Future of the DCS P-51D

Ya, that's what I meant. I think it is not a tad too heavy but rather a bit underpowered, especially when fighting against K4.

While technically accurate its a bit misleading to call it under-powered. I'm really not smart enough on the historicity of the aircraft to comment enough about the 67" to 75" difference in regards to which aircraft was more likely to face off against the 109 K-4.

I think if the current DCS P-51 and the 109 K-4 were to face off at 27k ft, then you'd have a much more balanced match-up. You could counter the 109's low speed performance and outstanding climb ability with the P-51's faster dive speed and faster turn rate at high speed. The second stage supercharger also helps close some of the gap between the 109 on MW-50 boost. The reality is, in the current and more than likely future MP situations you'll find, PvP occurs at low altitude, and at low altitude a lot of the Mustangs advantages just don't exist. You don't have a lot of altitude to trade for speed, and the low altitude power of 109 K-4 is just downright fearsome compared to the Mustang. I would LOVE to see an increase in Mustang MP as well as the ability to strip some of the equipment out of the plane just to see what possible advantages this might have. Any Mustang pilot would deeply appreciate any advantage over what we have now....I bet even Solty included :D

SLACK

I think if the current DCS P-51 and the 109 K-4 were to face off at 27k ft, then you'd have a much more balanced match-up. You could counter the 109's low speed performance and outstanding climb ability with the P-51's faster dive speed and faster turn rate at high speed.

I've heard this argument across four different flight sim/game forums for over fifteen years, and I still don't agree. While it sounds reasonable on paper, it doesn't hold up in practice. "Better dive and instantaneous turn" are temporary advantages, while "better climb and sustained turn" are permanent advantages. They don't simply cancel each other out, because once you've burned your E, the former two advantages are useless, while the second two advantages are all-important.

Let me focus on turn, to demonstrate a not-obvious phenomenon. Superior instantaneous turn will never defeat superior sustained turn, all else equal. I mean, sure, instantaneous turn can make it easier to make the kill when you sneak up on someone and he breaks at the last moment. In that situation, yes, instantaneous turn is better. But in an otherwise even fight, instantaneous turn loses, because you can't fully out-turn your opponent before you run out of energy (or at least lose enough E to be at a serious disadvantage), at which point you flounder and then lose to his superior sustained turn.

The fighter with superior instantaneous turn needs to dive steeply while turning, in order to maintain that energy-consuming "corner turn." If the other fighter performs a flat turn to counter, it will temporarily fall behind in the turn, but by the time the first fighter has fully out-turned the second on the horizontal plane, the first will be far below the second and in no position to nose up to make the shot.

Which isn't to say that superior dive and instantaneous turn are useless (see my following quoted post for explanation); they just aren't very useful in a one-versus-one (compared to superior climb and sustained turn). That's why our 109 tends to dominate the P-51 even at medium altitudes, not only at low altitudes.

Here's my mini-essay on sustained versus instantaneous turn, in simulators and in real life:

In real life, speed is life, and you usually don't want to slow down to sustained turn speeds in air combat. It's a quick way to get killed by another fighter you don't see, and minimizes your options for disengaging if things don't work as planned. So, usually, IRL, they had loads of altitude and loads of speed, and were in no hurry to burn either one. If they couldn't get a good shot right away, they'd often try to extend, or to maneuver defensively (staying fast, rather than burning E to try to get on the enemy's tail) while waiting for a friendly to help out.

 

Thus, the nature of real air combat, with greater fighter saturation and real consequences, was such that "burn E to get on his tail ASAP and finish the fight at sustained turn speed" wasn't the order of the day, the way it often is in multiplayer sims. Most simmers put a greater priority on potential kills, and a lower priority on personal survival, than real fighter pilots. After all, we respawn each time.

 

For this reason, I believe, real air combat tends to happen at much higher speeds (as well as altitudes), on average, and thus takes far longer to get down to sustained turn speed. So, IRL, instantaneous turn often matters more than sustained turns. The F model had better instantaneous turn than the G, but I expect most G variants to have better sustained turn (because of the power increases).

 

So, a simmer might rightly consider the G-10 more maneuverable than the F, because we're more concerned with sustained turns, because our burn-E-to-make-the-kill duels at low altitude get down to sustained turn speeds very quickly. But a real fighter pilot might rightly consider the F more maneuverable than the G-10, because he's more concerned with instantaneous turns, because he has a lot more E to work with.

