Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by JG27_PapaFly
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ailerons on our are very effective in slow flight. I would speculate that they shouldn't be. But you know, if they are not, like in the Peshka, then peeps cry as well. Other than that, with that power, the climb under your weird torquing conditions as such seems plausible. But gotta fly the real one to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried it in IL-2 1946 and in DCS with the TF-51D and managed to do it as well, in 1946 and DCS even with a slightly higher climbrate, so it doesn't look like it's a bad thing at least, you would have to try with the real plane to be 100% sure.

 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 35% fuel, the P-51 weighs around 8800 lbs. and has somewhere in the region of 1700-1900hp on tap depending on which fuel setting you have.  That's a power to weight ratio of about 1:5.  That's pretty similar to the Q400 I fly for work when its empty.  We do full flap/gear down go arounds in the simulator as a windshear avoidance maneuver, with a simulated fully loaded airplane (much worse power to weight ratio) and have no problem climbing out at rates like what you are getting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did this Post in hope that the FW190D9 will maybe reviewed by the developer.

 

Dont want to flame or bother the Dev´s 

 

For me the P51 is totally overpowered. It´s really an Ufo and superior Fighter. Its nice to fly it 

and shoot down easily the luftwaffe. 

 

There is no chance (in my opinon)  to fight against the P51 with a FW190 D9. With a Bf109K4 there is a chance

wenn you are on the same Altitude. Thats fit´s not with Erich Brunottes Reports as he told us

that the Bf109 wasnt so good in late war and  in a Fw190 D9 you dont have to be afraid to fight against

a P51. They were more afraid against a tempest. In the Game it seems to be FW190D9 and BF109K4

are reversed.

 

Also its hard to believe that the Drag (Elevator) of the Fw190 D9 is so worse and the Blackout

comes so early. I compared FW190D9 and BF109 K4 and its really strange.

 

The Bf109 K4 is so much better as the FW190 D9 in Game. The Black Out comes not so fast

and the drag (Elevator) is much better as FW190D9.  I have not the Time to send proves, so

dont flame me.

 

For me the Fw190 D9 is a dead horse.

 

Just my opinon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by RoteDreizehn
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RoteDreizehn said:

I have not the Time to send proves, so

dont flame me.


Youre not really making this easy buddy.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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


Youre not really making this easy buddy.

 

 

however its just my opinon from my point of view. So respect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P51 ovaaaapowwaarrrdhhhh!!111 Pls goring help mich, please! German Luftwaffe lost only because allies had more numbers!!!!1111 and by the way P51 was only good because it had Long range and my grandfather shared Schokolade with Children in soviet union btw. ja. göööööööööööööööörrrrriiiiiiiiing pick me up i am sacred!

  • Haha 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

We do full flap/gear down go arounds in the simulator as a windshear avoidance maneuver, with a simulated fully loaded airplane (much worse power to weight ratio) and have no problem climbing out at rates like what you are getting here.

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.

Edited by JG27_PapaFly
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RoteDreizehn said:

For me the P51 is totally overpowered. It´s really an Ufo and superior Fighter. Its nice to fly it 

and shoot down easily the luftwaffe.

 

Much like the 109K4 was when first released with the engine mod? :)

 

2 minutes ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

This FM is far too benign.

 

This is my impression with all FMs in-game. Especially if coming from other flight sims. Therefore if making changes to the P-51 FM they better make them across all A/C...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

This FM is far too benign

Benign as I agree about centrifugal forces  and gyroscopic effect plus adverse yaw. But I can't believe that they made it for purpose to be more  accessible, for whom  ppl without rudder, guys from WT ??

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RoteDreizehn said:

It´s really an Ufo and superior Fighter. Its nice to fly it 

and shoot down easily the luftwaffe. 

 

It's shots only those down who don't deserve to fly for the Luftwaffe. ;)

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

A go-around can be made safely with only 46 inches of manageable manifold pressure.

Those aircraft really don't need full power for safe takeoff etc. Especially with weapons/ammo not present and only partially filled tanks. There is little to be won by just slamming the throttle forward, but the potential downside is considerable. You should be careful what you read into such statements. It can mean more than what one thinks.

