Jump to content

P-51 impossible to fly?


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

I felt in love with IL-2 around four weeks ago, I think this is a great piece of software by all means!

 

I just have big (like HUGE) problems flying the P-51. It is nearly impossible for me to do turns without stalling over one wing. I have absolutely no problems flying the Tempest, the Bf-109, the Fw-190, the P-38 - but the P-51 always kills me (the P-47 too, but not as much as the P-51).

 

Do I something wrong? Obviously, I have to do something wrong!

 

The funny thing is: I was able to fly a quick missions today and shot some Ju-52… the flight was great! Absolutely no problems with stalling, I did smooth inputs, etc. But after reloading the mission to shot some other planes - everything went nuts, it seemed I was flying a rock…

 

Any advices and handling tipps are welcome! :)

 

Thanks a lot, especially do the developers which all do a great work. I am a developer, too, so I see a lot of similarities to my own job/company hanging around on this forum. ;)

 

Best regards,

 

Marcel

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt the same about the Mustang but last night I did some QMB 8v8 fights with it and was able to keep her under control and downed five 109s. loaded with 50% fuel.

Just give her some practice.

I have the benefit of a stick shaker that warns me when she's about to stall but if you listen to the whistle from the gun ports, they will give you some warning that you are pushing too hard.

 

Damn those 50 cals are weak though. Same battle while flying a Tempest and I violently chewed through 109s, with the 50s it's more like I licked them to death.

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuel hint is important. I have bought the Pilots Handbook as a book of the P-51 which I recommend for all the P-51 fans. The book says that with the aft fuselage tank loaded with fuel of MORE than 40 US gallons it is prohibited to fly aerobatics. Harsh maneuvers will cause stalls and spins.

I guess the reason is that with more than 40 gallons of fuel in the aft fuselage tank the Limit of Center of Gravity ( CG ) is reached and makes the P-51 harder to fly.

 

The P-51 has a laminar type of wing, which is also a bit critical. Stalls come quickly and without much annunciation. When you hear the whistleing sound of the gun ports, then you know that you pulled too much and the limit of angle of attack is reached soon.

 

The book says about stalls:

If a stall happens the P-51 tends to drop a wing, if it does and you keep pulling the stick it will drop into a spin very quickly.

So if you feel a stall......then push the stick forward, get more speed, reduce angle of attack, roll the aircraft back to a straight descent and once you have gained a bit speed, throttle up and pull the P-51 gently out of the dive.

 

Once you dropped into a spin.……...push the stick forward aswell and use FULL RUDDER ( but ONLY Rudder and no aileron ) into the OPPOSITE direction of the spin. If your spin turns to the right, you need full left rudder. Once you are out of the spin, then you do the same as with a stall recovery.

Edited by spitfirejoe
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What @spitfirejoe said.  To emphasize the point a bit more, Mustangs flying escort would burn their center tank first and then switch to drop tanks.  Wing tanks were used for combat and the rest of the flight.  It was that important to empty the fuselage tank that it was done before drop tanks.

 

The P51 has potentially nasty stall/spin characteristics and should not be flown with a heavy hand.  It is a fast ride with great acceleration. Keep it fast and don't pull too hard.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello guys,

 

thanks a lot! I used the default settings, 100 % fuel, indeed. Will try to use less when I do a flight session in the evening. :)

 

I really love this plane - it is just beautiful. Would be great if I learn to fly it. :) 

 

I‘ll keep you updated!

 

Best regards,

 

Marcel

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

thanks a lot! I used the default settings, 100 % fuel, indeed. Will try to use less when I do a flight session in the evening. :)

 

Yes, per the notes given by the developers, you will be safe when your fuel load is less than 75%. Above that, your tendency to stall and spin will be greatly increased.

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

Hello guys,

 

thanks a lot! I used the default settings, 100 % fuel, indeed. Will try to use less when I do a flight session in the evening. :)

 

Marcel

 

Max 70% fuel if you want to do hard turning. Also don't get slow. At high speed you have every advantage, including G-suit that lets you hold more G for longer than any German. It doesn't matter which plane turns harder on paper, if the other guy is blacking out and you are not you win.

