Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, catchthefoxes said:

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?

 

My bet is on early July.

 

P51_3.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 357th_Dog said:

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

 

 

Actually I'm not so sure this is true. I was just looking for some comments I remember from either Chuck Yeager or Andy Anderson about burning fuel from the 80 gallon tank behind the cockpit and I haven’t found it yet, but what I did find is mention of jettisoning drop tanks when the bombers started their bomb run over target, because they knew the Luftwaffe fighters would attack as soon as the bombers cleared the flak barrage. That would imply that the internal tanks were still full. They had to defend the bombers at full power and then fly 3 hours back home.

I’ll keep looking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a good argument to give us manual fuel management (or at least fuel management plans, if it really is too much to constantly switch between left and right tanks).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did pilots have to switch back and forth between left and right side fuel tanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Warpig said:

Did pilots have to switch back and forth between left and right side fuel tanks?

On second thought I think I'm mistaking the constant switching of an indicator for left and right that happens in some of the planes (russian and german, or any with a wing tank).

Share this post


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

That would imply that the internal tanks were still full. They had to defend the bombers at full power and then fly 3 hours back home.

I’ll keep looking

 

They'd take off on the left 92 gal main tank (because this one is fed by the scavenge pump carburator vapor return line and if they'd take off on another tank, they'd vent the returning fuel overboard).*

Once safely airborne and cleaned up, they'd switch to the 85 gal fuselage tank and fly it about half-empty. Only then they'd switch onto the gas-bags under the wings.

 

* The pilot's notes mention take-off on the 85 gal tank is also a normal procedure.

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

On second thought I think I'm mistaking the constant switching of an indicator for left and right that happens in some of the planes (russian and german, or any with a wing tank).

From what I was just reading on the ED forums, I guess switching between left and right fuel tanks on the P51 was a real thing. Although, it was in intervals of about 30 minutes. So that doesn't seem too bad.

 

I would not be adverse to a Fuel tank toggle control. But if that did exist, we should also be able to select whether to even use the fuselage and/or drop tank or not.

Share this post


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

 

They'd take off on the left 92 gal main tank (because this one is fed by the scavenge pump and if they'd take off on another tank, they'd vent the scavenging fuel overboard).

Once safely airborne and cleaned up, they'd switch to the 85 gal fuselage tank and fly it about half-empty. Only then they'd switch onto the gas-bags under the wings.

 

Looks like you saved me the time. I thought I remembered reading something about that. I’m guessing there is some information about this in the flight manual. The P47 had the same issue with the scavenge pump (or fuel return line) and if you didn’t remember to use the correct tank, it would siphon all your fuel overboard.

 

15 minutes ago, Warpig said:

I would not be adverse to a Fuel tank toggle control. But if that did exist, we should also be able to select whether to even use the fuselage and/or drop tank or not.

 

When and if we get drop tanks. Not a priority really with no 6 hour missions I would think.

Edited by Jaegermeister

Share this post


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

 

They'd take off on the left 92 gal main tank (because this one is fed by the scavenge pump carburator vapor return line and if they'd take off on another tank, they'd vent the returning fuel overboard).*

Once safely airborne and cleaned up, they'd switch to the 85 gal fuselage tank and fly it about half-empty. Only then they'd switch onto the gas-bags under the wings.

 

* The pilot's notes mention take-off on the 85 gal tank is also a normal procedure.

 

The D-5’s manual says if the fuselage tank is filled, take-offs and climbs to “safe altitude” are to be done with the fuselage tank first. If there is no fuel in the fuselage tank, then use the left wing tank instead. Once “safe altitude” is established, pilots are to switch to external drop tanks until empty, then back to fuselage until 25 gallons remain, and then finally to wing tanks, manually alternating between left and right to maintain wing balance. When all of the other tanks are drained, then pilots are to switch back to the fuselage tank to use the last 25 gallons that were kept in reserve.

Edited by Zirashi
grammar and error corrections

Share this post


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

The D-5’s manual says if the fuselage tank is filled, take-offs and climbs to “safe altitude” are to be done with the fuselage tank first. Once established, then they are to switch to externals, then back to fuselage, and then when those are empty, to alternate between left and right wing tanks to maintain wing balance.

 

I think the procedure I wrote down is due to most Mustangs nowadays not having the 85 gal tank installed anymore. Hence they're using the next best tank.

I think I saw a Jeff Ethell video where he mentions the carburator return fuel specificly.

Share this post


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

 

I think the procedure I wrote down is due to most Mustangs nowadays not having the 85 gal tank installed anymore. Hence they're using the next best tank.

I think I saw a Jeff Ethell video where he mentions the carburator return fuel specificly.


