P-51 impossible to fly?

[dburne]

3 hours 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.

 

Yeah and another good reason we should have individual controller setups per plane.

But I digress...

[SOLIDKREATE]

Take less fuel, the aft tank was known to wobble. This could be causing the wings to rock exceeding the stall plane. I only ever use 50% at maximum. I'm I'll full gunned and carrying 2 x 1000 or 2 x 500 and 2 x HVAR, 30%.

 

****Just a side note the P-51D has excellent stall warning. If it starts to buffet and shake, ease off your turn. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by SOLIDKREATE

[MattS]

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

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.

 

I'll just post the track if possible and you can decide for yourself.

[MattS]

3 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

 

 

Here's a dropbox link to the test where I sprayed the JU-88 enough to where I thought there should have been a fire or at least see one engine catastrophically fail. Not great tactics or shooting, I was set to "invulnerable" with unlimited ammo. 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aunnl3wsrpsvzz8/JU88Test.zip?dl=0

 

 

 

[Stoopy]

I've been getting a fair amount of practice in with the .50's lately and am wondering if convergence is being taken into consideration with some of these accounts.  I use a relatively far convergence (400m) and have had instances where mortal damage is done with a short burst at that range - one very short burst on one of those damn Stukas, really just a quick tap intended as a ranging shot, resulted in a pilot kill and engine fire at the same time.  Closer in, seems I'm just hosing away like everyone else with far less effect.

[RedKestrel]

13 minutes ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

I've been getting a fair amount of practice in with the .50's lately and am wondering if convergence is being taken into consideration with some of these accounts.  I use a relatively far convergence (400m) and have had instances where mortal damage is done with a short burst at that range - one very short burst on one of those damn Stukas, really just a quick tap intended as a ranging shot, resulted in a pilot kill and engine fire at the same time.  Closer in, seems I'm just hosing away like everyone else with far less effect.

Every time people talk about the .50s being poor guns, if I have the time, I go out and fly a QMB mission against a bunch of bombers in the P-47 to see if I'm just crazy. They're pretty good, maybe not as structurally damaging before the big DM shift but I can kill the same amount of bombers with the same amount of ammo as before.

I don't have any trouble killing engines and pilots when I hit at convergence. Even when I don't I tear up the bombers pretty good, including tearing off control surfaces and such. But with the point convergence we have in the sim its easy to hit on either side of a critical component  - if we had the 'shotgun pattern' that was used in the war, the guns would not be as sensitive to hitting at convergence. It would make non-convergence shots more destructive at the cost of exact convergence shots being less destructive. 

 I set mine to 280 metres because at that distance a fighter wingspan appears to be almost exactly half the gunsight's width (using the default gunsight, I don't bother with the gyro sight). I'm comfortable firing at fighters at that range and its usually pointless to try and hit beyond it, unless I am trying to scare someone off a friendly's tail. Bombers at that range have a wingspan roughly equal to the width of the gunsight. It makes it easier to estimate convergence. 

That convergence is distant enough that you are not making it impossible to make closer or farther shots. A really short convergence hampers more long range shots, a really far one means you are rarely hitting at full convergence. Sheriff did a good video on the pros and cons of certain convergence settings for nose and wing mounted guns.


 

[Aurora_Stealth]

16 hours ago, MattS said:

 

Here's a dropbox link to the test where I sprayed the JU-88 enough to where I thought there should have been a fire or at least see one engine catastrophically fail. Not great tactics or shooting, I was set to "invulnerable" with unlimited ammo. 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aunnl3wsrpsvzz8/JU88Test.zip?dl=0

 

 

 

 

@MattS

 

First of all - thanks for sharing this Matt. I've just had a look through the track - and last night also spent about an hour or so picking away at Ju88's in QMB in the P-51 to assess myself.

 

I'm gonna do my best to break down what I'm seeing - and hopefully provide some useful feedback.

 

Please note that regarding streaming or burning of the fuel tanks and around the engine etc - lets see what the fuel systems / damaged lines are like after the Dev. team completes the upcoming update as they are trying to address fuel systems damage right now. This is the next stage of their overhaul. You can get fires on the Ju88 but you have to be quite determined and they can be difficult to achieve.