 

3 hours ago, pfrances said:

Damn those 50 cals are weak though. Same battle while flying a Tempest and I violently chewed through 109s, with the 50s it's more like I licked them to death.

 

Haha. Those guns are funny, sometimes they seem to set things on fire instantly, other times you pour half your ammo into something and they just fly home and land. I don't think the guns are bad as such, I just think they're harder to aim because you need to land a consistent long burst in the right place to down a plane, not just a single 20mm round that makes them lose half a wing surface.

Edited by =X51=VC_
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spitfirejoe said:

Once you dropped into a spin.……...push the stick forward aswell and use FULL RUDDER ( but ONLY Rudder and no aileron ) into the OPPOSITE direction of the spin. If your spin turns to the right, you need full left rudder. Once you are out of the spin, then you do the same as with a stall recovery.

I'm very aware of the spin recovery procedure and most of its steps make perfect sense to me, but I've never understood why you shouldn't use aileron. Anyone care to explain?

 

Also, for the FC pilots, the only way I'm able to recover from a spin in a Camel is by actually *pulling* on the stick as hard as I can. Took me a few crashes to figure that one out. Here too, anyone who knows the reason for this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule of thumb for handling the Mustang - as well as the Fw-190 A-8 and D-9: don't fly ham-fisted.

That means, don't jerk on the stick like you could do on a 109F-4.

Use control inputs gently, don't try to force it, "dance" with her. But don't mosh with her. She and the late 190's are ladies, that need to be treated with respect and dignity.

If you do so, they'll do anything you ask and you'll come out on top.

If you like to push 'em around, why don't you try the Macchi instead. She'll forgive anything and sometimes seems to appreciate some soft abusing. ;-D

The early 109's are also open for some rough handling. BDM girls... What can you do?! XD

 

( Disclaimer: the aforementioned comments were meant to be satirical, not seriously. Any person, who might feel insulted by this, should not. It was just banter. )

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I struggled hard with the P51 too.  You need to run 63% fuel or less I believe to empty the center tank.  This is the aux tank that sits to the rear and impacts the Center of Gravity, making the plane extremely difficult to handle.  Running 50% fuel is typically more than sufficient for the vast majority of IL-2 missions.  Might sound crazy, but makes a HUGE difference in control ability.

Also, listen for the whistle.  This is the MG ports in the wings, and the whistling sound is created as the angle of attack of the wing increases, essentially working as an audio stall warning.  Take it up and stall it a few times on purpose and listen to the sound.  Then when you are in a fight, keep listening in the back of your mind and it will warn you when you are about to pull that little bit too hard.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only sheer amount of fuel (more than twice the normal capacity of other contemporary fighters), but also its location - first tank to drain going down from 100% is located behind the pilot; when full it shifts your center of gravity backwards, making aircraft nearly impossible to maneuver with.

 

Keep in mind that even with 50% fuel you still have more than what you'd have with 100% in a Spitfire with similar engine for example, so it's up to you to decide how much dead weight you really need to haul around in dogfights.

Edited by CrazyDuck
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I'm very aware of the spin recovery procedure and most of its steps make perfect sense to me, but I've never understood why you shouldn't use aileron. Anyone care to explain?

 

 

 

A spin is when the wings are not stalled equally and a yawing motion sets in. When you apply aileron to "lift" that wing that is more stalled to begin with, it just exacerbates the problem. Using the rudder to stop the yaw and pushing the nose down equalizes and increases the airflow over the wings, which is what they need to get flying together again.

 

Edited by MattS
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

A spin is when the wings are not stalled equally and a yawing motion sets in. When you apply aileron to "lift" that wing that is more stalled to begin with, it just exacerbates the problem. Using the rudder to stop the yaw and pushing the nose down equalizes and increases the airflow over the wings, which is what they need to get flying together again.

