P-51...

[kendo]

Read the f*****g DD ?

 

 

[Diggun]

Forgive me asking what is probably an obvious question, but the .50's are the same gun in the p-40, -47, -38, -39 & -51, right?

 

Is it just me that finds them less than intuitive to aim with? Seems like an entirely different style of shooting to most other in game guns. I usually end up 'hosing' them around the place...

[sevenless]

2 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

Forgive me asking what is probably an obvious question, but the .50's are the same gun in the p-40, -47, -38, -39 & -51, right?

 

Correct. Same guns in all planes.

[Diggun]

hmmm. Must 'git gud' as I believe the kids say these days....

[Herne]

12 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

I usually end up 'hosing' them around the place...

 

[Alexmarine]

2 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

hmmm. Must 'git gud' as I believe the kids say these days....

 

TBH I think that the .50 cals in game are more accurate than the one IRL. Even if converged on a single point they should still exhibit a distinct scatter pattern due to the subtle wing flex and the dispersion effect, especially in longer bursts.

Also it would be nice to have them set on free firing and not synchronized

[Diggun]

2 minutes ago, Alexmarine28 said:

more accurate

It's not the accuracy I find that challenging, more that they really do 'drop' when you're pulling any kind of manoeuvre. I find them much harder to get deflection hits with than, say, with either spit's armament...

Edited July 29, 2019 by [_FLAPS_]Diggun

[Alexmarine]

4 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

It's not the accuracy I find that challenging, more that they really do 'drop' when you're pulling any kind of manoeuvre. I find them much harder to get deflection hits with than, say, with either spit's armament...

 

This is also another point, indeed they always have a distinct low trajectory pattern on most of the in-game plane but I have to say that is something that I noticed also in other simulations, so maybe not really wrong... What is different is that you will see tracers scatter in the other simulations and the more you keep the burst, the more you will see tracers scattering untill they clearly cover almost all the space encircled by the gunsight ring

[Cpt_Siddy]

22 hours ago, kendo said:

Read the f*****g DD ?

 

 

 

 

Diaries are for teenage girls, real men read patch notes. :^) 

 

But, i must say that the visibility change is a very very welcome one! Good job! 

[Legioneod]

8 hours ago, Alexmarine28 said:

 

This is also another point, indeed they always have a distinct low trajectory pattern on most of the in-game plane but I have to say that is something that I noticed also in other simulations, so maybe not really wrong... What is different is that you will see tracers scatter in the other simulations and the more you keep the burst, the more you will see tracers scattering untill they clearly cover almost all the space encircled by the gunsight ring

The scatter is dependent on the harmonization pattern being used. In Il2 we have a single point convergence which is why they behave the way they do in-game. A much better pattern imo is a diamond pattern that puts guns at different convergence and allow more spread of the guns, this makes it easier to get rounds on target instead of all the rounds converging on a single point.

 

One thing we should never see is gun synchronization since no P-47 or P51 had synchronized guns. The guns would all fire at the same time when the trigger is first depressed but then they would quickly go out of sync as the trigger is held. (this would happen in a matter of a second or 2)

 

 

 

[Alexmarine]

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The scatter is dependent on the harmonization pattern being used. In Il2 we have a single point convergence which is why they behave the way they do in-game. A much better pattern imo is a diamond pattern that puts guns at different convergence and allow more spread of the guns, this makes it easier to get rounds on target instead of all the rounds converging on a single point.

 

One thing we should never see is gun synchronization since no P-47 or P51 had synchronized guns. The guns would all fire at the same time when the trigger is first depressed but then they would quickly go out of sync as the trigger is held. (this would happen in a matter of a second or 2)

 

 

 

 

I still think that even considering the point convergence we use in game there should be an appreciable dispersion effect (especially for longer bursts). As it is now even unloading the entire ammo load you will have no tracer going slightly astray. It seems to me that even some planes with nose mounted guns have more dispersion than the .50 cals

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 7/27/2019 at 1:37 AM, HBPencil said:

I guess this comparison is superficial but I think the Martin Baker MB5 gave an indication of what a Griffon powered 'stang would be like.