 

Your gunnery is pretty decent, but you are firing in very short bursts in many attacks (less than a second of firing in many cases) which isn't going to cause enough damage. You're also getting rocked around by the turbulence/prop wash of the engines of the Ju88 which is knocking you off target and causing you to slip. Try to keep below or above but not directly behind (maintain some speed as you approach to avoid being a static target however). Easier said than done... I know its tricky with a gunner.

 

Also, don't bother firing until you are at 250 - 300m - you're just wasting ammo from further distances. Don't fire until both sets of guns (i.e. your wings) are dead aligned with the Ju88 wings, then hold that firing pattern as you close for 3 - 5 seconds. If you don't keep your wings dead aligned with the Ju88 - only half of your bullets will hit.

 

There are some other observations that are clear to me regarding the Ju88 from my own QMB sessions. Its surprisingly hard to hit the engine itself from low deflection angles from behind. The reason? the back half of the engine nacelle is just a covered frame with the retractable gear inside and is a major obstacle to hitting to the engine. So from directly behind or 5 - 10 degrees deflection you are just hitting the nacelle and gear which is absorbing your fire and not knocking out any major systems or the engine.

 

Also even from behind, the pilots headrest covers a lot of area so hitting him is also difficult from small deflection angles. Head-on passes are easier to get at pilot or engines, or using sustained bursts from underneath can cause more damage. With all that considered, in most cases I still think you can get decisive kills within a few passes using the above methods if you hone your technique a bit more. Apart from the fuel systems modelling which has been mentioned .. I don't think this is out of the ordinary. The Ju88 is just a difficult nut to crack and is fast and evasive enough to present a difficult target - but you can get it on fire and you can knock out the engines if you get the right angles on it.

 

 

 

[MattS]

41 minutes ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

@MattS

 

First of all - thanks for sharing this Matt. I've just had a look through the track - and last night also spent about an hour or so picking away at Ju88's in QMB in the P-51 to assess myself.

 

I'm gonna do my best to break down what I'm seeing - and hopefully provide some useful feedback.

 

Please note that regarding streaming or burning of the fuel tanks and around the engine etc - lets see what the fuel systems / damaged lines are like after the Dev. team completes the upcoming update as they are trying to address fuel systems damage right now. This is the next stage of their overhaul. You can get fires on the Ju88 but you have to be quite determined and they can be difficult to achieve.

 

Your gunnery is pretty decent, but you are firing in very short bursts in many attacks (less than a second of firing in many cases) which isn't going to cause enough damage. You're also getting rocked around by the turbulence/prop wash of the engines of the Ju88 which is knocking you off target and causing you to slip. Try to keep below or above but not directly behind (maintain some speed as you approach to avoid being a static target however). Easier said than done... I know its tricky with a gunner.

 

Also, don't bother firing until you are at 250 - 300m - you're just wasting ammo from further distances. Don't fire until both sets of guns (i.e. your wings) are dead aligned with the Ju88 wings, then hold that firing pattern as you close for 3 - 5 seconds. If you don't keep your wings dead aligned with the Ju88 - only half of your bullets will hit.

 

There are some other observations that are clear to me regarding the Ju88 from my own QMB sessions. Its surprisingly hard to hit the engine itself from low deflection angles from behind. The reason? the back half of the engine nacelle is just a covered frame with the retractable gear inside and is a major obstacle to hitting to the engine. So from directly behind or 5 - 10 degrees deflection you are just hitting the nacelle and gear which is absorbing your fire and not knocking out any major systems or the engine.

 

Also even from behind, the pilots headrest covers a lot of area so hitting him is also difficult from small deflection angles. Head-on passes are easier to get at pilot or engines, or using sustained bursts from underneath can cause more damage. With all that considered, in most cases I still think you can get decisive kills within a few passes using the above methods if you hone your technique a bit more. Apart from the fuel systems modelling which has been mentioned .. I don't think this is out of the ordinary. The Ju88 is just a difficult nut to crack and is fast and evasive enough to present a difficult target - but you can get it on fire and you can knock out the engines if you get the right angles on it.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the detailed analysis - good stuff. 

 

I'm also going to keep that screenshot, it's so beautiful to see not one but two engines on fire ?

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

@MattS

 

First of all - thanks for sharing this Matt. I've just had a look through the track - and last night also spent about an hour or so picking away at Ju88's in QMB in the P-51 to assess myself.

 

I'm gonna do my best to break down what I'm seeing - and hopefully provide some useful feedback.

