Jump to content

P-51 impossible to fly?


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

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.

 

I totally agree with you sir.  I am using a CH Fighter Stick that I purchased in 2003.  No curves, no programming.  I think the P51 flys wonderfully. I am perfectly capable of keeping up with my human friends online, and besting them, and the cheating bastage AIs are a non issue.  Keep her smooth and fast and you have a willing mount that you can toss about the sky.  She is tied for top fighter, IMHO, with the Tempest.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mustang also handles beautifully on the ground. Takeoffs are pretty straight and true. Landing in the three point position yields a smooth rollout every time. It’s so much better than I dared hope for. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raven109 said:

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

 

 

 

Ground handling and take off is easier for all planes, perhaps more noticeable with the 109. OTOH wheel brakes on the other side of spectrum of easy / difficult. 😄

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

 

Ground handling and take off is easier for all planes, perhaps more noticeable with the 109. OTOH wheel brakes on the other side of spectrum of easy / difficult. 😄

 

High power, low speed regimes are particularly mild in game. Also, quick changes in throttle don't have as much effect at low speeds as tests describe.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2020 at 12:24 PM, pfrances said:

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.

the issue is not only the 50s or the glass-llike damage model of the 51, but also i am sick of 109 pilots flopping around "stiring the pot" and not causing structual damage to the acft or pilot red/black outs.  these manuevers have been an issue in the game for a while and the fact that it is still not addressed compounds the other issues.  of course any decent pilot can down 109s but a pilot vs pilot of the same skill level is at an disadvantage because of all the technical issues involving 50s/dm and unrealistic flight characteristics ... this is my rant so 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

the issue is not only the 50s or the glass-llike damage model of the 51, but also i am sick of 109 pilots flopping around "stiring the pot" and not causing structual damage to the acft or pilot red/black outs.  these manuevers have been an issue in the game for a while and the fact that it is still not addressed compounds the other issues.  of course any decent pilot can down 109s but a pilot vs pilot of the same skill level is at an disadvantage because of all the technical issues involving 50s/dm and unrealistic flight characteristics ... this is my rant so 

 

190's can perform some pretty amazing high g stunts when being chased as well.

I am referring to the ai here.

Edited by dburne
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tipsi said:

@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.

 

First of all: Thank you all! :)

 

I did some test flights with 50 % fuel and it is a day & night difference indeed! This plane is great and I am so happy that I am able to fly it now! :) I will also check out the sensitivity settings and do some adjustments, thanks for the advice! :)

 

Best regards,

 

Marcel

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WhteRbt said:

 

First of all: Thank you all! :)

 

I did some test flights with 50 % fuel and it is a day & night difference indeed! This plane is great and I am so happy that I am able to fly it now! :) I will also check out the sensitivity settings and do some adjustments, thanks for the advice! :)

 

Best regards,

 

Marcel

 

Agreed, it flies very well with the right fuel load.

 

I thought I was going to prefer flying the P-47 in game but the P-51 beats it hands down in just about every way. 

 

Really the only upside of the Jug for me is the engine sound!

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MattS said:

 

Agreed, it flies very well with the right fuel load.

 

I thought I was going to prefer flying the P-47 in game but the P-51 beats it hands down in just about every way. 

 

Really the only upside of the Jug for me is the engine sound!

 

The Jug should provide you with a tougher aircraft for ground attack and, of course, two more guns.  Other than that, at low altitude, it is not going to out perform the 51 in any way (maybe roll rate?).  The 51 is going to be faster, climb better, and turn better.  Really the 51 is just a better plane for most things.  The only reason IRL I would prefer the 47 is trying to hit a ground target in an AA infested zone.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

The Jug should provide you with a tougher aircraft for ground attack and, of course, two more guns.  Other than that, at low altitude, it is not going to out perform the 51 in any way (maybe roll rate?).  The 51 is going to be faster, climb better, and turn better.  Really the 51 is just a better plane for most things.  The only reason IRL I would prefer the 47 is trying to hit a ground target in an AA infested zone.

