Future of the DCS P-51D

Cheers for the reply Solty,

I hope to see more video's by Ape when Normandy comes out, more training ones too, I'm trying to learn more and get better myself at these ww2 aircraft and know more about each of their abilities.

Like you were saying, here is an older video of Ape testing the 109 low in a dog fight with a little flap out. Going to be interesting when there are good missions built in multiplayer for Normandy and it would be good to have more teams working together to create more real types of battles.

CsGHcwOZKwc

This is correct..

The weight of radio equipment / electronics in WW2 was immense. A standard radio and mounting might weigh several hundred pounds.

Imagine radar and IFF... I'm sure ED knows exactly how much those weigh, and what they do to the CG... and thus the CLmax and all other aerodynamic variables. Quite a bit I imagine, beyond the purely Newtonian measure of several hundred pounds of gear...

A lot of people either forget, or don't know about never wanting to fly (actually, I meant fight) with fuel in the center tank of the 51. It throws the CG back and it departs a lot more easily than if you didn't have that weight there. Having said that, the P 51 we have has all that IFF/radio equipment AND the center fuel tank there. It really throws the CG off and it flies like a pig. I won't go into the MP and fuel, but what I mentioned is huge and a reason the 51 here doesn't perform as well as it should.

I don't know where you are getting this qualitative statement from. When the 51 was introduced, it handily outmaneuvered FW-190As.

I don't think the 109 has an UFO advantage...unless you are talking about the AI of course. It does.

 

If we get proper MP limits and a proper DM I'm sure the Mustang will perform very, very well against even the 109 K. If people expect it to be a great dogfighter - which it wasn't - then they will always be disappointed.

It also helps that the K4 is extremely hard to overheat in combat

This is correct..

 

The weight of radio equipment / electronics in WW2 was immense. A standard radio and mounting might weigh several hundred pounds.

 

Imagine radar and IFF...

AN/ARA-8 (recognizable from two antenna masts) total weight .... 12lbs, no one has chance to recognize any possible change in flight capability...

VHF radio was the same, no matter where Mustang was used during WWII, no change here...

7th AF IFF is not probably counted in DCS Mustang, because behind armor plate is battery modeled (behind VHF) and not 7th AF IFF device, no change here again...

btw. because of movement battery forward in to engine compartment thanks to bigger new IFF (battery was very heavy box, much heavier than radio devices used in fighters) 7th AF Mustang were slightly better maneuverable, according to pilots from 7th AF, or more pleasant to fly...

the tail radar device were not unique device for Mustangs from 7th AF or PTO, Mustangs from ETO used it to, so no change here again...

I hope that ED team will check Mustangs coolant logic and work during new possible damage model instead of minor device change. It will bring far more positive result than minor change in cockpit, which barely anyone understand.

I agree the cooling system in DCS is quite innefective and inefficient. To achieve (on deck) 601kph or roughly 374mph one has to close the radiator manually(and risk quick failure), while our Mustang is based on data that shows 375mph with automatic radiator controls and wing racks under wings.

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

I want this version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

I agree the cooling system in DCS is quite innefective and inefficient. To achieve (on deck) 601kph or roughly 374mph one has to close the radiator manually(and risk quick failure), while our Mustang is based on data that shows 375mph with automatic radiator controls and wing racks under wings.

 

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

While other data shows the Mustang doing Just 359 mph under same conditions...

You already have the Mustang modelled after or at least very, very close to the absolute best possible data there is, I don't know what more you'd want, really.

While other data shows the Mustang doing Just 359 mph under same conditions...

 

You already have the Mustang modelled after or at least very, very close to the absolute best possible data there is, I don't know what more you'd want, really.

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...

Future of the DCS P-51D

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

And I Just like how you struggle to come to terms with reality and keep whining about P-51 performance being not being good enough for you all the time.

The only one getting bothered by real life data is you. You are bothered by P51 data if its not the absolute best, you are bothered by P51 boost it its not the best, heck you are even bothered by modules you do not even own.

Just deal with it finally...

nice refutation there my man

oh wait, there isn't one

nice refutation there my man

 

oh wait, there isn't one

Because there is nothing to refute.

Solty is just re-posting (aka as spamming) his old posts from old bug report threads which have been already marked as 'resolved'.

That's actually againts the rules, bringing up stuff repeatadly that has been acknowledged in one way or another, yet still inciting the board to make the same unfounded bug reports and put pressure on the devs in a matter that's already RESOLVED.

In brief, he does what he always does every two weeks. Complain that the P51 must be better. Or that the opposition should be weeker. Doing the exact same nonsense over and over and over again and again and again and the funny part - He is actually expecting different outcome every time.

Replace the late-war K-4 with a G-6.

Case closed.