 

Thanks - that explains one half then. But what happens if you actually steer *into* the turn with your ailerons? My gut feeling tells me this would drop one wing as it now has even less lift than before compared to the other and hence "tip over" your plane, leading to a somewhat conventional nosedive or stall. However this is not the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Thanks - that explains one half then. But what happens if you actually steer *into* the turn with your ailerons? My gut feeling tells me this would drop one wing as it now has even less lift than before compared to the other and hence "tip over" your plane, leading to a somewhat conventional nosedive or stall. However this is not the case. 

 

Just on the topic of flat spins, steering in to the spin will raise the inboard aileron. Because the wing is moving backwards this will (try to) raise, not lower, the wing. The outboard wing is flying forwards, and, when steering in to the spin, also trying to rise. So both wings are trying to rise... that's just gonna be drag and a lift vector near the nose (keeping the nose even higher!). Depending on wing shape, aileron type (etc) and spin characteristics the two could perfectly balance, lead to reversed controls or behave normally (albeit weakly). That's why aileron use in spins varies from plane to plane.

 

 

Edited by peregrine7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PFR_Bearkiller72 said:

The early 109's are also open for some rough handling.

 

 

Ha, your analogies are quite alright.

 

You have to try to stall the 109F. I find even the 109K is still forgiving, despite how all the books I've read on the 109 keep harping on how much its late models' handling deteriorated due to extra weight from the engine, heavier frame, and guns. Even though other planes turn tighter, I like the control I have over the 109 as it turns. I can lock it into smooth, perpetual turns for at least ~5 minutes straight, at treetop altitude, and not feel remotely nervous about crashing. And if anyone's wondering, I turn that long in tests against the AI. 

 

To answer the OP, yes, I was puzzled once when I flew the P-51 in a career mission and was stalling constantly. At first I thought it was the heavy wind that day, but then I realized I had filled the tank to 100% on a short mission.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:

Interestingly, the 487th Fighter Squadron had full fuel tanks when they took off into that fateful battle on January 1st 1945. 

 

352-whisner-1jan45.jpg


I think that would not be the outcome if LW was in their glory days. 
But I do not think they used the tank behind the pilot. That tank was used from England They would not used it expecting fight straight out of airfield. But what do I know

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:

Interestingly, the 487th Fighter Squadron had full fuel tanks when they took off into that fateful battle on January 1st 1945. 

 

352-whisner-1jan45.jpg

 

Great document post.

 

But does anyone else feel a little... squeamish about the fact that he killed two pilots as they were about to bail? Seems a smidge bloodthirsty.

 

I get that WWI chivalry wasn't expected in WWII, but my rule--even against AI--is to stop shooting the second I see the canopy fly off. For one thing, it's a waste of ammo; for another, it's not very sporting. It feels like a morally nebulous area right above shooting someone suspended in a parachute.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Ha, your analogies are quite alright.

 

You have to try to stall the 109F. I find even the 109K is still forgiving, despite how all the books I've read on the 109 keep harping on how much its late models' handling deteriorated due to extra weight from the engine, heavier frame, and guns. Even though other planes turn tighter, I like the control I have over the 109 as it turns. I can lock it into smooth, perpetual turns for at least ~5 minutes straight, at treetop altitude, and not feel remotely nervous about crashing. And if anyone's wondering, I turn that long in tests against the AI. 

 

To answer the OP, yes, I was puzzled once when I flew the P-51 in a career mission and was stalling constantly. At first I thought it was the heavy wind that day, but then I realized I had filled the tank to 100% on a short mission.

 

Absolutely right, as the war progressed and newer more powerful engines were added to various fighters.. some airframes suffered more in the handling department than others.. often down to disproportionate changes required to the airframe, C-of-G and weight increases. The Bf 109 in its later incarnations (post late-1943) actually fared better as a design than its reputation suggests.

 

The Bf 109 did suffer to a large extent regarding takeoff/landing with its mid-range variants G-2, G-4 and early G-6... due to the (still) very small tail but increased torque and engine power. By comparison the Mark IX Spitfire was not scott-free here either (although generally quite decent on takeoff/landing)... although I watched one nearly ground loop after touching down at a small airshow at BAE Systems, Canterbury some years back.