 

Please note that regarding streaming or burning of the fuel tanks and around the engine etc - lets see what the fuel systems / damaged lines are like after the Dev. team completes the upcoming update as they are trying to address fuel systems damage right now. This is the next stage of their overhaul. You can get fires on the Ju88 but you have to be quite determined and they can be difficult to achieve.

 

Your gunnery is pretty decent, but you are firing in very short bursts in many attacks (less than a second of firing in many cases) which isn't going to cause enough damage. You're also getting rocked around by the turbulence/prop wash of the engines of the Ju88 which is knocking you off target and causing you to slip. Try to keep below or above but not directly behind (maintain some speed as you approach to avoid being a static target however). Easier said than done... I know its tricky with a gunner.

 

Also, don't bother firing until you are at 250 - 300m - you're just wasting ammo from further distances. Don't fire until both sets of guns (i.e. your wings) are dead aligned with the Ju88 wings, then hold that firing pattern as you close for 3 - 5 seconds. If you don't keep your wings dead aligned with the Ju88 - only half of your bullets will hit.

 

There are some other observations that are clear to me regarding the Ju88 from my own QMB sessions. Its surprisingly hard to hit the engine itself from low deflection angles from behind. The reason? the back half of the engine nacelle is just a covered frame with the retractable gear inside and is a major obstacle to hitting to the engine. So from directly behind or 5 - 10 degrees deflection you are just hitting the nacelle and gear which is absorbing your fire and not knocking out any major systems or the engine.

 

Also even from behind, the pilots headrest covers a lot of area so hitting him is also difficult from small deflection angles. Head-on passes are easier to get at pilot or engines, or using sustained bursts from underneath can cause more damage. With all that considered, in most cases I still think you can get decisive kills within a few passes using the above methods if you hone your technique a bit more. Apart from the fuel systems modelling which has been mentioned .. I don't think this is out of the ordinary. The Ju88 is just a difficult nut to crack and is fast and evasive enough to present a difficult target - but you can get it on fire and you can knock out the engines if you get the right angles on it.

 

 

 

This is good advice RE the Ju-88 engines. I rarely attack bombers from dead six but sometimes needs must...

[Raven109]

21 hours ago, MattS said:

 

Here's a dropbox link to the test where I sprayed the JU-88 enough to where I thought there should have been a fire or at least see one engine catastrophically fail. Not great tactics or shooting, I was set to "invulnerable" with unlimited ammo. 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aunnl3wsrpsvzz8/JU88Test.zip?dl=0

 

 

 

 

Hey Matt. Had a look at the track. I think you're doing well.

 

Some things that I find helpful when using the .50:

a. I aim for one thing and keep hammering that thing. So, if I've chosen the left wing, I focus on it on all my passes, otherwise my efforts would be spread out across the entire airframe. I make a conscious effort not to spray, but focus on one target (cockpit, fuel tanks, engines).

b. I use zoom. Zoom helps with point a. since I can see better what I'm firing at.

c. I use rudder, this helps with point a. as well, when correcting the stream of fire.

d. I come slightly from above, this way I have more area to hit.

e. I find the Ju-88 cockpit very vulnerable.

f. Shooting at the fuselage seems to waste the most ammo.

g. I use all axis of my track IR, so I can look over my nose, when needed (helps with deflection shooting).

h. I use a stream of fire instead of bursts, and correct the hose as I see fit.

 

This way I can consistently shoot down 4 Ju-88s on novice using a P-51.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Raven109

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, Raven109 said:

 

Some things that I find helpful when using the .50:

 

h. I use a stream of fire instead of bursts, and correct the hose as I see fit.

 

I think this is a problem I'm very guilty of. I'm so accustomed to bursts from trying to conserve cannon ammo in German and Russian planes, I have no concept of sustained fire. It's anathema to me. If I press the trigger longer than 1.5 seconds at a time, I break out in hives.

 

Not really, but you get the point. I often wonder how (real life) Americans were such good shots with wing-mounted .50s, and I think it comes down to whatever you familiarized yourself with in training.

 

My 'training' in sims involved flying nose-gunned planes 90% of the time. Consequently I think I'm beyond salvation with ever being a good American or British gunner.

 

The only way I can consistently get kills with wing guns is by pulling through my target in a sustained turn, and hitting their engine from the top. I cannot score kill shots from directly behind with wing .50s; not without blowing an embarrassing amount of ammo, at least.