Future of the DCS P-51D

Yeah that's the other 50% of the Solty posts. :D

Replace the late war P-51D-30 with an honest P-40.

Most produced US fighter you know.

Well, to play devil's advocate, IF the plane was meeting Yo-Yo's chart (and the report he was comparing it to) a couple of patches ago and it doesn't in the same conditions now, it might be at least looked into. In military power regime that is, 'cause WEP seems to be perfect, so I don't know if many Mustang pilots are that much bothered about it.

With DCS' tradition of every update fixing bunch of things while at the same time breaking a bunch of others, something iffy in the flight code might always slip through. And believe me, You wouldn't put much faith in official "resolved" remark if, for example, You owned MiG-21 module, which, despite not being considered beta anymore, has a flight model changing like in a kaleidoscope every single patch :D (though ED-developed modules are more "stable" in this aspect I admit).

In fact, I don't know much on WWII aviation history.

I didn't know that the Mustangs never or only rarely met in combat Lufwaffe 109G's.

Was the 109G a rare fighter or some kind of prototype ?

I learnt also today that the P-40 was one of the main USAAF escort fighters over Europe.

Well, to play devil's advocate, IF the plane was meeting Yo-Yo's chart (and the report he was comparing it to) a couple of patches ago and it doesn't in the same conditions now, it might be at least looked into. In military power regime that is, 'cause WEP seems to be perfect, so I don't know if many Mustang pilots are that much bothered about it.

 

With DCS' tradition of every update fixing bunch of things while at the same time breaking a bunch of others, something iffy in the flight code might always slip through. And believe me, You wouldn't put much faith in official "resolved" remark if, for example, You owned MiG-21 module, which, despite not being considered beta anymore, has a flight model changing like in a kaleidoscope every single patch :D (though ED-developed modules are more "stable" in this aspect I admit).

In what way WEP seems to be perfect? Remember about the conditions, it should reach 375 mph with automatic rads and run mixture (test done in Ohio 1945). Even worst case scenario shows 368mph (which is not a test but rather a performance calculation from 1946.)

What Kurfurst refered to was a P-51B with V-1650-3, which is an older engine based on Merlin 63, that was significantly worse at low altitude. Real life plane flew (test done in Ohio 1945) 375mph. Our P-51D does below that at WEP (Flight 1 364 mph).

Also, those are NEW TESTS.

 

Solty is just re-posting (aka as spamming) his old posts from old bug report threads which have been already marked as 'resolved'.

 

I have attached the old thread for reference as the issue was realy resolved in 2016. But it seems to be back. Why did I post my old 2016 post? For reference, as it shows (even though my flying was imperfect) that I was able to get to 369 mph and now the Mustang goes up to 364 mph with the same settings and better flight regimes. And keep in the back of your head that IRL it was able to go 375mph (during a flight test)with wing racks attached.

Again, I have posted it here, and not made a full bug report, because others may prove me wrong. If you want, make your own test. :) Just make sure you do not dive or climb too much because it will skew the test significantly ;) If your results will be different, fine, share them. Just remember to trim the airplane and watch your digital data closely. Ctrl+Y and watch for TS (True Airspeed).:pilotfly:

PS. It might seem like minmal difference (and it is, in terms of math), but it is big in terms of combat environment. If the Mustang on auto settings would be going 603 kph, it is faster than the K4. If P-51 does 586 kph, it is slower than the K4.

Our K4 (suposedly) can go 595kph with automatic radiators, and it is the best case scenario for 1.8ata 109K in this config. There are many other sources that show it to go 580 kph. But K4 gets the best possible performance. So why can't the Mustang fly at its best possible performance?

So however you might see it as nitpicking over a little relative difference in terms of math, in reality it makes a difference between "life and death" on our virtual playground. :)

Because there is nothing to refute.

 

Solty is just re-posting (aka as spamming) his old posts from old bug report threads which have been already marked as 'resolved'.

 

That's actually againts the rules, bringing up stuff repeatadly that has been acknowledged in one way or another, yet still inciting the board to make the same unfounded bug reports and put pressure on the devs in a matter that's already RESOLVED.

 

In brief, he does what he always does every two weeks. Complain that the P51 must be better. Or that the opposition should be weeker. Doing the exact same nonsense over and over and over again and again and again and the funny part - He is actually expecting different outcome every time.

i see something to refute, that is you know the charts from reality and the simulation not matching up. why are you concerned about it, anyway? hopping in to shitpost in a thread about the plane you obviously don't care for. go snipe at someone else, or better yet contribute something of use. if you think solty's wrong, engage on rational grounds or GTFO.

What Kurfurst refered to was a P-51B with V-1650-3 which is an older engine based on Merlin 63 that was significantly worse at low altitude.

Real life plane flew (test done in Ohio 1945) 375mph. Our P-51D does below that at WEP (Flight 1 364 mph).