 

Regarding late war aircraft however the Spitfire Mk XIV came off much worse in this respect than the G-14, G-10, K-4. The late war American fighters are much heavier and have a higher stall speed, the P-51 is notorious due to to that slender wing design - they're just not as forgiving.. those leading edge slats help a lot on the Bf 109.

 

The tall tail, larger tail wheel and flettner tabs on the later variants helped to offset the engine torque/handling issues experienced on the earlier G variants.

 

In fact, when training modern warbird pilots at Messerschmitt Stiftung.. they noted the Bf 109 G-10 is preferred over many of the earlier variants for gaining experience for less experienced pilots. Its much easier to handle on takeoff and landing with its taller tail and larger tail wheel.. which greatly offsets the engine torque/prop wash effects.

 

Much of the reputation of 'bad handling' of the Bf 109 post 1943 is actually down to factors such as poor training, poor forward airfield conditions (often improvised by 1944/1945) and also deteriorating quality control, lack of spare parts and sabotage - the design itself was fairly sound and that's what you see in-game with the G-14 and K-4.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


“....But does anyone else feel a little... squeamish about the fact that he killed two pilots as they were about to bail? Seems a smidge bloodthirsty.....”

 

No

Edited by TWC_Sp00k
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:


I think that would not be the outcome if LW was in their glory days. 
But I do not think they used the tank behind the pilot. That tank was used from England They would not used it expecting fight straight out of airfield. But what do I know


He says very clearly in his report that they had full fuselage tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.307eaa01d224a82c2690de3e6110e603.png

 

Wonder if he was awarded the victories, considering the above excerpt.

 

Also:

image.png.43b2e3649e6dd241759636a33ea63926.png

 

So, if the opponents were excellent pilots, what is the author if he shot down 4 planes, with a full fuel tank and a damaged airplane?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KW_1979 said:


He says very clearly in his report that they had full fuselage tanks.

Is there not more fuselage tanks I am sure I have read and seen training books videos that they should not in any circumstances do excessive maneuvers wit fuel in that tank and absolutely nit if it was full. 
I read it the report but it is hard to believe ge could dogfight with that configuration

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was just the one fuselage tank along with the two wing tanks.  It was a problem having it full of fuel, and I believe that's why he mentioned it in his report.  My guess on why they filled them was that the group had just relocated to Y-29 a week earlier in response to the ardennes offensive, and likely had no supply of drop tanks there.  It would be easy enough to burn it down during your climb out before patrolling - so they must have thought it would be worth the extra endurance, as they had no idea they were about to get attacked at their own field.

 

With regard to the credits and pilot quality etc, Bill Whisner was indeed awarded 4 victories for his actions that day.  Many of the wrecks were on or near Y-29 itself (the ground crews had some interesting stories of having a front row seat to a huge dogfight) and numerous members of the 352nd Fighter Group were tasked with collecting German pilots remains for burial after the battle was over.  Not surprisingly there does appear to have been some over claiming that day - hardly unusual in a confused fight like that.  The 487th FS was awarded 23 victories and the 390th FS (the P-47s who were returning to the field when JG11 arrived) 7.  JG11 reportedly lost 24 or 28 aircraft depending on your source, with at least 3 of those being attributed to anti-aircraft fire.  Among the pilots lost by JG11 that day were experten like Gunther Specht (34 victories), Alwin Doppler (37 victories), Franz Meindl (31 victories) and Horst-Gunther von Fassong (75 victories).  Obviously the average Luftwaffe pilot at this point in the war was pretty inexperienced, but there were still a number of skilled German pilots left and some were present in this battle.  JG11 pilots claimed 11 kills in return, though actual American losses were a single P-47, two P-51s damaged in the air and one damaged on the ground.

 

Anyway, it's just an interesting historical anecdote involving the namesake of the expansion and P-51 fuselage tanks.  Kudos to the devs for modeling them in game.

Edited by KW_1979
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Much of the reputation of 'bad handling' of the Bf 109 post 1943 is actually down to factors such as poor training, poor forward airfield conditions (often improvised by 1944/1945) and also deteriorating quality control, lack of spare parts and sabotage - the design itself was fairly sound and that's what you see in-game with the G-14 and K-4.

