Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 258 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


Looking forwards to the ammo rework :good: I hope it's not only about the late war API / API-T but also including the early war M1 Incendiary for the P-40/P-39 and incendiaries for the other guns in the sim (almost all of the in game german and soviet guns had either API or dedicated I as well) :salute:

 

Guys,

I don't want to be a downer here, but you are projecting more into what was said earlier. There is no official ETA on incendiary ammo. This is something we'd like to do and the fuel system improvements may open the door for it.

 

Jason

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 8
  • Sad 6
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

Guys,

I don't want to be a downer here, but you are projecting more into what was said earlier. There is no official ETA on incendiary ammo. This is something we'd like to do and the fuel system improvements may open the door for it.

 

Jason

That's cool.

 

It's great that you keep us informed like this.

 

Share this post


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

I don't want to be a downer here, but you are projecting more into what was said earlier. There is no official ETA on incendiary ammo. This is something we'd like to do and the fuel system improvements may open the door for it.

 

I don't want to be a downer either, but keeping the 109's concrete tail together with the utterly ineffective main allied gun for four full months now with no end in sight is slightly disappointing.

Ruining the game experience for half of your online community will leave it's mark on your sales figure, just saying.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
type ant->want
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 16

Share this post


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

Can we get an Old Crow skin?!

 

 

My favorite B of all time!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Awsome:clapping:

 

I allways loved the B/C quite more than the all famous D modells and with such an array of modifications  Yeeehaw

Thank you Devs

Edited by easterling77

Share this post


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

 

I don't ant to be a downer either, but keeping the 109's concrete tail together with the utterly ineffective main allied gun for four full months now with no end in sight is slightly disappointing.

Ruining the game experience for half of your online community will leave it's mark on your sales figure, just saying.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Couldn't agree more...

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


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

But, like, early war EF the chermans have speed advantages at these alts against all the Russian stuff. I still get me the odd kill again them in my i16, mig, yak 1,or p-40 though. Especially on servers that actually implement a little known real life phenomena called 'weather', though, admittedly, there are fewer of these than there should be. 

 

Absolute speed is hugely overstated in this forum as a decisive factor in a fight. 

I understand that i play with lagg3 to stay alive and get kills and its not faster or even close to its oponents.

You can get kills in any airplane and then get killed your self every sortie, faster airplane gives you confidance that you can dictate engaigmant or have a safty when you make mistakes if you play to stay alive, not just to get as many kills no mather if you get shoot down sone after.

In real life they aimed all te time for faster airplanes also, no suprise we look at it here also.

Regarding this P51 in mp , to me its just another hangar airplane the way stuff works in this game, you get 2 less guns that dont do any damage, you get wors visability then D for few more mph that wont save anyone when you cant se enemys and you cant kill them constantly but have to count on net bullet delay to instant kill. If airplane have working gun and deacent visability afcorse thats more important then more speed on airplane that have guns for show and bird cage. This flying game makes any american airplane not atractive from  start with how it handles american guns and american engine timers and recharges.

Edited by CountZero

Share this post


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

 

Your own sources kind of contradict you.

Kinda.

 

Take a look at the HP numbers at SL.

The D series has BHP of 1630 at SL whereas the B series has only 1580 available.

Either the 1650-7 underwent some sort of change in the meantime (intercooler or anything else supercharger related perhaps?) or they did not use the same engine setup.

Another possibility is that the 51B was using the -3 engine, though that would have had more power at SL IIRC.

 

Anyway, had the D series had the same HP it would have been a bit slower I guess.

 

Both of those use BHP transcribed from the same chart.

 

P-51B:

Quote

Horsepowers reported obtained from Packard Motor Car Co. altitude performance chart for V-1650-7 engine dated 12-3-43.

 

P-51D:

Quote

All power figures are based on power curves prepared by the Wright Field Power Plant Laboratory on December 3, 1943 according to Eng. Spec. AC-1070 and AC-1170.

 

It's possible there's a transcription error in the P-51B report, and that for some reason they gave the power rating for the V-1650-3 at SL (or literally any other error you may think of). The plane itself obviously used a V-1650-7 as the trials were made to clear 150 grade fuel on that same powerplant, and to my knowledge there were no changes made to the engine that would result in this kind of discrepancy - which is a paper discrepancy in the end, with neither report actually measuring BHP produced by either engine.