 

Those aircraft are in principle sound designs and they can be flown rather safely (on the average) by your regular teenage pilot with a couple of hours in an AT-6. One thing about those aircraft is however that they not always behave like you would expect by piloting modern designs. Hence I'd wait until I fly a real one until I quantify my expectations in such a way:

13 minutes ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

This FM is far too benign.

(My emphasis).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Edited by JG27_PapaFly
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

no ailerons are to be used when near stall speed.

Yes, I would expect that being the procedure. In most taildraggers, touching the ailerons near stall speed (landing) is not appropriate. Even in a Cap for instance.

 

I also wouldn't expect the ailerons, being outside the slipstream of the prop, to be that effective. So, in principle I agree with that finding of yours. I wouldn't epect a real one to ce controllable at this speed/power setting. But I wouldn't be surprised it she actually flew at that speed (in principle). I wonder about where the "crossover point" is in this aircraft, meaning trorque vs. controllability. I would also expect it to be lower than we have.

 

I really like the Peshka in this regard, as it really punishes you when you to try to land her like a stock Cessna in the old MS flight simulators. And then we have all those YT videos about peeps claming that it can't be landed properly etc.

 

What is remarkable for instance about the Spitfire, is how sweet she is on the controls. Even hough you're moving three tons and you notice that when she flairs out, she feels light and just giving her +8 boost she get up nicely in a go around. Very steeply so even. She does feel very, very handy. Most likely much more so than she really is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

It's because they are at the limit of controllability, and the adverse yaw induced by the ailerons would lead to a spin.

It's really a very nice aircraft how you can fly her. But it is of notice that this video is not directly comparable to your setting, al up idle vs. all down full power. The propeller creates a HUGE slipstream, I mean really unlike anything on "sane" aircraft. This will certainly produce a lot of lift. Also, flaps down can increase aileron responsiveness in *certain* aircraft. It is clear that the Mustang has wonderful aileron control. But this weighting against *that* torque... I certainly wouldn't try torquing in the real aircraft. But I hope I can do what they did in the vid next year. Just for getting a tiny bit of a feeling for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow PapaFLy - you are a brave man, speaking up about community pet plane 🤣

 

giphy.gif

Who doesn't just love those torque-free throttle slams to full power that all real actual P-51 pilots go on and on about in their memoirs? Or the almost complete absence of C.G. issues with full fuel tanks they (real, actual P-51 pilots) just rave about in so many accounts?

 

I'm sure we can dig those up in practically no time!

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. And I'm sure we can dig them up for all other planes in this sim. Until then I will enjoy slamming full throttle at low speed and power settings with my 109s too. :)

 

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are the two Real Pilots and they know what they say. Erich Brunotte says it can be that FW190 was slightly better than P51 but it depends on the Pilot.
Willi Reschke tells that P51 can better turn at the beginning but later the FW190 can outturn the P51 if you behind her. I never noticed this behaivour in IL2
BTW: Dont try to teach me...
 
Erich Brunotte:
at 56 Min - Read Transcript:
Erich Brunotte say: " Well, what should I say ?" 
Erich Brunotte say: " I can ’ t really say that my plane, the Dora 9, is better than the Mustang, see ?" 
Erich Brunotte say: " If I now talk about the maneuverability or about the top speed ,” 
Erich Brunotte say, " the Dora 9 might perhaps be a little bit better. But ,”
Erich Brunotte say, " that doesn ’ t make a difference if the pilot can ’ t work with it ." 
Erich Brunotte say: " So, your plane might easily be not as good, but the pilot is better. 
 
Willi Reschke:
Listen and Read Subtitle at 0:36 Minute  until 1:00 Minute
 
 
  2 hours ago, RoteDreizehn said:
For me the P51 is totally overpowered. It´s really an Ufo and superior Fighter.

UFO= Unidentified flying object. P-51=......an identified flying object? When we were flying I tried to explain to you that you shouldn't try to out-turn P-51s when flying a Dora or a 262 and that a vague anecdote =/= evidence.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RoteDreizehn said:
Willi Reschke:
Listen and Read Subtitle at 0:36 Minute  until 1:00 Minute
 
 
  2 hours ago, RoteDreizehn said:

 

Oh nice Pilot accounts of not-so successful pilots like Willi Reschke and Erich Brunotte but they're Keep Talking About something like they have shot down dozens of Mustangs.