 

Yes, it's probably one of those cases where it was too little/late to matter, so most aviation historians just gloss over the subtle improvements to the design. I'm quite surprised how easy it is (in a 109K) to turn inside a Mustang at low altitude. From most of what I've read, the 109 is not considered at its best in a turning fight; yet, in this sim, I can out turn--or at least force a head on pass--every Yak variant, the Tempest, and the P-51; and needless to say, all other planes not famous for maneuverability. I can't out turn the Spitfire, of course; as far as I know, only the Zero could consistently do that (proven during the Darwin, Australia campaign); but I could still force a head on with proper timing. I haven't tested against the La-5 series yet.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Yes, it's probably one of those cases where it was too little/late to matter, so most aviation historians just gloss over the subtle improvements to the design. I'm quite surprised how easy it is (in a 109K) to turn inside a Mustang at low altitude. From most of what I've read, the 109 is not considered at its best in a turning fight; yet, in this sim, I can out turn--or at least force a head on pass--every Yak variant, the Tempest, and the P-51; and needless to say, all other planes not famous for maneuverability. I can't out turn the Spitfire, of course; as far as I know, only the Zero could consistently do that (proven during the Darwin, Australia campaign); but I could still force a head on with proper timing. I haven't tested against the La-5 series yet.

 

That's my impression too.. the war had swung solidly in the Allies favour by April 1944 - it was the beginning of air superiority over northern France. Having a slightly better model of fighter wasn't going to offset that very much like you say - especially due to the attrition and the sheer numbers the Allies could field at that point.

 

I still struggle sometimes to match the P-51 in a straight turning contest (at least online) in the K-4, but find the G-14 much easier. Climbing turns tend to work well with them. All indications from modern warbird pilots seem to think that when it was kept between 240 - 300mph a very tight turn could be held with the G models.. second only to the Spitfire (IX) and Yak 9 / Yak 3 late in the war (ETO). There are also several accounts of Soviet pilots complaining about the dynamic nature of it, and as soon as a pilot did begin to get a lead in the turn, the '109 switched quickly into the vertical or into a sharp scissors.. completely changing the odds for the chasing fighter. This really irritated pilots because the '109 was particularly evasive and could fight well both vertically and horizontally if kept in the right speed range.

 

What seems to confuse authors is the paper figures.. on paper the Bf 109 appears only slightly better than average in terms of turn time or wing-loading etc, but factor in the practical aspects of those leading edge slats (when actually deployed and utilised to assist the turn right up to the stall) and the fairly flat seating position for the pilot (improved pilot resistance to G forces - which helps in most types of maneuvering) it begins to make more sense. The pilot can really get every inch out of the aircraft's performance and exploit more of the maneuvering ability of the fighter where human factors are typically the limiting factor and theoretical figures are... just theoretical due to those very real limitations.

 

It also seems testing of captured Bf 109's including in the UK was sometimes done with the slats taped up (lack of understanding about their operation - these were not employed much on RAF fighters it seems), which negates a huge technical advantage and skewed the historical narrative in literature seems. When the US joined the fight, they of course read the UK reports etc.. you can see where this is going.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

[snip]

 

It also seems testing of captured Bf 109's including in the UK was sometimes done with the slats taped up (lack of understanding about their operation - these were not employed much on RAF fighters it seems), which negates a huge technical advantage and skewed the historical narrative in literature seems. When the US joined the fight, they of course read the UK reports etc.. you can see where this is going.

 

All very good points. I always take RAF and USAAF reports with a grain of salt, as a pilot flying the 109 cold without training for months in it (pre-war, anyway), will be just as ignorant of its capabilities as anyone who tried to fly a P-51 or Yak with zero prior experience in them. Every plane has a distinct feel and control rhythm, that only sufficient time can teach you.

 

An expert pilot (I forget which) said you weren't truly flying the 109 until its slats were out. It makes me wonder why more planes didn't use them. It also makes me want to buy an La-5 just to test its slats.