 

In any case, at low blower critical altitude the engine power is given as almost identical (a difference of a mere 5 hp), yet the P-51D remains faster by 8 mph.

 

This is also not the only P-51B tested to those speeds:

 

Spoiler

na-p51b-150grade-level.jpg

 

There is a point to be made how the P-51B's racks are draggier than the D's, with a corresponding speed reduction of 12 vs. 4 mph, but that would only give the former parity with the D, not superiority.

 

Spoiler

P-51B_24777_Speed_Altitude.jpg

 

By comparison the P-51D's racks had less drag when they weren't in use due to their ability to have their sway braces removed. I've heard 4 mph thrown around as the associated speed reduction, but so far I haven't found a hard source confirming that figure.
 

Spoiler

P-51D.jpg

 

E: The Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart for the P-51 does specify 12 and 4 mph speed reductions for the B/C and D, respectively.

 

Spoiler

p-51-tactical-chart.jpg

 

Edited by PainGod85
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You start to see different when you compare the performance figures with 150 octane gas though. The composite graphs on WWII Aircraft performance show that a Mustang III with 80”/25lbs boost is 20mph faster than a similarly boosted Mustang IV, though the Mustang IV had wing racks and the radiator flap was forced open an inch wider than otherwise would have been. 
 

in addition to this, a P-51B boosted to 75”  and with wing racks follows a very similar speed curve to the 80” boosted Mustang IV.

Share this post


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

Your butt hurt after flying for 6 hours sitting on a parachute and a dinghy

 

I was reading up on Battle of Italy air fights and got excited until it dawned on me that no simmer wants to spend 8 simulated hours in a P-38 flying from Sicily to Corsica (?) to tangle with Do-217s, no matter how many will say they'd like to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The modifications available are more than a good news !

Will it be possible to remove exhaust pipes fairings ?

Some Mustangs are seen without them on photos.

Skinners are already removing some parts of aircrafts to make them identical to the model they are skinning.

The wheel fairings of the Ju 87 are a good exemple.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I don't want to be a downer either, but keeping the 109's concrete tail...…….

 

Aim for the outer parts of the wings instead. They break off with just a couple of hits.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I don't want to be a downer either, but keeping the 109's concrete tail together with the utterly ineffective main allied gun for four full months now with no end in sight is slightly disappointing.

Ruining the game experience for half of your online community will leave it's mark on your sales figure, just saying.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Have to agree here.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Vortice said:

Aim for the outer parts of the wings instead. They break off with just a couple of hits.

...when you hit 'em with a 37mm HE shell maybe.
With .50s they surely don't.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


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

 

I don't want to be a downer either, but keeping the 109's concrete tail together with the utterly ineffective main allied gun for four full months now with no end in sight is slightly disappointing.

Ruining the game experience for half of your online community will leave it's mark on your sales figure, just saying.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

Are you kidding?

 

I’d buy this sim and all add on theaters even if it didn’t have guns or weapons. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, I've bought everything money can buy from this game (not sim... sorry), and even gifted a couple more to friends.

Just stopped doing so two weeks ago, because... I did spend my money on a game with planes having no guns and weapons instead, consequently.

 

I'm happy to spend my money for IL-2 GB again once I don't feel as ignored as a user as I do right now.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Aim for the outer parts of the wings instead. They break off with just a couple of hits.

 

This is actually true! If you want to bring down 109's online at the moment;  aim for the wing tips.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

...when you hit 'em with a 37mm HE shell maybe.
With .50s they surely don't.

 

:drinks:

Mike

I just literally got back from a mission where I did exactly that with a P40.  One quick burst out of convergence, Left wing's bullets hit his right wing.  Half his wing off and done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/15/2020 at 2:10 PM, AndytotheD said:

You start to see different when you compare the performance figures with 150 octane gas though. The composite graphs on WWII Aircraft performance show that a Mustang III with 80”/25lbs boost is 20mph faster than a similarly boosted Mustang IV, though the Mustang IV had wing racks and the radiator flap was forced open an inch wider than otherwise would have been. 
 

in addition to this, a P-51B boosted to 75”  and with wing racks follows a very similar speed curve to the 80” boosted Mustang IV.