 

A kick-ass aircraft, well regarded by everyone from a performance and usability perspective, but alas too much of an old concept.

 

Quote

See the XP-51F and G and the eventual P-51H.

 

Could also have had a Merlin 100 series (as in the Hornet) which would have given it c. 2,000 hp with the same dimensions and core elements - no Griffon required.

[DSR_A-24]

2 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

A kick-ass aircraft, well regarded by everyone from a performance and usability perspective, but alas too much of an old concept.

 

 

Could also have had a Merlin 100 series (as in the Hornet) which would have given it c. 2,000 hp with the same dimensions and core elements - no Griffon required.

Exactly. 

Why go for a fuel guzzling Griffon when you could have a 2200hp V-1650-9 with water methanol injection.

[Talon_]

10 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Could also have had a Merlin 100 series (as in the Hornet) which would have given it c. 2,000 hp with the same dimensions and core elements - no Griffon required.

 

RAF Mustangs on 81" made over 2000hp at sea level and served in combat throughout our time period.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Talon_

[JtD]

Do you have a source to back that up? All I know of are some RAF Mustang pilot's notes stating 81", but all pilot statements refer to 75 and less (which incidentally can also be found in another version of RAF Mustang pilot's notes).

[Talon_]

20 minutes ago, JtD said:

Do you have a source to back that up? All I know of are some RAF Mustang pilot's notes stating 81", but all pilot statements refer to 75 and less (which incidentally can also be found in another version of RAF Mustang pilot's notes).

 

4th September 1944 & 23rd March 1945 nicely bracket our campaign.

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

37 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

RAF Mustangs on 81" made over 2000hp at sea level and served in combat throughout our time period.

 

It is credit to the RR engineers that they managed such a lot of power from a small and [relatively] old design. Appreciate that their are sensible reasons of production, requirement and ease of sustainment, but it seems a great shame that more effort was not put into fielding the newer models in greater numbers across the Spitfire fleet.

 

I suppose that's what happens when what you 'could' do comes up against the economics of what makes more sense from an industrial output perspective. Core difference between the Western Allies and the Reich, I suppose.

[unreasonable]

On 7/29/2019 at 5:31 PM, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

It's not the accuracy I find that challenging, more that they really do 'drop' when you're pulling any kind of manoeuvre. I find them much harder to get deflection hits with than, say, with either spit's armament...

 

That is a bit odd, since the Spitfire IX has two of them (50 cals) and they should not appear to "drop" any more than the Hispano shells at short range - they have a slightly higher MV. I suspect that this is an illusion.

 

You certainly get much less visible feedback from hits than with cannon shells - one reason I like cannons better.  

[Talon_]

23 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

it seems a great shame that more effort was not put into fielding the newer models in greater numbers across the Spitfire fleet.

 

Spitfires used the same power setting (+25lbs boost) from early 1944 until the end of the war.

[EAF19_Marsh]

3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

 

Spitfires used the same power setting (+25lbs boost) from early 1944 until the end of the war.

 

I meant that - across the air planning and development - the focus was on capability in depth rather than exceptionality for a few.

 

Merlin 100 series, in development since 1943, were a postscript while Griffon was available from ‘43 but delayed as it was a disrupter. Same could be said of the Mk. VIII.

 

Not saying that Spitfire did not use very powerful engines, more that the philosophy and approach as very much against an ‘elite’ core with weapons still in development; very much in contrast to the Luftwaffe.

[Cpt_Siddy]

54 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

I meant that - across the air planning and development - the focus was on capability in depth rather than exceptionality for a few.

 

Merlin 100 series, in development since 1943, were a postscript while Griffon was available from ‘43 but delayed as it was a disrupter. Same could be said of the Mk. VIII.