 

 

I have just started to fly the P-51 and am liking it very well. Gotta be careful in a dive though, get too fast and you can kiss it goodbye.

I am using 50% fuel load.

Edited by dburne
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

I have just started to fly the P-51 and am liking it very well. Gotta be careful in a dive though, get too fast and you can kiss it goodbye.

I am using 50% fuel load.

 

In the most recent PWCG I reduced its default fuel load to 50%.  This way you don't have to remember.  I can't imagine that those few P-51 units based 50 to 100 km from the front were going up with center tanks filled.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

In the most recent PWCG I reduced its default fuel load to 50%.  This way you don't have to remember.  I can't imagine that those few P-51 units based 50 to 100 km from the front were going up with center tanks filled.

 

:good:

 

Yep I noticed that regarding the fuel, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those 109 aficionado's, this is a great read 

Luftwaffe Eagle 

from the ME 109 to the ME 262

Walter Schuck

He has numerus accounts of 109 crashes due to the gear issue in his book.

Also a lot of eastern front combat before coming back to Germany for the 262  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 9:20 AM, Raven109 said:

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

 

 


G4

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2020 at 7:55 PM, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

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.

Fair enough.  I used to fly this game with a warthog until i "upgraded" to a vkb galdiator which really helped me out a lot.  I was able to fly good before, but it wasn't until i dumped the warthog until i realized how badly it was affecting my performance which ultimately convinced me to upgrade to a gunfighter with the warthog adapter (still love that full metal a-10 grip).  But that is my personal experience.  A stick isn't everything, but it does hinter your ability if it isn't smooth.  Do note that much of what i said regarding control surfaces is using a linear profile with no curve setting.  which is kind of confusing now that i go back and read it and see that i recommended a heavy curve earlier in the post.  I got a gunfighter with the extension and runa linnier setup so read it as the graphical stick rendered in the game should not go more than 20-30% deflection in terms of pulling backwards when the fuel tank is full but you can pull a little harder when its not.  But still light pulling no more than 50% full back (with no curve set).  The plane has a tendency to stall out above that.  I do find that the warthog's center bump really does hurt the planes performance and it wasn't something i noticed  until i flew with a different stick but that is my personal experience and yours may differ. 

 

this may be a little late reply wise, but i have been away from the forums for a while.

Edited by zdog0331
grammer
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WhteRbt said:

 

First of all: Thank you all! :)

 

I did some test flights with 50 % fuel and it is a day & night difference indeed! This plane is great and I am so happy that I am able to fly it now! :) I will also check out the sensitivity settings and do some adjustments, thanks for the advice! :)

 

Best regards,

 

Marcel

 

The fuel load is so large on the Mustang that for online/dog fighting 35% is usually all you will need for a 45 minute timed map. I always run out of ammo before I run out of gas anyway - even with the additional ammo selected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 I always run out of ammo before I run out of gas anyway - even with the additional ammo selected.

 

I usually run out of life before I run out of gas 🤣😭

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2020 at 6:39 PM, 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. :)

 

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

Try it with only 75% ...no more than that. I think that that will solve your problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 cals are weak sure but the Tempest's cannons can fire for 14 seconds while the Mustang can fire for 28. With cannons you fire a few tracer rounds and adjust, with machine guns you get up close and spraaaaaaaay. 

 

The best gun setup for anti-air is surely to have cannons AND machine guns like the Spitfire. Usually you fire both, but in some situations you have a very evasive enemy so you only fire the MGs. For anti-ground idk but I would suspect cannons will more reliably destroy halftracks, make you safer against interceptors and flak, and the tracers will be extremely useful.