 

That Mustang IV test with TK.589 is extremely suspect. The plane achieved a measly 355 mph at SL and 67" / +18 PSI when it should've attained around 366 mph even with racks installed according to the type's SAC chart.

At critical altitude for its first gear at 67", the plane is 16 mph slower than it should be with racks, at 396 mph compared to the 412 mph it should actually be achieving.

 

This doesn't even factor in the fact the speeds attained with TK.589 were corrected to 9,000 lb, when the speeds I'm comparing it to are specified for a gross weight of 10,100 lb - so with a bit more induced drag.

In fact, all Mustang tests performed by the British that I've seen show the planes as performing worse than they should, so my guess is there was a systemic error of some kind the RAE made when testing the type.

 

Spoiler

tk589-level.jpg

 

E: Compare this to P-51D-15 44-15342, attaining 375 mph at 67" @SL, with racks.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html

 

Spoiler

P-51D_15342_Level.jpg

 

So yeah, either there's an issue with the RAE's testing methodology on the P-51, or TK.589 is probably the single worst P-51D ever performance tested by anyone.

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

That Mustang IV test with TK.589 is extremely suspect. The plane achieved a measly 355 mph at SL and 67" / +18 PSI when it should've attained around 366 mph even with racks installed according to the type's SAC chart.

At critical altitude for its first gear at 67", the plane is 16 mph slower than it should be with racks, at 396 mph compared to the 412 mph it should actually be achieving.

 

This doesn't even factor in the fact the speeds attained with TK.589 were corrected to 9,000 lb, when the speeds I'm comparing it to are specified for a gross weight of 10,100 lb - so with a bit more induced drag.

In fact, all Mustang tests performed by the British that I've seen show the planes as performing worse than they should, so my guess is there was a systemic error of some kind the RAE made when testing the type.

 

  Hide contents

tk589-level.jpg

 

I agree that TK was suspect, which is why I did point out that the radiator was extended further than it should have, potentially creating a significant amount of drag. In any case a Mustang III with a V-1650-3 and no wing racks hit 450 at 28,000 feet which could be where the claims that a B/C is faster than the D comes from. My understanding being that the V-1650-3 was better at altitude than the V-1650-7 and a D equipped with a -3 would probably reach a similar speed at altitude.

 

Taking this into account, if you look at the  composite chart for 67” boosted mustangs, a P-51B (assumed to be without racks) with a -3 engine hits 450 at just over 28,000 feet while a Mustang III with equivalent engine and boost also hits 450 at 28,000. No P-51D, equipped with a -7 engine appears to surpass this, though it is certainly notable that NAA calculated the performance of a P-51D with wing racks to significantly worse than what was demonstrated in practice. I will also concede that the P-51B with wing racks and a -7 engine didn’t even begin to approach he speed of the equivalent P-51D.

 

Finally, and at risk of being seen as argumentative, how do we know that the RAE wasn’t in fact producing good data and that it was actually Wright Field who were fielding bad numbers? We won’t know that for certain, probably ever, unless someone wants to take a D model Mustang and Effectively total it following each country’s testing standards.

 



 

 

Share this post


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

I agree that TK was suspect, which is why I did point out that the radiator was extended further than it should have, potentially creating a significant amount of drag. In any case a Mustang III with a V-1650-3 and no wing racks hit 450 at 28,000 feet which could be where the claims that a B/C is faster than the D comes from. My understanding being that the V-1650-3 was better at altitude than the V-1650-7 and a D equipped with a -3 would probably reach a similar speed at altitude.

 

Taking this into account, if you look at the  composite chart for 67” boosted mustangs, a P-51B (assumed to be without racks) with a -3 engine hits 450 at just over 28,000 feet while a Mustang III with equivalent engine and boost also hits 450 at 28,000. No P-51D, equipped with a -7 engine appears to surpass this, though it is certainly notable that NAA calculated the performance of a P-51D with wing racks to significantly worse than what was demonstrated in practice. I will also concede that the P-51B with wing racks and a -7 engine didn’t even begin to approach he speed of the equivalent P-51D.

 

Finally, and at risk of being seen as argumentative, how do we know that the RAE wasn’t in fact producing good data and that it was actually Wright Field who were fielding bad numbers? We won’t know that for certain, probably ever, unless someone wants to take a D model Mustang and Effectively total it following each country’s testing standards.