I can only think of maybe ..like...maybe 2 airworthy and actively flying Mustangs that have the fuselage tank installed and the old radio boxes (obviously empty as they're painfully obsolete)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes in: The return line puts about 10gal/hr back into the left tank. Noticce the off-standard stick-grip!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In MP with short distances and low fuel load it could rock the boat...

Share this post


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

 

I think the procedure I wrote down is due to most Mustangs nowadays not having the 85 gal tank installed anymore. Hence they're using the next best tank.

I think I saw a Jeff Ethell video where he mentions the carburator return fuel specificly.

 

There’s an August 1945 manual that says early D mustangs vented into the left wing tank and later versions vented to the fuselage tank. Venting in to a full tank would cause it to be drained overboard.

 

Edit: Probably better to show rather than tell.

 

This is the April 1944 flight operating instruction manual for the P-51D-5.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D-manual-5april44.pdf

 

Fuel management is on page 15.

 

This is the August 1945 AAF pilots training manual for the North American P-51D/K.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/34811808/North-American-P-51-Mustang-Pilot-Training-Manual


Fuel system is outlined starting on page 20.

Edited by Zirashi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

 

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

 

Fuel consumption isn't that much of a problem in MP servers, the Spit Mk IXe has 386 liters of fuel and a consumption of around 420 l/h in the 1 hour combat mode, and you don't see people complaining about their Spits having low endurance... 50-60 min is your standard longish MP mission.

 

Most planes cooling solutions are able to withstand full power at their climbing speeds, afterall that's how they manage to test climb times to high altitudes at full power. You would have to be constantly turning at very low speeds to ensure overheating with these late fighters with good/automatic radiators.
 

My personal choice would be to have a compromise solution, so the full power is available for the fights (say 10 min for all planes), and being able to be recharged in a 1:1 ratio without compromising the other modes (combat could be unlimited even since we have planes with pretty long combat times to begin with). And a more detailed detonation modelling where if you screw up you can wreck your engine even if you are within the time limit (like you can do with the 262), too low RPM for too high manifold pressure, high air intake temperature, etc.

 

12 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

In MP with short distances and low fuel load it could rock the boat...


With 40% load it has a similar fuel quantity as the Spit Mk IX, and with the same engine and fuel consumption it would be plenty enough for most IL-2 MP sorties.

Share this post


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

 

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?

 

Will the engine drain evenly from drop tanks and internal tanks, or is it one before the other? Because if its the second case, and if the flight is in it's inital 100 or 200kms or so when it runs into the enemy and tanks are dropped, it is feasible that the p51 will still have all of it's internal fuel when combat starts.

 

Not something we will be seeing in this sim, though.

Share this post


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

Noticce the off-standard stick-grip!

 

Dunlop AH8400  late war grip for Spitfire XX.II, and some early British jet's (e.g. Gloster Meteor).

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


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

 

Will the engine drain evenly from drop tanks and internal tanks, or is it one before the other? Because if its the second case, and if the flight is in it's inital 100 or 200kms or so when it runs into the enemy and tanks are dropped, it is feasible that the p51 will still have all of it's internal fuel when combat starts.

 

Not something we will be seeing in this sim, though.

 

Well, since they dropped tanks once they engaged the enemy, my guess (I don´t know for sure) would be, that they drained the drop tanks first and then switched to the internal tanks. Everything else wouldn´t make sense for me, But I´m sure someone on this board knows the detailed procedures.

Share this post


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

 

There’s an August 1945 manual that says early D mustangs vented into the left wing tank and later versions vented to the fuselage tank. Venting in to a full tank would cause it to be drained overboard.

 

Edit: Probably better to show rather than tell.

 

This is the April 1944 flight operating instruction manual for the P-51D-5.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D-manual-5april44.pdf

 

Fuel management is on page 15.

 

This is the August 1945 AAF pilots training manual for the North American P-51D/K.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/34811808/North-American-P-51-Mustang-Pilot-Training-Manual


Fuel system is outlined starting on page 20.

 

From that 2nd manual 98 page it says War emergancy power 67" 3000rpm for 5min, and for Milatary power (probably combat power in game) 61" 3000rpm 15min

And Spitfire 9 same engine 18lbs 5min, 12lbs 1h combat

 

so expecting same timers like for P-47, even though engine is same as on Spit 9, wonder if it will have 2x time for recharge or 3x spit has.

 

just check in game spitfire 9 at 3000rpm and 61" (+15lbs) and i got message emergancy time exided after 15min, so limit for P-51 is already working as its same engine just combat flag will be on diff setting for 51 then its now on spit9

 

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

 

Fuel consumption isn't that much of a problem in MP servers, the Spit Mk IXe has 386 liters of fuel and a consumption of around 420 l/h in the 1 hour combat mode, and you don't see people complaining about their Spits having low endurance... 50-60 min is your standard longish MP mission.