The truth is that xX-Reschke super ace360-Xx had most of the time bomber kills[19 of his 26 kills were Bombers] and his 3 Mustang kills were 2 on a not defending7evading target and 1 on a beaten down Mustang how he bravely describes. Storys of Pilots are full of bs with subjective impressions, just like some allied pilots claimed how they won turnfights lasted for minutes against A6Ms with their P47s. So what?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the pilot skill in these engagements? What were the plane loadouts, conditions and situational positioning? Without any of these most of the anecdotes are meaningless for debating FMs. Like these examples, one can easily find the same accounts from the other side telling a similar story.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brunotte had less than 250hrs total time and of that exactly zero hours P-51 PIC.

How he somehow is referred to as an authority on what a P-51 can and cannot do, is beyond me.

 

There's a video on a Stallion51 preflight briefing where the instructor insists the student pick up the wing with aileron post-stall, as the rudder will just yaw the airplane and have zero effect in roll. IIRC, the airlerons remain effective right through to the stall. I'd have to dig up the video again.

I had linked it in a different thread before.

 

Starts at 5 minutes.

Make sure you watch the whole video - very interesting.

Speeds are in knots...

 

 

He's flying into the buffet/ accelerated stall right at 10:00, but recovers nicely.

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I love the most about those forums is how people can somehow separate their own favourite aircraft from the discussion, and only focus on the opposition when calling out FMs and DMs. Truth is, most of it is complete bogus, but depending on whether they have JG or No.XX in front of their names the discussion only goes one way. Learn to look outside the cage you built around yourself guys, and change your tone if you really want this game to improve. There's plenty to improve on, but I can assure you devs stopped looking at those "Mineshell does no damage" or "Yak-1 overpowered" threads somewhere around 2016, I imagine. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2019 at 3:23 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

Wow PapaFLy - you are a brave man, speaking up about community pet plane 🤣

 

giphy.gif

Who doesn't just love those torque-free throttle slams to full power that all real actual P-51 pilots go on and on about in their memoirs? Or the almost complete absence of C.G. issues with full fuel tanks they (real, actual P-51 pilots) just rave about in so many accounts?

 

I'm sure we can dig those up in practically no time!

 

 

 

Torque is undermodeled in every single aircraft in Il2, it's a universal issue and not peculiar to the P-51 alone, same with the brake issue.

 

I can't fly the P-51 with full fuel in the sim, it's a pig and near uncontrollable for me when in a dogfight.

 

Personally I want the torque and brakes to be modeled accurately but I doubt it will ever happen. From my understanding brakes and torque were intentionally undermodeled to make it easier on players without rudder pedals and joysticks at least thats a rumor that I've read, no idea if it's true or not.

 

I find DCS better in this regard and is the only thing I really like more about DCS, they model brakes and torque more accurately, maybe not perfect but much better than Il2.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Peen said:

The thing I love the most about those forums is how people can somehow separate their own favourite aircraft from the discussion, and only focus on the opposition when calling out FMs and DMs. Truth is, most of it is complete bogus, but depending on whether they have JG or No.XX in front of their names the discussion only goes one way.

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.

Edited by JG27_PapaFly
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Torque is undermodeled in every single aircraft in Il2, it's a universal issue and not peculiar to the P-51 alone, same with the brake issue.

 

I can't fly the P-51 with full fuel in the sim, it's a pig and near uncontrollable for me when in a dogfight.

 

Personally I want the torque and brakes to be modeled accurately but I doubt it will ever happen. From my understanding brakes and torque were intentionally undermodeled to make it easier on players without rudder pedals and joysticks.

 

I find DCS better in this regard and is the only thing I really like more about DCS, they model brakes and torque more accurately, maybe not perfect but much better than Il2.

 

Do you have a link to a developer saying this, (bold part) especially with regards to torque? I recall seeing that claim made for OldIL-2, but not for  BoX.   The problem with brakes is that for those planes with a button they are either on or off so we lack the full range of braking power. Personally I have never found the swing on take-off, for instance, to be weak: if you are not ready for it  most planes will happily turn sharply to one side if you open throttle too quickly. Certainly when I was learning to fly the game I had to abort take off from time to time. Of course, once you have many take-offs under your belt it seems easy enough.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ruthless_Killer said:

1st Lt. J. S. Daniell, 26 November 1944, 339th FG            Five (5) Fw 190's destroyed. "It wasn't difficult to get on his tail as I was turning with him."