 

The V-1650-3 engine had a more aggressive supercharger gearing. Less power at low altitudes while increasing critical altitudes. This means comparing any two Mustangs with different engines is nonsensical in the extreme.

 

Spoiler

V-1650-3_7_power_curve.jpg

 

With regards as to who screwed up...well, let's just say if the numbers don't conform to the following chart, there's a glaring issue with them:

Spoiler

p-51-tactical-chart.jpg

 

Also note that TK.589 was only subjected to what they called 'brief level speed trials'. Emphasis mine. That alone should be a red flag.

E: Additionally, we do know TK.589 was a comparably old P-51D-5, original USAAF BuNo 44-13332. One could infer that some wear had already set in before delivery to the RAF.

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


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

This is actually true! If you want to bring down 109's online at the moment;  aim for the wing tips.

 

Interesting.

I could swear I've landed similar bursts in 109 wings a hundred times before, but if such thing ever happened I must have forgotten about it or didn't look back in the right moment - which would absolutely be possible, considering that attacking a 109 in a Jug is something you do once, just to take your head down and run away afterwards.

Nevertheless, thanks for the hint but I'm not convinced that this isn't just the odd one in a million shot depicted there.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Interesting.

I could swear I've landed similar bursts in 109 wings a hundred times before, but if such thing ever happened I must have forgotten about it or didn't look back in the right moment - which would absolutely be possible, considering that attacking a 109 in a Jug is something you do once, just to take your head down and run away afterwards.

Nevertheless, thanks for the hint but I'm not convinced that this isn't just the odd one in a million shot depicted there.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PainGod85 said:

 

The V-1650-3 engine had a more aggressive supercharger gearing. Less power at low altitudes while increasing critical altitudes. This means comparing any two Mustangs with different engines is nonsensical in the extreme.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

V-1650-3_7_power_curve.jpg

 

With regards as to who screwed up...well, let's just say if the numbers don't conform to the following chart, there's a glaring issue with them:

  Reveal hidden contents

p-51-tactical-chart.jpg

 

Also note that TK.589 was only subjected to what they called 'brief level speed trials'. Emphasis mine. That alone should be a red flag.

E: Additionally, we do know TK.589 was a comparably old P-51D-5, original USAAF BuNo 44-13332. One could infer that some wear had already set in before delivery to the RAF.

 

 I did concede the vast majority of your points.

 

That said, I'll bite.

 

The Tactical planning chart you posted shows that -7 powered Mustang  B/C, with 85 gallon tank is marginally faster than the Mustang D. For comparative purposes, they include a P-51D with a -3 engine and that too is marginally slower than the -3 engined P-51B.  Further, the same chart shows that the values listed are relative until confirmed by flight testing, which may mean that these are either averages OR they could be calculations, which NAA have shown to be conservative about given that their calculations for a -7 P-51D with wing racks turned out to be slower than the final product.

 

I'm inclined to believe this for two reasons, the first is that, as you have correctly pointed out, the -7 powered P-51B with wing racks (which we probably won't get seeing as our in game P-51D doesn't have them) was demonstrably slower than the P-51D similarly equipped, even accounting for predicted loss in maximum speed in the tactical planning chart. Secondly, two separate -3 powered P-51Bs on both sides of the Atlantic apparently hit 450mph at approximately 28,000 feet, faster than the chart suggests they should be and while its entirely possible this was due to fluke or atmospheric conditions, the similarity of the data leads me to believe that maybe they were a little conservative with their calculations on the table. 

 

Now why is the P-51B estimated to be faster? Its most probably not the change in canopy configuration which you quite rightly stated. Instead it can be argued that this is due to weight and the appropriate reduction in induced drag as compared to the P-51D and not any increases or reduction in parasitic drag by the change in configuration. This would still mean that the P-51B was faster than the D unless you removed the two extra guns to give the two comparable weight, which we can do in game, and then they probably have comparable speed.