 

Messerschmitt supposedly chose to omit slats from the Me-210 in order to keep manufacturing costs down. That choice, no doubt, contributed to the 210's notoriously horrific handling.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the p-51 flies amazingly, but it needs to be flown right.  Even with 100% fuel it can fly very well.  The main thing is you need to be gentle. With a full sized flight stick you only end up using 20% of the overall movement.  So you are going to want a pretty heavy curve and under no circumstances should you fly this with any stick with a hard center bump.  All of your movement is very small stick inputs at the center of the stick.  If you move the stick past the 50% mark in any direction it will stall out immediately and often times spin you. 

 

And most importantly use your ears.  When you begin to go into an accelerated stall you will hear the gun barrels whistle.  Its ok if they are quietly whistling, but if it gets loud, you are pulling to hard and are about to cause your plane to go out of control.  So long as you do that, you have good turning, good speed, good climb, and good energy which mean you will always have some advantage over another plane as you are decent at everything.  You may not be the best in any 1 category, but the fact that you are good in everything makes it one of the most versatile planes in the game and you should be able to win most combat encounters with it.

 

If you know your cars think most planes in this game fly like an 80s rally car with lots of fast movements and overall crazy fast and hard inputs where the p-51 flys like a modern formula car where you need to be gentile and smooth or else the thing will spin out and crash on you.

Edited by zdog0331
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zdog0331 said:

I think the p-51 flies amazingly, but it needs to be flown right.  Even with 100% fuel it can fly very well.  The main thing is you need to be gentle. With a full sized flight stick you only end up using 20% of the overall movement.  So you are going to want a pretty heavy curve and under no circumstances should you fly this with any stick with a hard center bump.  All of your movement is very small stick inputs at the center of the stick.  If you move the stick past the 50% mark in any direction it will stall out immediately and often times spin you. 

 

And most importantly use your ears.  When you begin to go into an accelerated stall you will hear the gun barrels whistle.  Its ok if they are quietly whistling, but if it gets loud, you are pulling to hard and are about to cause your plane to go out of control.  So long as you do that, you have good turning, good speed, good climb, and good energy which mean you will always have some advantage over another plane as you are decent at everything.  You may not be the best in any 1 category, but the fact that you are good in everything makes it one of the most versatile planes in the game and you should be able to win most combat encounters with it.

 

If you know your cars think most planes in this game fly like an 80s rally car with lots of fast movements and overall crazy fast and hard inputs where the p-51 flys like a modern formula car where you need to be gentile and smooth or else the thing will spin out and crash on you.

 

I fly with a standard Warthog (center bump) and no curves whatsoever. I can boom n zoom her or turn fight in her well enough against human competition online. You can haul her around the sky pretty well as long as you fly coordinated and you have emptied/an empty center tank. The information presented in paragraph one abobe, however, is not entirely correct. I agree you generally need to be smooth with your inputs and the pop bottle whistle is helpful but the rest just not true at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2020 at 12:28 PM, Aurora_Stealth said:

Much of the reputation of 'bad handling' of the Bf 109 post 1943 is actually down to factors such as poor training, poor forward airfield conditions (often improvised by 1944/1945) and also deteriorating quality control, lack of spare parts and sabotage - the design itself was fairly sound and that's what you see in-game with the G-14 and K-4.

Between March 1944 and March 1945 the LW Quartermaster reported that 50% of airframe losses were due to accidents on landing or take-off by inexperienced and poorly trained pilots. Apparently the Me109 came under severe criticism for it's narrow track undercarriage and assymetric slat deployment causing crashes. The narrow track undercarriage issue is self explanatory, but the leading edge slats deploying assymetrically might be due to poor handling or poor quality control and field maintenance. If only one slat deployed on one wing, the plane would flip over. Battle damage, crosswinds, excessive side slipping on approach at slow speeds with everything out (gear, flaps) were probably all factors that could cause this to happen. What is a certainty is that poor airfield quality plus poorly trained pilots led to horrendous  non-combat losses.

 

Maybe a 2 seat trainer version of the Me109 would have mitigated these losses?

