorts the fuselage tank would largely be empty ( below 10%) and the COG would be back to normal

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TheOldCrow said:

 I seem to remember a quote of a p-51 with full fuselage fuel will dogfight like a flying cow

 

I can´t think of a real life scenario when they went into dogfight with full fuel tanks. Once they arrived over Germany babysitting the bombers, they must have used up at least one third of their fuel?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the mustangs 3d model has been in the works since September and its FM began in January, is it safe to say that well get it fairly soon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...