 

For these reasons, in real life, if given the choice between two fighters, one of which had better instantaneous turn and the other of which had better sustained turn--well, I'd take the one that was faster, but if speed wasn't the deciding factor--I'd take the one that had better instantaneous turn. However, in a sim, I'd take the one with sustained turn, rather than the one with instantaneous. The overly-aggressive (good for kills/hour, bad for survival chances) way that we simmers behave ... we spend most of the fight at sustained turn speeds. In a duel to the death, sustained turn beats instantaneous turn, because when both pilots perform maximum-effectiveness maneuvers to get a killshot, very little of the fight is spent at corner turning speed and most of it will be at sustained.

The fighter with superior instantaneous turn needs to dive steeply while turning, in order to maintain that energy-consuming "corner turn." If the other fighter performs a flat turn to counter, it will temporarily fall behind in the turn, but by the time the first fighter has fully out-turned the second on the horizontal plane, the first will be far below the second and in no position to nose up to make the shot.

 

Which isn't to say that superior dive and instantaneous turn are useless (see my following quoted post for explanation); they just aren't very useful in a one-versus-one (compared to superior climb and sustained turn). That's why our 109 tends to dominate the P-51 even at medium altitudes, not only at low altitudes.

There's a lot of great stuff in your post and I don't disagree with anything you said. I don't mean to say that the P-51D we have in DCS is on parity with the DCS BF-109 K-4 even at altitudes above 23kft. What I mean to say is the match up there is more even (although like I said not, parity) than a fight at 9k ft and below. A Mustang driver has more tools to play with at higher altitude than he does at low altitude. He's still at an overall disadvantage, but I'm sure he'd take the extra options than not.

I also want to posit that a downward spiral at max throttle (WEP for the Mustang and MW-50 for the 109) the P-51 does have a sustained turn rate advantage if the fight starts at 25k. But it evaporates quick and the a 109 that exits that fight to gain separation will re-engage with an advantage at lower altitude.

Great discussion and great input Echo38!

-SLACK

What I mean to say is the match up there is more even (although like I said not, parity) than a fight at 9k ft and below. A Mustang driver has more tools to play with at higher altitude than he does at low altitude. He's still at an overall disadvantage, but I'm sure he'd take the extra options than not.

I definitely agree with this. Another thing is that true airspeeds are higher up there, and so the P-51's superior high-speed turn is more of an advantage up there, even in sustained turns. Unless I'm grossly mistaken, it's TAS and not IAS that determines turn time. When both fighters are at max alpha, their TAS is higher up there than it is down low, and so that means the P-51 has less of a disadvantage in sustained turn up there. It may even reverse (i.e. P-51 might have superior sustained turn) at ceiling, although I'm not sure.

I also want to posit that a downward spiral at max throttle (WEP for the Mustang and MW-50 for the 109) the P-51 does have a sustained turn rate advantage if the fight starts at 25k.

A problem of definition: a sustained turn is a turn which neither gains nor loses energy. A diving turn cannot be a sustained turn, by definition. I'm not trying to be snarky or know-it-all, here; it's important that these discussions use accepted IRL air combat terminology, to avoid confusion. I understand what you meant, and yes—the P-51 does have a turn rate advantage during that max-throttle diving turn at "corner turning speed" (although, again, by the time he's out-turned the 109 on the horizontal plane, he's lost too much altitude to be able to make the shot).

I just like how real life data bothers you.:smartass:

 

I did another test just find out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today I flew with:

 

Flight 1

Radiator: automatic; WEP 67', 3000 RPM; Mixture: run; 9760 lb (4427 kg); SL;

 

Result:

586 kph or 364 mph

 

Flight 2

Radiator: manual (closed); WEP 67', 3000 RPM; Mixture: run; 9760 lb(4427 kg); SL;

 

Result:

595 kph 369 mph (engine died)

 

Flight 3

Radiator: manual (closed); WEP 67', 3000 RPM; Mixture: emergency rich; 9760 lb (4427 kg); SL;

 

Result:

602 kph 374 mph

 

Flight 4

Radiator: manual (closed); Military Power 61', 3000 RPM; Mixture: run; 9760 lb (4427 kg); SL;

 

Result:

573 kph 356 mph

Conditions: 15°C; 760 mm Hg; no wind

 

YoYo's Chart for 61' MAP:

 

WW2 test:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D_15342_Level.jpg

 

Conclusions: P-51D doesn't meet the data supplied. I want to note, that few patches ago I was able to get to 595mph with automatic radiator and mixture set on run back in January 2016. So the performance deteriorated again. (My setup changed so I was able to get much more accurate test. I had the plane trimmed and operated it via trim and ball was cenetered and wings level.)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2697020&postcount=34

Keep in mind my earlier testing was less optimal than today, that is why YoYo refuted my claim back then (justifiably).