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

50 cals are weak

 

Doesn't feel like it. I'm at the moment playing P-51 career mission and so far i've shot down 4 190's and 1 109 without any problem. If you hit them at converge they are dead meat. With P-38 i shot down 11 Doras and K4's, most with just .50 cals, nose mounted weapons are a lot more accurate than wing mounted. I would like to have those API rounds though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LLv24_Sukka24 said:

 

Doesn't feel like it. I'm at the moment playing P-51 career mission and so far i've shot down 4 190's and 1 109 without any problem. If you hit them at converge they are dead meat. With P-38 i shot down 11 Doras and K4's, most with just .50 cals, nose mounted weapons are a lot more accurate than wing mounted. I would like to have those API rounds though.

 

Agreed, I just started flying the P-51 and have had pretty good luck with it's 50 cals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LLv24_Sukka24 said:

 

Doesn't feel like it. I'm at the moment playing P-51 career mission and so far i've shot down 4 190's and 1 109 without any problem. If you hit them at converge they are dead meat. With P-38 i shot down 11 Doras and K4's, most with just .50 cals, nose mounted weapons are a lot more accurate than wing mounted. I would like to have those API rounds though.

 

Try some QMBs against 4 Stukas or JU-88s and let us know how you feel about their killing power (esp against fleeing enemies). I've poured a lot of fire into these planes and rarely get kills unless I can hit the pilot...which doesn't seem to happen as often as it should against something like the JU-88 Fishbowl cockpit LOL.

 

Of course you might just be a much better shot, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 5:52 AM, Reggie_Mental said:

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)

 

This is anecdotal, I know, but I do think it's actually one of the easier planes to take off in. I have far too many hours in warbird sims to crash on take off these days (...except the Ju-88, which is a challenge sometimes) but when I try to teach my newbie friends to fly they all tend to find the 109s significantly easier to take off in. I've watched several people wreck a regiment's worth of Yak-1s in a row trying to take off, then jump into a 109 and get airborne first time

 

The FW-190 seems to be significantly harder in comparison, despite its wide landing gear. I have a lot of wobbly take-offs in that family of planes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still trying to hang in there with my P-51 in PWCG but am having a little trouble getting truly attuned to it. I don't feel like the plane and I are one, like I do

with the Spit Mk IX. Only been a couple days or so  and not that many flights, will hang in there a bit longer with it.

Already itching to get back to that Spit though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

The FW-190 seems to be significantly harder in comparison, despite its wide landing gear. I have a lot of wobbly take-offs in that family of planes

I can't remember exactly how I overcame the swing/torque problem in the 190 but I think locking the tailwheel, using differential braking and incremental application of power on the take-off run whilst correcting for the swing until I got rudder authority worked in the end.

 

The Ju88? Forget it. 

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

A website called americanrifleman claiming an american gun won the war? Shocking! 

 

Critical reading skills have escaped you?  Please read the article, then comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

This is anecdotal, I know, but I do think it's actually one of the easier planes to take off in. I have far too many hours in warbird sims to crash on take off these days (...except the Ju-88, which is a challenge sometimes) but when I try to teach my newbie friends to fly they all tend to find the 109s significantly easier to take off in. I've watched several people wreck a regiment's worth of Yak-1s in a row trying to take off, then jump into a 109 and get airborne first time

 

The FW-190 seems to be significantly harder in comparison, despite its wide landing gear. I have a lot of wobbly take-offs in that family of planes

 

I don't know why the Yak should be especially difficult at takeoff. I mean, it's the same small-frame powerful-engine dynamics that the Spitfire and 109 deal with. The only difference I can think of is perhaps over-correction with the controls. The Yak has, in my opinion, light controls.

 

I found the Fw-190 impossible to takeoff with, until I read the description in-game of how the tail wheel locks. After that, it was pretty standard.

10 hours ago, LLv24_Sukka24 said:

 

Doesn't feel like it. I'm at the moment playing P-51 career mission and so far i've shot down 4 190's and 1 109 without any problem. If you hit them at converge they are dead meat. With P-38 i shot down 11 Doras and K4's, most with just .50 cals, nose mounted weapons are a lot more accurate than wing mounted. I would like to have those API rounds though.