 

Not saying that Spitfire did not use very powerful engines, more that the philosophy and approach as very much against an ‘elite’ core with weapons still in development; very much in contrast to the Luftwaffe.

 

 

If we go by that logic, the K4, or at least the K4 ATA unicorn mod should not be in game. 

 

I will be quite disappointed if the 150 oct fuels will not become available to allied BOP contenders that actually used it. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Cpt_Siddy

[CIA_Yankee_]

5 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

It is credit to the RR engineers that they managed such a lot of power from a small and [relatively] old design. Appreciate that their are sensible reasons of production, requirement and ease of sustainment, but it seems a great shame that more effort was not put into fielding the newer models in greater numbers across the Spitfire fleet.

 

I suppose that's what happens when what you 'could' do comes up against the economics of what makes more sense from an industrial output perspective. Core difference between the Western Allies and the Reich, I suppose.

 

There's that, but also because there was no actual need for it. Even taking the 262 into consideration, and the Doras and K4s, the allies stopped needing to field the absolute best models midway through 1944.

 

Sure, there was the Tempest and the Spit XIV, but once you've achieved air superiority and can roam freely in the skies over the battlefield, you lose a lot of incentive to field the most performing aircrafts. In fact it's almost the opposite: at that point what matters is HOW MANY planes you can field, so they can be always available when needed and saturate the battlefield, always ready to provide support or pounce on what the enemy manages to bring aloft.

 

So, in that situation, it's perfectly understandable that we're still seeing Spit IXs in '45, for example. It was perfectly good at fulfilling its mission, now that the competition was mostly irrelevant.

 

 

[357th_Dog]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

If we go by that logic, the K4, or at least the K4 ATA unicorn mod should not be in game. 

 

I will be quite disappointed if the 150 oct fuels will not become available to allied BOP contenders that actually used it. 

Realistically the easiest route will be for a 150 Octane option as a Mod like the gunsight, mirrors, RDF, etc. 

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi all,

 

Keep it on topic, do not try to derail it to push for your agenda. Last opportunity for this topic and those whom derailed it.

 

Haash

[CIA_Yankee_]

On 7/31/2019 at 3:50 PM, 357th_Dog said:

Realistically the easiest route will be for a 150 Octane option as a Mod like the gunsight, mirrors, RDF, etc. 

 

Agreed. If we get the 150 octane P-51, life will be good. I don't see why we shouldn't, along with the Spit IX. The Devs did mention that was a possibility anyway.

 

Anyway, we need the Pony. Long may she neigh!

 

 

[sevenless]

22 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

Anyway, we need the Pony. Long may she neigh!

 

Correct. I still haven´t lost hope that we might get access to her before end of september. fingers crossed.

[Brano]

some nostalgia from old sturm MP sessions over Normandy...its like 12 or 13 years ago??

 

 

1 on 1 prop-hanging flap-flapping knife fights at treetops were common already decade ago ?

 

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by Brano
pics

[BlitzPig_EL]

??

[Talon_]

3 hours ago, Brano said:

some nostalgia from old sturm MP sessions over Normandy...its like 12 or 13 years ago??

 

 

1 on 1 prop-hanging flap-flapping knife fights at treetops were common already decade ago ?

 

 

 

That Mustang has D wings!

[Brano]

Blame Oleg and his Aces Expansion Pack ?

[CIA_Yankee_]

Anyone else has been preparing for the P-51 by flying the P-40?

 

Not that the two are in the same league, but I figured it would be good to get used to those wing-mounted .50s, and to fly an aircraft that forces you to energy fight in the first place. If I can learn to do decently in the P-40, getting the P-51 should be quite an upgrade.

[357th_Dog]

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

Anyone else has been preparing for the P-51 by flying the P-40?

 

Not that the two are in the same league, but I figured it would be good to get used to those wing-mounted .50s, and to fly an aircraft that forces you to energy fight in the first place. If I can learn to do decently in the P-40, getting the P-51 should be quite an upgrade.