 

Not so it seems. The Me109G12 was not a success. No more than 100 were built from worn out G2/4/6 airframes and were a terror to fly, according to the few contemporary accounts available

 

Oddly, I have never had a problem landing or taking off in game with any 109 with assymetric slat deployment or it's narrow track undercarriage. The Me109 to me is a stick and rudder man's dream. (I learnt my real world flying on Chipmunks and Tiger Moths)

Edited by Reggie_Mental
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Reggie_Mental said:

Between March 1944 and March 1945 the LW Quartermaster reported that 50% of airframe losses were due to accidents on landing or take-off by inexperienced and poorly trained pilots. Apparently the Me109 came under severe criticism for it's narrow track undercarriage and assymetric slat deployment causing crashes. The narrow track undercarriage issue is self explanatory, but the leading edge slats deploying assymetrically might be due to poor handling or poor quality control and field maintenance. If only one slat deployed on one wing, the plane would flip over. Battle damage, crosswinds, excessive side slipping on approach at slow speeds with everything out (gear, flaps) were probably all factors that could cause this to happen. What is a certainty is that poor airfield quality plus poorly trained pilots led to horrendous  non-combat losses.

 

Maybe a 2 seat trainer version of the Me109 would have mitigated these losses?

 

Not so it seems. The Me109G12 was not a success. No more than 100 were built from worn out G2/4/6 airframes and were a terror to fly, according to the few contemporary accounts available

 

Oddly, I have never had a problem landing or taking off in game with any 109 with assymetric slat deployment or it's narrow track undercarriage. The Me109 to me is a stick and rudder man's dream. (I learnt my real world flying on Chipmunks and Tiger Moths)

One thing to consider is that torque is undermodeled in-game (imo) It almost feels like it's not even a factor in-game. I noticed that coming from DCS to Il2 the learning curve was almost a walk in the park. Took me a long time before I could take off in the DCS 109 due to how much torque it had and due to its narrow gear.

 

That's one thing I miss about DCS, torque and ground handling in general feel better in that game than it does in Il2.

I'm not saying harder = more realistic but I've heard about the 109 being difficult in ground handling and landings/take offs and I feel like it's not even a factor in il2.

 

Is there asymmetric slat deployment? Honestly I've never noticed or paid any attention to the slats so I don't know. Also can slats be damaged individually? If I shoot off or damage a slat does it affect handling, I've never purposefully tested this s I'm curious if it's a thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Legioneod said:

One thing to consider is that torque is undermodeled in-game (imo) It almost feels like it's not even a factor in-game. I noticed that coming from DCS to Il2 the learning curve was almost a walk in the park. Took me a long time before I could take off in the DCS 109 due to how much torque it had and due to its narrow gear.

 

That's one thing I miss about DCS, torque and ground handling in general feel better in that game than it does in Il2.

I'm not saying harder = more realistic but I've heard about the 109 being difficult in ground handling and landings/take offs and I feel like it's not even a factor in il2.

 

Is there asymmetric slat deployment? Honestly I've never noticed or paid any attention to the slats so I don't know. Also can slats be damaged individually? If I shoot off or damage a slat does it affect handling, I've never purposefully tested this s I'm curious if it's a thing.

 

I also feel that any of the propeller effects seem to be undermodeled. However, I think the measure for this should not be the number of times you managed to take off in a 109. In reality it was enough to crash once on take off to become part of the statistics that the 109 was difficult to handle on take off. If you did that once in the game, because of torque, it means that torque is indeed an issue on takeoff, and seems to mimic real life behavior. If you asses the situation from the point of view of a rookie (i.e. a combat flight sim rookie), he would crash much more on take off, so you might say that for him the torque is strong enough, and it's modeled according to history, where torque was an issue for rookies.

 

And why I feel prop effects are generally under modeled is because you can read about it in actual tests, where they say that a place can turn better to one side than the other, or that they could not fly straight at slow speeds and full power settings. Perhaps the game differentiates between prop effects on the ground and prop effects in the air. 

 

Yes, there is asymmetric slots deployment, someone posted a thread (please see below) recently about the tests he/she performed, slots damage is not modeled as far as I can tell.