 

Yeah, I don't have a problem with .50 cals when they're nose mounted. It's only in wings that I'm significantly a worse shot with them.

 

That said, when attacking a bomber, I'd take the wing-mounted 20 and 30mm mix in a Fw-190 over 8 .50s any day; even if 8 .50s could be mounted in a nose, I'd still pick cannon against bombers. 

 

.50s are perfectly fine for fighters. The exception being that .50 cals were also highly destructive to lightly armored Japanese bombers that were common throughout most of the Pacific war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest question in this matter is why the FW 190 is so easy to shoot down using the .50 Brownings on the Mustang or P40, yet the Bf 109 just absorbs them like a sponge and the aircraft continues to maneuver, pull high G pull outs, and in general laughs at being hit?

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

My biggest question in this matter is why the FW 190 is so easy to shoot down using the .50 Brownings on the Mustang or P40, yet the Bf 109 just absorbs them like a sponge and the aircraft continues to maneuver, pull high G pull outs, and in general laughs at being hit?

Conversely, I find it's a lot easier bringing down planes in a G2 than in an A3. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LLv24_Sukka24 said:

 

Doesn't feel like it. I'm at the moment playing P-51 career mission and so far i've shot down 4 190's and 1 109 without any problem. If you hit them at converge they are dead meat. With P-38 i shot down 11 Doras and K4's, most with just .50 cals, nose mounted weapons are a lot more accurate than wing mounted. I would like to have those API rounds though.

 

This seems to correlate with real-life where a better gun platform can outweigh outright performance and stats in combat situations. With the wing mounted guns, I agree its all about convergence and staying within it, but a lot of other people ignore this unfortunately and blame the guns themselves.

 

11 hours ago, dburne said:

I am still trying to hang in there with my P-51 in PWCG but am having a little trouble getting truly attuned to it. I don't feel like the plane and I are one, like I do

with the Spit Mk IX. Only been a couple days or so  and not that many flights, will hang in there a bit longer with it.

Already itching to get back to that Spit though.

 

It definitely requires a very specific combat style, and you can't maneuver it and rely on its dog-fighting ability like you would with a Spitfire - although it still does surprisingly well at low speeds (?). Pilots who flew both during WW2 such as Eric Brown felt the same way - the Mark IX just feels way more forgiving and survivable in a combat environment. Speed is life with the '51 and there's little room for error once speed is lost or if the odds are not in your favour. In other words you have to be quite disciplined or careful with how you engage in combat.

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

 

With the wing mounted guns, I agree its all about convergence and staying within it, but a lot of other people ignore this unfortunately and blame the guns themselves.

 

 

 

 

Convergence is important, but I hosed down a JU-88 multiple times from 250m (made myself invulnerable so that I could loiter there safely) with my convergence set to 300m. I highly doubt that a 50m difference in convergence accounts for the fact that there were continuous hit sparkles in vicinity of the engines and wing roots (after I stopped shooting the fuselage because I didn't want to end the test too early by killing the pilot) and the plane continued to just fly on.

 

IMO there is definitely an issue with the balance of power between the modeling of ammunition and damage models, for the JU-88 at least. The Death Star Pe-2 catches fire and goes down more easily now based on tests using a 6-gun P-40 against both.

Edited by MattS
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dburne said:

Only been a couple days or so  and not that many flights, will hang in there a bit longer with it.

Already itching to get back to that Spit though.

 

I hear you - I think if I had to chose only one fighter from everything we currently have, it would be the Spit IX.  As you know well, in VR is seems like everything I have read about it just seeming like an extension of the pilot - like a hand in a glove. 