 

Most planes cooling solutions are able to withstand full power at their climbing speeds, afterall that's how they manage to test climb times to high altitudes at full power. You would have to be constantly turning at very low speeds to ensure overheating with these late fighters with good/automatic radiators.
 

My personal choice would be to have a compromise solution, so the full power is available for the fights (say 10 min for all planes), and being able to be recharged in a 1:1 ratio without compromising the other modes (combat could be unlimited even since we have planes with pretty long combat times to begin with). And a more detailed detonation modelling where if you screw up you can wreck your engine even if you are within the time limit (like you can do with the 262), too low RPM for too high manifold pressure, high air intake temperature, etc.

 


With 40% load it has a similar fuel quantity as the Spit Mk IX, and with the same engine and fuel consumption it would be plenty enough for most IL-2 MP sorties.

 

short combat of only 15min compared to what other airplanes have is bigger problem then 5min emergancy, you use 15 min of combat on P-47 and you need to fly 30min on continues and cant use emergancy/boost, so basicly you can use it once fuly and thats it. And it seams P-51 will be that way or even wors if it has spitfire type recharge of 3x.

 

its amazing how bad P-47 engine was, "Combat power (up to 15 minutes): 2700 RPM, 52 inch Hg" while Spitfire 9 with more rpm and MP can go for 1h "International power (up to 1 hour): 2850 RPM, boost +12" and it seams P-51 will be limited on same engine to 15min insted 1h, guess raf didnt care mutch about their engines or knew to use them better then usaf. after test i see its basicly same they just used differant limits on same engine spit 9 engine on 3000rpm and 15lbs in game lasts 15min also like manual say for P-51 on same engine should.

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Well, since they dropped tanks once they engaged the enemy, my guess (I don´t know for sure) would be, that they drained the drop tanks first and then switched to the internal tanks. Everything else wouldn´t make sense for me, But I´m sure someone on this board knows the detailed procedures.

 

That's what I imagine too. The opposite would not be logic. Well, that being the case, an encounter during the early flight would catch them with full internal tanks. Probably putting them in a disadvantage position against lighter fighters. 

Share this post


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

 Probably putting them in a disadvantage position against lighter fighters. 

 

Maybe against high altitude AS 109s but not against 190s armed to the teeth to kill bombers. Those were easy prey for the Mustangs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours 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

Agreed. I'm a bit pessimistic seeing as the P-47 with one of the most durable engines irl is made of paper and has strict timers in-game.

I don't have much hope for the P-51.

 

11 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. 
 

There's been plenty of good suggestions made in multiple threads. It's up to the devs to change it and listen/implement some of the ideas for testing.

 

6 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

My bet is on early July.

 

P51_3.jpg

 

July 4th would be a good day to get it.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

About the engine timers... I did chat with Jason about that subject at FS Expo. I'm not clear on how they are going to handle it but there will be some sort of option or change coming. The shorter version of the story is they hear us and they know its an issue.

 

I would suspect once they have solidified around what changes they will offer up, then we'll hear more detail.

 

3 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Well, since they dropped tanks once they engaged the enemy, my guess (I don´t know for sure) would be, that they drained the drop tanks first and then switched to the internal tanks. Everything else wouldn´t make sense for me, But I´m sure someone on this board knows the detailed procedures.

 

From what I read and this goes back several years the standard procedure was to drain the rear internal tank first which restored stability, then drained the drop tanks second and then switched to the remaining internal tanks after that.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 6
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Agreed. I'm a bit pessimistic seeing as the P-47 with one of the most durable engines irl is made of paper and has strict timers in-game.

I don't have much hope for the P-51.

 

I'm so upset about this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering about the "zoom" capabilities comparative to the 109 and 190. IIRC it did quite well in these types of engagements in "46" when both aircraft were at a similar energy state on the outset. Can someone elaborate/speculate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

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?

This from: Mustang  a documentary history by Jeffery Ethell
"Official AAF procedure ...called for  (85 gal fuselage) internal tank to be burned off first, followed by drop tanks...this was quickly reversed after many a frustrated pilot had ended up jettisoning full drop tanks when bounced by enemy fighters."

 

 but it could come in handy:

"If he got caught with too much fuel in the fuselage tank,...he would whip into a right hand turn and high speed stall the fighter, snap inverted back to the left and then look back to see if his opponent had been able to follow"

 

as long as you were very careful:

"This instability was particularly dangerous in that a pullout at high speed was always accompanied by a stick force reversal which, unless opposed by the pilot, would quickly carry the airplane into an accelerated condition where the wings would fail"

""We had a practice dive bombing mission scheduled...the order went down to the line crews to drain the fuselage tanks to the prescribed level. For some reason it wasn't done to the plane of a good friend...When he tried to pull out of his dive, the plane broke in half.."