 

 

Edited by Raven109
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

If you asses the situation from the point of view of a rookie (i.e. a combat flight sim rookie), he would crash much more on take off, so you might say that for him the torque is strong enough, and it's modeled according to history.

 

A rookie can always check the "simplified flight model" box.

 

No need to introduce gamey stuff. If you want gamey, go over to Warp Thunder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Reggie_Mental said:

Between March 1944 and March 1945 the LW Quartermaster reported that 50% of airframe losses were due to accidents on landing or take-off by inexperienced and poorly trained pilots. Apparently the Me109 came under severe criticism for it's narrow track undercarriage and assymetric slat deployment causing crashes. The narrow track undercarriage issue is self explanatory, but the leading edge slats deploying assymetrically might be due to poor handling or poor quality control and field maintenance. If only one slat deployed on one wing, the plane would flip over. Battle damage, crosswinds, excessive side slipping on approach at slow speeds with everything out (gear, flaps) were probably all factors that could cause this to happen. What is a certainty is that poor airfield quality plus poorly trained pilots led to horrendous  non-combat losses.

 

Maybe a 2 seat trainer version of the Me109 would have mitigated these losses?

 

Not so it seems. The Me109G12 was not a success. No more than 100 were built from worn out G2/4/6 airframes and were a terror to fly, according to the few contemporary accounts available

 

Oddly, I have never had a problem landing or taking off in game with any 109 with assymetric slat deployment or it's narrow track undercarriage. The Me109 to me is a stick and rudder man's dream. (I learnt my real world flying on Chipmunks and Tiger Moths)

 

Gharr.. that's really bad! the narrow track makes sense but I agree the slat deployment was probably a quality control/maintenance issue - there was definitely something not operating right mechanically. From what I've seen, you should be able to smoothly extend and retract them with the tips of your fingers - they are that well balanced.

 

I found this snippet off an old article: "according to Gen. Rall, it was common practice at their field to push the slats in once the aircraft were secured so that no dust or debris would accumulate in the travelling tracks.  Evidently at least one new pilot was lost due to faulty operation of the slats when taking off, which led to this practice." Erik Whipple interview with Gunther Rall

 

It probably didn't help that the Allies were also strafing anything that moved... including their rear airfields and fuel was scarce for pilot training (as with all flying by that time). Yeah completely agree, with the G-12 it was another case of too little too late. What I thought was interesting was Erich Hartmann wrote in his book that he pleaded directly with Hitler in a freely speaking close conversation with him after receiving one of his last awards.. not to bring new pilots into squadrons until they had a few hundred hours and were ready for conditions as they were losing new pilots left, right and centre. It appears a large number of the German aces had all been advocating for some time about this with Goering but had their words left on deaf ears.

 

Aaaha nice! they're both lovely little aircraft! the Chipmunk is a great tail dragger to get familiar with

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience with it, the modeled 109 is lacking the issues it had because of the angle of the wheels and undercarriage. Which was one of the main reasons (aggravated by torque, and prop wash) for the take off and landing accidents. During take-off, the torque would force the aircraft to roll counter clock-wise, which means that much more downwards force would be exerted on the left wheel than on the right one. Because of its angle, the wheel would have a tendency to veer sideways. This was also an issue during landings if somehow you managed to put more force on one wheel rather than the other (e.g cross-wind, applying power suddenly, side slip due to uncoordinated flight).

 

If I recall correctly, the wheel angle was reduced in one of the 109 version, maybe the F, although it was still not vertical.

K:image.thumb.png.9e8ae4604ef89bd7de8128144b8a73ed.pngvs E:Bf109_LG_Geom.jpg

 

 

Edited by Raven109
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@WhteRbt

 

I don't know if anyone has suggested this: Have you tried changing the joystick sensitivity in the in-game key mapping menu?

 

Try increasing the pitch, yaw and roll sensitivities.

 

This helps enormously when flying planes which stall a little easy than others, like the Fw-190.

 

I use with my Thrustmaster T160000M:

 

PITCH: 50%

ROLL: 40%

YAW: 30%

 

Try it and see if it helps.

 

 

Edited by Tipsi
  • Like 1
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...