 

However, I do also love variety and try to experience them all, especially thanks to @PatrickAWlson giving us the ability to now hop squadrons during a PWCG career.  The P-51 is a hot little ride once you get used to it (I was lucky enough a few years ago to know a guy who knew a guy who had one with a jump seat, and I got one flight for my 55th, so I am probably partial).

 

Bottom line - you are simply spoiled by too much time in the Spit :biggrin:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I don't know why the Yak should be especially difficult at takeoff. I mean, it's the same small-frame powerful-engine dynamics that the Spitfire and 109 deal with. The only difference I can think of is perhaps over-correction with the controls. The Yak has, in my opinion, light controls.

 

I found the Fw-190 impossible to takeoff with, until I read the description in-game of how the tail wheel locks. After that, it was pretty standard.

 

I think that this is an important point, which is ignored often. When you switch planes, you are also switching play styles, and the curves (and trim settings) that apply to one, might not apply to the other.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raven109 said:

 

I think that this is an important point, which is ignored often. When you switch planes, you are also switching play styles, and the curves (and trim settings) that apply to one, might not apply to the other.

 

Similar experience.  I am a first to last career guy.  Went from the 110 to the 109 in my career.  Spun and crashed on takeoff many times until it became second nature.  Now I am moving to the 190.  Spun and crashed repeatedly until I read "pull back on the stick".  Now I can get of the ground but I still have my AI #2 blow by me on the runway because I throttle up slower than the AI.  They're all different.  You can't just jump from plane A to plane B.   You have to accept that each plane is going to take some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spend a lot of time trying various planes, and as game player i find them all differing. The easy way out is to cheat and set things like engine handling to automatic etc.

 

I am not so much interested in the details of one plane model and getting the hang of it, maybe with the exception of the Ju52, and the He111 with LizLemon's torpedo mod.

 

Both hard to get up unless you get the hang of it, for both once rolling keep them moving and reduce power a little.

Flipper your yaw controller slight ly to avoid ground looping, especially the Ju52. And the P47 and 51 are easier without too much fuel loaded i just learned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MattS said:

 

Convergence is important, but I hosed down a JU-88 multiple times from 250m (made myself invulnerable so that I could loiter there safely) with my convergence set to 300m. I highly doubt that a 50m difference in convergence accounts for the fact that there were continuous hit sparkles in vicinity of the engines and wing roots (after I stopped shooting the fuselage because I didn't want to end the test too early by killing the pilot) and the plane continued to just fly on.

 

IMO there is definitely an issue with the balance of power between the modeling of ammunition and damage models, for the JU-88 at least. The Death Star Pe-2 catches fire and goes down more easily now based on tests using a 6-gun P-40 against both.

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're expecting - the Dev team has gone over the DM many times now in excruciating detail - I just can't believe that people are still complaining and going on and on still about it. The fuel system is WIP, and the API rounds will eventually be added which will increase the vulnerabilities of these systems in all aircraft. The team isn't however going to change the effectiveness of the .50 calibre guns just to suit people's expectations/opinions - they have input the correct data and done their work. There are a few exceptions as have been listed on other threads but as a whole its fairly consistent.

 

If there is something in particular wrong with the DM then please focus your efforts on highlighting exactly what that is - but it just sounds to me like you just aren't impressed with the .50 calibre as a gun and well.. that's not something people can fix for you. We can't fix reality for you.

 

I've flown the Ju88 on combat box on at least 10 sorties recently, and survived maybe one or two flights. It definitely takes a few passes (its a solidly built bomber) and has enough defensive armament and maneuverability to make life hard for a fighter.. providing some speed is retained for evasive flying. It also has radial engines which once they get taken out are the main thing that causes the aircraft to go down. You seem to be expecting a large aircraft to go down in one pass with just a wing mounted machine gun armament? its pretty unlikely to happen in one pass when flying evasively

 

If you want a decisive armament, pick an aircraft with cannons - really - that's why other countries in Europe chose to develop cannons - they just came to this conclusion earlier than in the US.

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...