1st Lt. Jule V. Conard, 27 June 1944, 352nd FG               "The bogey turned out to be four Fw 190's which went into a tight luftberry to the right. After a turn or so I got on the last 190's tail."
Capt Donald S. Bryan, 27 September 1944, 352nd FG    “At no time did I have any trouble either overtaking or out-turning the FW 190s or ME 109s.”
1st Lt. Harry E. Tear, 2 November 1944, 353rd FG           "We went into a Luftberry circle at about 10,000 ft, making approximately five 360° turns. I was turning slightly inside of him which                                                                                                            he evidently saw because he reefed it in harder.  He suddenly snapped over and went into a spin."
2nd Lt. Byron K. Braley, 18 September 1944, 357th FG            "By that time I was out of ammunition, so I out turned the other Fw 190, hit the deck and ran for home."
1st Lt. Edward K. Simpson, 27 May 1944, 357th FG                "We out-turned them, three E/A ran for the deck, followed by Captain Anderson and his wing man, one E/A climbed and myself and wing man followed him."
1st Lt. Mark H. Stepelton, 11 April 1944, 357th FG                  "While reforming two Fw 190's wre observed in front of us, one of which I attacked and fired on from about six turns observing hits on engine, cockpit and wings."
1st Lt. Gerald E. Tyler, 18 September 1944, 357th FG             Two Me 109s, one Fw 190 destroyed. "I followed him into a Lufberry and after about four turns, was able to draw deflection on him.”
1st Lt. Louis H. Norley, 8 April 1944, 4th FG                             Three (3) Fw 190's destroyed. "I dropped 20 degree flap and easily out turned him."
1st Lt. Frank E. Oiler, 14 January 1945, 78th FG                      "I got into a Luftberry at 1100 feet with the FW 190, and with the use of flaps I got on his tail in two turns."
Capt. Bradford V. Stevens, 12 September 1944, 339th FG    "…I was able to turn inside the Me 109 after dropping 20° flaps."
1st Lt. John B. Hunter, 24 May 1944, 359th FG                       “I had no trouble out-turning and out-climbing these 3 109’s during the whole combat.”
Lt. Col. Thomas L. Hayes, 14 July 1944, 357th FG                 "It was easy to turn with them. In 180 degress of turn I caught the last Me 109. Opened up at about 300 yards; got good strikes; he burned and smoked."


Well well well would you look at that.


Oh and also: Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. [...] The P-51 was something else. It could do everything we could do and do it much better.

 

Surely you are going to change you mind now RoteDreizehn?


Your post does not confirm anything too. Why? 1. Becaouse many pilots in 1944 has bad skills.  2. There where so many Fw 190 variants that they could not fight like Fw 190 A or D. For example Fw 190 sturmbock.  This 190 was so heavy that it was better to jump out of the plane then fight. 3.  Many pilots from Ju 87 were trained on the Fw 190 and they had no combat experience. Etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

From my understanding brakes and torque were intentionally undermodeled to make it easier on players without rudder pedals and joysticks.

 

That would be a very dumb decision in a flightsim where almost everyone is using a Joystick and at least a twist axis for rudder. Maybe there are guys out there who play with mouse and keyboard but it must be a very small minority if it even exists in IL2. So small that it should be ignored. But im sure that is not the reason for dumbed down torque and brakes. 

 

After all this is a flightsimulation game! Imagine racing games of today would dumb down the throttle, bake or wheel responsivenes and max values just to please people who might play these racing games on the keyboard. lol

 

Anyway, i see no problem in keeping the weak brakes option as a button but give us with pedals or brake levers a more realistic braking power. And please give us more realistic torque on top of that. Torque souldnt be dumbed down for a theoretical minority of non joystick users.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Art said:

Your post does not confirm anything too. Why? 1. Becaouse many pilots in 1944 has bad skills.  2. There where so many Fw 190 variants that they could not fight like Fw 190 A or D. For example Fw 190 sturmbock.  This 190 was so heavy that it was better to jump out of the plane then fight. 3.  Many pilots from Ju 87 were trained on the Fw 190 and they had no combat experience. Etc.