 

hence the entirely new P51H was developed

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CAFulcrum said:

Looks like a good argument to give us manual fuel management (or at least fuel management plans, if it really is too much to constantly switch between left and right tanks).

 

I believe the team does optimal fuel management in the code.  Like other manual engine implementations they could give us the option to do it ourselves, but I can imagine that would be pretty challenging.  They would have to code the CoG changes for every possible fuel state.  

Share this post


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

hence the entirely new P51H was developed

The redesign of the P-51 grew out of the desire for a lighter weight, higher performance Mustang, not because of any perceived instability. The P-51H wasn't designed as a load carrier. If the P-51D had been as you described, it wouldn't have outlived the H model, let alone go on to serve both in the Korean War and outfit a good share of Air National Guard units for years. 

Edited by Rjel
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I believe the team does optimal fuel management in the code.  Like other manual engine implementations they could give us the option to do it ourselves, but I can imagine that would be pretty challenging.  They would have to code the CoG changes for every possible fuel state.  

 

If it has already "fuel management" then no changes should be necessary except for binding user input. What you described (coding the CoG changes for every possible fuel state) would be a scripting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think DD217 is relevant to this discussion. AnPetrovich wrote an interesting part about center of gravity changing with fuel on the P51, and also mentioned on the second page of the DD217 discussion thread how they will add some high level fuel mgmt.

 

Sorry no links, I'm at work on my phone.

Edited by Jade_Monkey
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, imaca said:

This from: Mustang  a documentary history by Jeffery Ethell
"Official AAF procedure ...called for  (85 gal fuselage) internal tank to be burned off first, followed by drop tanks...this was quickly reversed after many a frustrated pilot had ended up jettisoning full drop tanks when bounced by enemy fighters."

 

The manual suggests you actually leave some quantitiy of fuel left in the 85gal tank, so you won't run into fwd CoG issues during landing/ flare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 12:01 PM, 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:

 

In the early days of ROF the AI would boom'n'zoom in the Spad XIII, it was then changed to the "turn and dive to the ground" routine and never came back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SYN_Ricky said:

 

In the early days of ROF the AI would boom'n'zoom in the Spad XIII, it was then changed to the "turn and dive to the ground" routine and never came back...

I remember that, its a shame.

On the other hand i dont remember if the booming and zooming spads were dangerous or only annoying. You cant catch them,but there were unable to do some dmg to you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I remember that, its a shame.

On the other hand i dont remember if the booming and zooming spads were dangerous or only annoying. You cant catch them,but there were unable to do some dmg to you.

It wasn't perfect, but I'm sure they could have improved from that starting point to offer an AI that would be better at using B'n'Z techniques with faster and less agile aircrafts...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with having the AI BnZ is fundamentally players want something they can engage and shoot down. AI that runs away forever would be frustrating, and probably still very bad at getting a shot off on you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SYN_Ricky said:

 

In the early days of ROF the AI would boom'n'zoom in the Spad XIII, it was then changed to the "turn and dive to the ground" routine and never came back...

 

Either it was before my time (2010) or I have no recollection of it :(  shame..

Share this post


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

The problem with having the AI BnZ is fundamentally players want something they can engage and shoot down. AI that runs away forever would be frustrating, and probably still very bad at getting a shot off on you

We can have ace AI to do boom &zoom , veteran sometimes and rookies never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SYN_Ricky said:

 

In the early days of ROF the AI would boom'n'zoom in the Spad XIII, it was then changed to the "turn and dive to the ground" routine and never came back...

 

I remember the Ai going to a split-s really early and then being basically helpless down low.  They were tough to hit at altitude because of the violent maneuvers but they quickly lost alt and e,  RoF dogfights went to the treetops in a hurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I remember the Ai going to a split-s really early and then being basically helpless down low.  They were tough to hit at altitude because of the violent maneuvers but they quickly lost alt and e,  RoF dogfights went to the treetops in a hurry.

 

That was after the change from the BnZ AI behavior SYN_Ricky was describing.  I was so bummed when they made that change.  It probably was because some folks found it boring trying to fight against the earlier AI, especially in SPADs or other Entente aircraft that the German planes couldn't catch.  But personally I really liked having that variety in AI behavior - having to worry about AI that would come back and dive on you if you lost track of them, and learning how to turn away from them to lure them into coming back so you could turn and attack them before they wised up and ran off again.  After the change, it seemed like every fight against the AI quickly devolved into a treetop merry go round.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RoF AI did exactly what most people want from AI.  It was difficult to kill at first, but eventually died.  The majority of players don’t want AI that they can’t catch and kill.

  • Upvote 1

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...