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't meet the 61' curve at SL from YoYo, which seems to show about 363-365 mph (I am not sure its pretty compressed, but 370 would be in the middle of that square...)

 

Again, this is real life data, which means its 100% historically correct. I am not asking for miracles, just attention to detail. I know every plane is different and one can be better quality than the other, but lets at least keep the acknowladged data. As I see it Mustang is slower than a year ago (again).

 

I ask all other P-51D players to test it themselves and give feedback. I might start a BUG report thread...

I just ran some tests. Full WEP, 3000 RPM, auto rads, 50% fuel, perfectly trimmed = 345 mph. How did you reach 364? According to Yo-Yo's source that should be accurate, but I just can't get over 350.

364mph was with radiator closed, plane trimmed, mixture emergency and with WEP.

It is not close to Yo-Yo's data because his data is derived from 61' manifold pressure. Mine was at 67'.

My test at 61' is Flight 4 which shows 356mph. 4mph short of expected 360mph.

I find it hard to imagine real life tests were ran with rads closed. Why kill an engine only to get some numbers that wouldn't be relevant in combat anyway? So according to Yo-Yo's chart we should be able to achieve 364 mph with rads on auto and only 61" ?

I find it hard to imagine real life tests were ran with rads closed. Why kill an engine only to get some numbers that wouldn't be relevant in combat anyway? So according to Yo-Yo's chart we should be able to achieve 364 mph with rads on auto and only 61" ?

I would say yes.

I am sorry but it is not true. If you take away the feuselage fuel tank, how do you want to fly from Iwo Jima to Japan? I mean, they had to fly 8h missions and that would be impossible without the auxilary tank.:smartass:

 

The airplane "is always stalling and falling out of the air" because you do not have a good enough stick. You have two basic choices. 1) Make a stick with exact lenght of the real P-51D and get rudder pedals. 2) Change your curvature to remedy that.

 

I chose the second option and my P-51D can fly on the edge because I can feel the airplane well, due to my axis curvature.

Hey Solty, what are your stick sat and curve config numbers???

Just a sidenote: I welcome new versions of the P-51D but I would like to keep as well the current one, which is to me more representative of the surviving P-51D's often stemming from the Pacific theatre. Not all of us do dogfights with the Bf-109 K4 or escort missions in the Normandy map. Most of my flying is in the Caucasus / NTTR maps with no history in mind, just flying!

Just a sidenote: I welcome new versions of the P-51D but I would like to keep as well the current one, which is to me more representative of the surviving P-51D's often stemming from the Pacific theatre. Not all of us do dogfights with the Bf-109 K4 or escort missions in the Normandy map. Most of my flying is in the Caucasus / NTTR maps with no history in mind, just flying!

That's your choice, but you can also do that in the civilian sims and with any version of the P-51 they give us. However, DCS is a combat sim and that's how most of us use it.

That's your choice, but you can also do that in the civilian sims and with any version of the P-51 they give us. However, DCS is a combat sim and that's how most of us use it.

I say they should keep the old D30 too. Especially that we might have Pacific theatre in the future and D30 would fit there very nicely.

I don't really care. I'm happy with the one we have. Another version is always welcome though.

Actually, what I really want is the P-47. :)

I don't really care. I'm happy with the one we have. Another version is always welcome though.

 

Actually, what I really want is the P-47. :)

Yup! Bring on the Jug.

But I'm looking forward to a Stang with the MAP and fuel mods she deserves.

Hey guys, I'm quite late to this thread, but it appears you guys are saying we have the D30 in DCS, and the (presumably more old) D20 or D25 is better?

First, what is the difference between the D30, 25, and 20? I can't easily find details of the differences, at least on the internet.

Second, how do you know we have a D30? As I said, I could never find any information about the differences, so I can't identify. However, I believe I read "P-51D-20N/A" on the left side of the nose of the Mustang in DCS, if you guys take interest in reading as much as you can on the skin on your own aircraft...so...was Eagle Dynamics own skin inaccurate?

Third, why do you guys want an older version of the Mustang? Is it like the difference between the D and K, where I believe the older D slightly outperformed the newer K?

P-47D-30 is currently being pieced together behind the locked doors of the Eagle Dynamics hanger. ED is scrutinizing and judging every nut, bolt, plate and part for The Jug.

Prepare for forced bowel movement upon diving the Thunderbolt! If either that movement is up or down is yet to say...