 

To go off topic slightly and use this line of thinking when comparing the D-22 and D-28 Thunderbolts (Ignoring the different propellers) there is a significant weight difference between the two and I am curious how much of a difference was actually made by this factor and not the change in canopy configuration when comparing the speed disparity between the two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, AndytotheD said:

Further, the same chart shows that the values listed are relative until confirmed by flight testing, which may mean that these are either averages OR they could be calculations, which NAA have shown to be conservative about given that their calculations for a -7 P-51D with wing racks turned out to be slower than the final product.

 

Actually, if you look closely, it says that figures printed in red are preliminary. Granted, on a monochrome photocopy, a remark like that isn't satisfactory at all, but I don't think a tactical planning chart would consist of a majority of values that are asspulls.

 

I'm trying to find a color copy of the same ATM, but I don't hold out much hope for finding one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

My favorite B of all time!

 

My is Shangri-la by Don Gentile 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, I./JG1_Baron said:

My is Shangri-la by Don Gentile 😉

With you there....

P-51.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

My favorite B of all time!

 

Nah, I would go for this beauty, though he crashed it at Debden in April 1944 and went back to the states after that. So that plane might be a tad bit before the timeframe of BoN. Nevertheless Captain Don Gentile or Captain John Trevor Godfrey supposedly shot down the CO of JG3 "Udet" Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke (160ish ace) near Brunswick in 3/44 :

 

DGentile.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/14/2020 at 1:09 PM, PainGod85 said:

Nice pictures. However, I have one massive point of contention:

 

 

Empirical data does not support this at all.

 

P-51B, V-1650-7 engine, 67" MAP:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51b-24777.html
 

 

Speed at SL: 361.5 mph

At low blower critical altitude, 10.300 ft: 409.0 mph

 

P-51D, same engine and settings:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html
 

 

Speed at SL: 375 mph

At low blower critical altitude, 10.000 ft: 417 mph

 

This shows the P-51D, running the same engine with the same boost and turning the same prop as being faster than the P-51B, with both fitted with wing racks. This is with the P-51B only having four guns with ports covered, and having been stripped of paint whereas the P-51D report only specifies it was flown with full ammunition, implying the full six gun armament, and no mention whether its gun ports had been covered, or its skin stripped of paint.

 

I will welcome any evidence to the contrary.

 

Dear developers - please let's not deviate from history/engineering specs for the sake of sales from "...whom you may think is the main source of your revenue might want".

 

  •  ...The P-51Bs and P-51Cs, and the newer P-51Ds and P-51Ks, experienced low-speed handling problems that could result in an involuntary "snap-roll" under certain conditions of air speed, angle of attack, gross weight, and center of gravity. Several crash reports tell of P-51Bs and P-51Cs crashing because horizontal stabilizers were torn off during maneuvering.
  1.     Unless a dorsal fin is installed on the P-51B, P-51C and P-51D airplanes, a snap roll may result when attempting a slow roll.
  2.     The dorsal fin kits became available in August 1944, and available as retrofits for P-51Bs and P-51Cs (but rarely used on the "razorback" -B and -C Mustangs).
Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/16/2020 at 5:43 PM, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Dear developers - please let's not deviate from history/engineering specs for the sake of sales from "...whom you may think is the main source of your revenue might want".

 

  •  ...The P-51Bs and P-51Cs, and the newer P-51Ds and P-51Ks, experienced low-speed handling problems that could result in an involuntary "snap-roll" under certain conditions of air speed, angle of attack, gross weight, and center of gravity. Several crash reports tell of P-51Bs and P-51Cs crashing because horizontal stabilizers were torn off during maneuvering.
  1.     Unless a dorsal fin is installed on the P-51B, P-51C and P-51D airplanes, a snap roll may result when attempting a slow roll.
  2.     The dorsal fin kits became available in August 1944, and available as retrofits for P-51Bs and P-51Cs (but rarely used on the "razorback" -B and -C Mustangs).

 

Actually, August 1944 is what T.O. 40-JE-8 is dated as, but the order itself refers to North American Service Bulletin 51-134, dated June 6.

 

The well known photograph of the Bottisham Four formation of four P-51s, of which P-51D-5 44-13926 was fitted with a dorsal fin, is dated July 26, 1944.

 

That said, the issue had been known since at least January 1943, when T.O. 1F-57A-6 was published, prohibiting deliberate spins in P-51 type aircraft until the cause of multiple structural failures had been found and rectified.