 

His post in confirming just that - everything after the bolded part. Meaning it is as useful as @RoteDreizehn's examples. ;)

 

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Your post does not confirm anything too. Why? 1. Becaouse many pilots in 1944 has bad skills.  2. There where so many Fw 190 variants that they could not fight like Fw 190 A or D. For example Fw 190 sturmbock.  This 190 was so heavy that it was better to jump out of the plane then fight. 3.  Many pilots from Ju 87 were trained on the Fw 190 and they had no combat experience. Etc.

 

You should have read the entire thread there, Buddy.

Edited by [3./J88]PikAss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ruthless_Killer said:

Exactly. This is why you can't base flight models on anecdotes. That's the point I'm trying to get across to RoteDrezehn. 

 

 

You can't but  they could be taken into account , when you read first hand diares and reports , when all Admirality of RFC was saying that all scouts that they have use since November 1916 are slower and can't climb so high to be competitive against new German scouts (albatros DI and DII) and in yours sim those entante scout are not like that   , how you can say it wasn't true because yours mathematical model is saying something different. 

 

Sorry for example from other era, just know it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Do you have a link to a developer saying this, (bold part) especially with regards to torque? I recall seeing that claim made for OldIL-2, but not for  BoX.   The problem with brakes is that for those planes with a button they are either on or off so we lack the full range of braking power. Personally I have never found the swing on take-off, for instance, to be weak: if you are not ready for it  most planes will happily turn sharply to one side if you open throttle too quickly. Certainly when I was learning to fly the game I had to abort take off from time to time. Of course, once you have many take-offs under your belt it seems easy enough.

No. Just what I've seen on the forums over the years, it's just what I've heard and not a fact.  I could be wrong of course but torque does seem under modeled along with brake power. It's especially noticeable in aircraft like the 109.

I've never found the torque to be that well modeled in-game, not compared to other sims I've flown.

 

EDIT. Added to my original post to show it's just speculation on my part.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for answer - it was a genuine question.

 

People in the RoF and now FC forum sometimes say the same thing about precessional forces, that the Camel is far too easy to fly etc.  AnPetrovich posted that it was easy to calculate and input into the FM, and modeled correctly.  There is a video of a pilot who had analysed Camel turns using modern technology, saying that for an experienced pilot, the effect is usually barely noticeable and adjusted for using the rudder without any difficulty. Testing it myself it is clear that it is there: but there are still people who pop up from time to time saying "the Camel is too easy to fly, precession is not modeled"... 

 

I just give this example because sometimes these tropes take on a forum life of their own, despite being untrue, so I wondered if this is also the case for torque effects.  It may be the case, for instance, that torque effects are correctly modeled, but in some circumstances damped out by something else, such as excessive yaw stability. Without a clear statement from the developers it is hard to be definitive.  

 

   

Share this post


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

Thanks for answer - it was a genuine question.

 

People in the RoF and now FC forum sometimes say the same thing about precessional forces, that the Camel is far too easy to fly etc.  AnPetrovich posted that it was easy to calculate and input into the FM, and modeled correctly.  There is a video of a pilot who had analysed Camel turns using modern technology, saying that for an experienced pilot, the effect is usually barely noticeable and adjusted for using the rudder without any difficulty. Testing it myself it is clear that it is there: but there are still people who pop up from time to time saying "the Camel is too easy to fly, precession is not modeled"... 

 

I just give this example because sometimes these tropes take on a forum life of their own, despite being untrue, so I wondered if this is also the case for torque effects.  It may be the case, for instance, that torque effects are correctly modeled, but in some circumstances damped out by something else, such as excessive yaw stability. Without a clear statement from the developers it is hard to be definitive.  

 

   

I talked with AnPetrovich about Camel and he sad that he did not make it's FM. He just ported it to FC , he do not make FM recalculation or checked if that was right in the beginning.

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ruthless_Killer said:

Exactly. This is why you can't base flight models on anecdotes. That's the point I'm trying to get across to RoteDrezehn. 

 

and on what do you want to base the flight models on? 

You can't get exact Values of this Time. The only Sources are 

anecdotes from the real Pilot who flew that planes and

NACA Reports or Rechlin Reports.  