However, I shall squeak quietly, "Can we have a late war P-38 pweeaazze?"

D20 has fabric covered elevators and was given the K14 gunsight, D25 was given metal elevator and rocket attachments, D30 has changed battery position and was given the radar and beacon receiver to navigate in the Pacific theatre. In DCS we have D30 and the new plane will definitely be older than D20. We already know we are getting the fixed sight.

D5 was the first block and had steamed from B version with added bubble canopy first appeared in March 44 standardized the wing, gunports and ailerons. D10 added tailfin that improved stability of the plane that was initially created by the addition of the bubble canopy. I can't remember what D15 did.

NA means it was built in North American East coast and DT was built in Dallas plant West coast.

D20 has fabric covered elevators and was given the K14 gunsight...

So, the skins are wrong? I believe the Mustang we have in DCS now has a fabric rudder, but not elevators.

Also, why the want to downgrade here? D30 to a lower one?

So, the skins are wrong? I believe the Mustang we have in DCS now has a fabric rudder, but not elevators.

 

Also, why the want to downgrade here? D30 to a lower one?

Because D30 hasn't flown combat missions over Europe. It is a bit funny. They are making a block that will fit the Normandy campaign.

Problem is we have January 1945 Fw190D9 and Bf109K4 October 44. So Germans will get more advantages.

Might as well have a P-51H. The choice of German aircraft for DCS was/is a little ridiculous, from a historical standpoint.

D20 has fabric covered elevators and was given the K14 gunsight, D25 was given metal elevator and rocket attachments, D30 has changed battery position and was given the radar and beacon receiver to navigate in the Pacific theatre. In DCS we have D30 and the new plane will definitely be older than D20. We already know we are getting the fixed sight.

 

D5 was the first block and had steamed from B version with added bubble canopy first appeared in March 44 standardized the wing, gunports and ailerons. D10 added tailfin that improved stability of the plane that was initially created by the addition of the bubble canopy. I can't remember what D15 did.

 

NA means it was built in North American East coast and DT was built in Dallas plant West coast.

There was no North American 'east coast' plant; the home plant was in the Los Angeles metro area and the newer satellite plant was in the Dallas/Ft Worth area (which technically, could be east coast if you accept that the east coast of the US begins at the mouth of the Rio Grande). Lockheed, North American and Convair (Liberators, PBYs) had their home offices and manufacturing facilities in Southern California when the war began and expanded from there.

Also note that in the case of several of the changes you list, frontline groups in the ETO and Med would receive kits to upgrade their existing aircraft well ahead of the actual new block number's delivery in-theater, which explains the number of photos of razorback B/C Mustangs with that fin fillet added for the D10, and the mid-fuselage fuel tanks on the early examples in England before the 'whole' aircraft with the upgrades could have arrived at Liverpool.

cheers

horseback

Might as well have a P-51H. The choice of German aircraft for DCS was/is a little ridiculous, from a historical standpoint.

Indeed, I strongly reject messing with the P-51D-30 we have now ( and love so much :) for the bizarre fantasy of "historical" dogfights in Normandy with German planes that were simply not there!

There was no North American 'east coast' plant; the home plant was in the Los Angeles metro area and the newer satellite plant was in the Dallas/Ft Worth area (which technically, could be east coast if you accept that the east coast of the US begins at the mouth of the Rio Grande). Lockheed, North American and Convair (Liberators, PBYs) had their home offices and manufacturing facilities in Southern California when the war began and expanded from there.

 

Also note that in the case of several of the changes you list, frontline groups in the ETO and Med would receive kits to upgrade their existing aircraft well ahead of the actual new block number's delivery in-theater, which explains the number of photos of razorback B/C Mustangs with that fin fillet added for the D10, and the mid-fuselage fuel tanks on the early examples in England before the 'whole' aircraft with the upgrades could have arrived at Liverpool.

 

cheers

 

horseback

You might be right about the production. I had a brain freeze. :doh:

I say they should keep the old D30 too. Especially that we might have Pacific theatre in the future and D30 would fit there very nicely.

Definitely keep the current plane. Tossing out content and reducing player choice would be a disaster. The only reason I could see for doing that would be if upkeep of multiple P-51's was for some reason too resource intensive, but I really don't see how that would be.

Might as well have a P-51H. The choice of German aircraft for DCS was/is a little ridiculous, from a historical standpoint.

I'd like an H as well. Perhaps far in the future, DCS modules will allow us to browse through different variants of a single aircraft. I'd really like that.