The P-47 might be a bit better for that...

[CIA_Yankee_]

5 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

The P-47 might be a bit better for that...

 

Sadly, the P-47 isn't on wings. ☹️

 

But ultimately the effect is the same, except the P-40 is even more difficult, as it doesn't have magic flaps to fall back on in extremis (not that those are really that useful... if you're low and slow, and good 109 pilot will just keep their speed up while you flop around like a manatee), and an engine that is far more demanding.

 

 

[CUJO_1970]

There is not a single allied fighter currently modeled that is anything at all like the P-51 will be.

 

The closest aircraft we have is the FW190D-9. 

[Jade_Monkey]

8 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

Sadly, the P-47 isn't on wings. ☹️

 

It is in some random maps but they locked the ground attack modification (also for the fw190).

 

The facepalm award goes toooo.... WOL modification choices in every single map.

[Bremspropeller]

11 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

The closest aircraft we have is the FW190D-9. 

 

Dynamically that is true, but training on a harder airframe to fight in will get better results.

Plus: The P-40 employs the same armament, so you won't be surprised when the fifties don't act like MG151s.

[TheOldCrow]

14 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

There is not a single allied fighter currently modeled that is anything at all like the P-51 will be.

 

The FM obviously won't be the same but armament and engine management will. Learning to maintain rpm and manifold pressure that is. I actually learnt how fly the P-51 through DCS world and it made it easier to get into flying the P-40 in Il-2.

[Sublime]

15 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

There is not a single allied fighter currently modeled that is anything at all like the P-51 will be.

 

The closest aircraft we have is the FW190D-9. 

All I know is if the P51 comes out at all like the Dora than Ill do well in it and be laughing my way happily to the bank on that 

Not being snarky but how do you have any idea of *what* the p51 *will* be like? Sure you could put out how the plane performed in real life but theres already some issues that have nerfed previous allied (especially US) planes and if they dont do a 150 octane fuel option or other expedients people have thrown in; or if they just nerf it, then its what we have whether or not its how it *should* be.

Im hopeful, but Im near certain the Tempest will kick ass and all the previous Brit planes havent suffered as much as say US planes.  The Lightning I just love and I wasnt expecting to ve a superplane anyways.

Interested to see how it flies vs the *other sims* p51.  Im not a pilot but the other sims P51 does feel a well made flight model etc.  The guns damage is modelled crap though and it feels like your puttin around in a p51 in 2019, not the 40s.

Anyways dearly wololol that they kick us an airplane.

[CIA_Yankee_]

10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Dynamically that is true, but training on a harder airframe to fight in will get better results.

Plus: The P-40 employs the same armament, so you won't be surprised when the fifties don't act like MG151s.

 

Yup! That's my thinking!

 

Flew a late war map last night, so I decided to take the Spit V for a spin instead... it was hilarious how much better it was... but the skills I've started developed on the P40 were still very useful in it... but the difference is that if I did screw up and dumped my energy, the spit still left me with many options.

 

But definitely it feels like P40 is good training: gunnery will be almost identical, and it encourages an energy-focused flying style that is perfect for the P51 (except that the P51 will afford a great many more options in many situations). 

[357th_Dog]

2 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

 

Yup! That's my thinking!

 

Flew a late war map last night, so I decided to take the Spit V for a spin instead... it was hilarious how much better it was... but the skills I've started developed on the P40 were still very useful in it... but the difference is that if I did screw up and dumped my energy, the spit still left me with many options.

 

But definitely it feels like P40 is good training: gunnery will be almost identical, and it encourages an energy-focused flying style that is perfect for the P51 (except that the P51 will afford a great many more options in many situations). 

The advantage to the Spit V is that it doesn't have a tremendous amount of power, so like the P-40, you have to be conservative with it..however unlike the P-40 it's engine is very robust and it's much lighter and more nimble, plus your ammo load is considerably diminished.