 

I stop to discuss here, as it make's no sense because there is no outcome with only flaming. 👇

 

@JG27_PapaFly 

really appreciate your Work. Keep it up and don't listen to them.

 

Edited by RoteDreizehn
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I talked with AnPetrovich about Camel and he sad that he did not make it's FM. He just ported it to FC , he do not make FM recalculation or checked if that was right in the beginning.

 

Perhaps I am recalling a post by another dev on the RoF forum: somone clearly explained the physics and how it was modeled. The physics is simple enough.

 

If you try to turn the RoF or FRC Camel, left or right, using the rudder as you should, you will then need some left rudder in both cases to keep the nose level in a sustained turn. Precession is modeled, demonstrably, but you still get people insisting that it is not. Experienced RL pilots say that they adjust for this almost without noticing, but some would have the Camel be almost uncontrollable because many novices were killed learning it. This has been going on for years.  Off topic for the P-51 perhaps but I bring it up to demonstrate the importance of being able to demonstrate that certain aspects of the sim are off in response to Legioneod's comments about torque, rather than depending on oft repeated forum comments. 

 

I am certainly not claiming FMs are perfect: what is that anyway when there was much variation in aircraft, test conditions and so on, and our data points are rather sparse. But when we do have some data points, it is wrong to throw them out because some pilot has a story. 

 

Share this post


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

 

Perhaps I am recalling a post by another dev on the RoF forum: somone clearly explained the physics and how it was modeled. The physics is simple enough.

 

If you try to turn the RoF or FRC Camel, left or right, using the rudder as you should, you will then need some left rudder in both cases to keep the nose level in a sustained turn. Precession is modeled, demonstrably, but you still get people insisting that it is not. Experienced RL pilots say that they adjust for this almost without noticing, but some would have the Camel be almost uncontrollable because many novices were killed learning it. This has been going on for years.  Off topic for the P-51 perhaps but I bring it up to demonstrate the importance of being able to demonstrate that certain aspects of the sim are off in response to Legioneod's comments about torque, rather than depending on oft repeated forum comments. 

 

I am certainly not claiming FMs are perfect: what is that anyway when there was much variation in aircraft, test conditions and so on, and our data points are rather sparse. But when we do have some data points, it is wrong to throw them out because some pilot has a story. 

 

Yes agree.

What is interesting in ww1 rotary aeroplanes   and very different to ww2 birds that to stay on courses ( do not slip or skid) you should use ailerons when watching ball drift right or left inside the cockpit.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ruthless_Killer said:

There has not been any "flaming". People explaining to you that pilot anecdotes aren't a good source because they are full of contradictory statements isn't flaming. You are the one who came the closest to flaming by insinuating that the FM is wrong and demanding that it should be revisited by the devs without posting any evidence.

 

Surely not on the opinion of random people who fail to post any evidence to back up their claims? "P-51 is overperforming!!" is an empirical claim so nobody is going to "respect your opinion." Instead we have to look at the official performance figures. And unlike you said, we actually can get the exact values for these 2 aircraft. Official performance tests are readily available for P-51 and Fw-190D. And they correspond very well to the flight models we have. So when you say stuff like "P-51 overpeforming1!! Fw-190 underperforming!!1! it can simply be dismissed as luftwhining. 

 

 

>> You are the one who came the closest to flaming by insinuating that the FM is wrong and demanding that it should be revisited by the devs without posting any evidence.

I said Dont want to flame or bother the Dev´s  - If we cant say our opinon then its over...

 

>> Surely not on the opinion of random people who fail to post any evidence to back up their claims? "P-51 is overperforming!!">

>> So when you say stuff like "P-51 overpeforming1!! Fw-190 underperforming!!1! it can simply be dismissed as luftwhining. 

for sure not flaming... LOL

a very arrogant view your sentences

however, LOL, thanks you made my day

 

Edited by RoteDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this video recently - looks like a pilot of an actual P-51, going over differences between the real aircraft and it's simulated counterparts. It's pretty long, but I'm curious what folks thoughts are on the points this person raises. And please, I'm not here to start anything with anyone. I'm very interested to learn about this aircraft's performance, as much as anybody else. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 17

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...