In August '43, T.O. 01-60J-6 was released, relaxing some of the restrictions leveled on the P-51.

T.O. 01-60J-6A, dated January '44, again placed restrictions on the type, this time against slow rolls at speeds in excess of 300 mph.

T.O. 01-60J-6B followed the same month, with much the same content.

T.O. 01-60J-6C, dated 6 June '44, references T.O. 01-60J-18. This is important as that order describes how to fit the dorsal fin fillet on P-51B and C type aircraft. It removes the flight restrictions by replacing T.O. 01-60J-6B upon the fitting of a dorsal fin fillet and anti-servo tab on the rudder.

 

 

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.13cbb8481c4b758cfbfa3cbfb3edffcd.pngimage.thumb.png.9cd45ab119e4ff56869eed1febc0e147.png

 

In fact, if you look closely, you'll see the first version of T.O. 01-60J-18 was published in April '44.

image.png.840a49bbfef4d6f52953bc29c0c15462.png

 

Dorsal fins were added from the factory starting with the P-51D-10 production run.

E: One more thing. Testing of the dorsal fin occurred no later than March 1944: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51B_Stability_24march1944.pdf

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2020 at 4:13 AM, CountZero said:

I understand that i play with lagg3 to stay alive and get kills and its not faster or even close to its oponents.

You can get kills in any airplane and then get killed your self every sortie, faster airplane gives you confidance that you can dictate engaigmant or have a safty when you make mistakes if you play to stay alive, not just to get as many kills no mather if you get shoot down sone after.

In real life they aimed all te time for faster airplanes also, no suprise we look at it here also.

Regarding this P51 in mp , to me its just another hangar airplane the way stuff works in this game, you get 2 less guns that dont do any damage, you get wors visability then D for few more mph that wont save anyone when you cant se enemys and you cant kill them constantly but have to count on net bullet delay to instant kill. If airplane have working gun and deacent visability afcorse thats more important then more speed on airplane that have guns for show and bird cage. This flying game makes any american airplane not atractive from  start with how it handles american guns and american engine timers and recharges.

Agreed !!!!-This has been an unresolved issue since the inception of this franchise .

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2020 at 12:01 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

 

I don't want to be a downer either, but keeping the 109's concrete tail together with the utterly ineffective main allied gun for four full months now with no end in sight is slightly disappointing.

Ruining the game experience for half of your online community will leave it's mark on your sales figure, just saying.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

 

Four months? Is that all?

The 109s whole ass end used to just pop off for years. Good times.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2020 at 7:01 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

 

I don't want to be a downer either, but keeping the 109's concrete tail together with the utterly ineffective main allied gun for four full months now with no end in sight is slightly disappointing.

Ruining the game experience for half of your online community will leave it's mark on your sales figure, just saying.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Couldn't agree more, we urgently need API for the American Brownings -  You put bursts of up to a second or more at convergence into a 109's or 190's wing or tail and way too often nothing happens except maybe some fuel or coolant leak, which does not even make the AI return to base ASAP and even the damage to controls/aerodynamics is magically compensated in a perfect way.

 

All the while even one UBS does quite a good job...

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Couldn't agree more, we urgently need API for the American Brownings -  You put bursts of up to a second or more at convergence into a 109's or 190's wing or tail and way too often nothing happens except maybe some fuel or coolant leak, which does not even make the AI return to base ASAP and even the damage to controls/aerodynamics is magically compensated in a perfect way.

 

All the while even one UBS does quite a good job...

 

Just aim for the center of mass - kill the pilot or the engine usually resulting in a 109 fire ball hurtling down to the ground.  Obsession with tails should be saved for the Nurses on the ground when you've landed.

 

Liking the Razorback P47 and looking forward to the same for the P51.  BoN shaping up to be a treat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like probably most people around here I know about these workarounds and I'm not saying that you cannot win with the Brownings.

 

But no number of weird jokes can hide the fact that the American-made aircraft are currently fighting at a noticeable disadvantage because the Brownings require considerable more precision and/or time on target to be effective than any other aircraft armaments, including those of the same caliber.

 

As this can sometimes be hard to achieve in a fast-moving engagement, you have an unjustified disadvantage in American-made planes at the moment that needs fixing...

 

 

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...