 

 

flight regimes. And keeping in the back of our head that IRL it was able to go 375mph (during a flight test)with wing racks attached and .

No, I was referring to a P51D (Delta) test, with a 'stronger' V-1650-7 that did 354 Mph at 67".

You are referring ONLY to the best P-51D test possible, that achieved thr highest speed and complain that YOU cant achieve that cherry picked best-case historical data.

Of course there is a wide range of data, both lower and higher because planes varied in finish quality - and a 360ish speed fits nicely in the middle of the data range anyway.

Heck even NA calculated its own plane's top speed with 67" as 368 mph. The plane that did 375 was quite simple far better produced, perhaps even specially prepeared that your typical Mustang.

Btw neither the 109K achieves its historical sea level top speed in DCS either, its about 5-10 mph slower yet I can't see people loosing their mind over it.

No, I was referring to a P51D (Delta) test, with a 'stronger' V-1650-7 that did 354 Mph at 67".

 

You are referring ONLY to the best P-51D test possible, that achieved thr highest speed and complain that YOU cant achieve that cherry picked best-case historical data.

 

Of course there is a wide range of data, both lower and higher because planes varied in finish quality - and a 360ish speed fits nicely in the middle of the data range anyway.

 

Heck even NA calculated its own plane's top speed with 67" as 368 mph. The plane that did 375 was quite simple far better produced, perhaps even specially prepeared that your typical Mustang.

 

Btw neither the 109K achieves its historical sea level top speed in DCS either, its about 5-10 mph slower yet I can't see people loosing their mind over it.

Yes because we see the best possible K4 in the game. If our K4 was capable of 580 kph at SL with automatic rads, I would not be even trying to fight it. But as it stands the 109K can go 595kph and it makes it faster than the Mustang making the relative performance gap bigger. Mustang is scaled down, 109 is scaled up, and you are refering to the experimental K4 which was going over 600kph with different prop and other adjustments. Not to mention most K4's didn't have wheel covers because they were getting stuck etc. etc. which would make it go slower IRL, but you have the best case scenario anyway.

In fact, I don't know much on WWII aviation history.

That's the beauty of it. You don't need to know anything at all. All you need to keep saying is your opinion, and that you have been cheated by the planeset somehow.

I didn't know that the Mustangs never or only rarely met in combat Lufwaffe 109G's.

Was the 109G a rare fighter or some kind of prototype ?.

I didn't know that the Mustangs never or only rarely met in combat Lufwaffe 109K's either.

Was the 109Ka rare fighter or some kind of prototype ?

I learnt also today that the P-40 was one of the main USAAF escort fighters over Europe.

Interesting opinion there, CHDT. Yes, perhaps you are right and this als supports why we should replace the P-51 with a P-40 after all, it was the most produced US fighter. I have seen the same arguement for the G-6's case, so it must be equally valid for the P51.

Yes because we see the best possible K4 in the game. If our K4 was capable of 580 kph at SL with automatic rads, I would not be even trying to fight it. But as it stands the 109K can go 595kph and it makes it faster than the Mustang making the relative performance gap bigger. Mustang is scaled down, 109 is scaled up, and you are refering to the experimental K4 which was going over 600kph with different prop and other adjustments. Not to mention most K4's didn't have wheel covers because they were getting stuck etc. etc. which would make it go slower IRL, but you have the best case scenario anyway.

Wrong on literally ALL accounts. Nice achievement, Solty, impressive even for you.

In fact we have the weaker K-4, and its a bit slower than even than it should be.

The difference is, nobody looses his mind over that, well, except you and Krupi. :p

Wrong on literally ALL accounts. Nice achievement, Solty, impressive even for you.

 

In fact we have the weaker K-4, and its a bit slower than even than it should be.

 

The difference is, nobody looses his mind over that, well, except you and Krupi. :p

It's true what they say that if one repeats his own lies enough, he'd start believing them himself.

Strange think is, I can't get the P51D to fly as fast any more as I used to be able to do at sea level. I am not aware of any published changes that may effect the speed at sea level, but I certainly find it slower now.

Happy landings,

56RAF_Talisman

In what way WEP seems to be perfect? Remember about the conditions, it should reach 375 mph with automatic rads and run mixture (test done in Ohio 1945). Even worst case scenario shows 368mph (which is not a test but rather a performance calculation from 1946.)

I don't know anything about these Ohio tests, only took a look at the graph You posted, but if it's mentioned somewhere that the figure was done on "run" setting, than OK, we might have a problem.

Otherwise, my understanding is that anything about military setting in any WWII era engine (or any reciprocating petrol engine for that matter) requires mixture enrichment or other form of anti-detonation injection. And with emergency rich, You got he Mustang to the 375 as in the graph, didn't You?