Future of the DCS P-51D

Looks like to me this historical source says the P-51D is plenty fast as it is. Of course one can simply cherry pick the best results (like Solty does) and say it doesn't reach it (with the wrong testing methods and wrong engine settings), but it appears the current results fall well in middle of the available historical test data, closer to the more 'optimistic' high values in fact than the lower values.

Worth of note that in the real test they found the coolant temperatures 'excessivively high' during the testing. This seems to be another point of complain Solty makes, but apparently its correct and aligns well with historical sources.

All this will be forgotten when we get a Tempest and, why not, a P-47M.

Probably, because by that time all participants will be well in their 80s. :D

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?

I got to 602kph with emergency rich and radiator closed manually. But that is extremely risky and doesn't allow any maneuvering at all or engine dies.

I think (as Saburo suggested) something might be wrong with cooling which in turn opens the radiator too much which results in more drag and less speed. :)

if the test results land in the middle of historical data, it means there's room for slight increase in the performance, while still staying "historically accurate", so i dont see why not?

i mean the pony pilots are allmost completely absent from the mp scenario nowdays, and people fly the bird only if no spits are available if even then(there are few exeptions like solty and few other mustang enthusiasts).

and after the european playing hours, the wwii action is minimal meaning our american brothers are not that much into the game anymore. it wasnt like this before.

if a slight(!) increase in the performance would get peeps to fly the bird again, it would be beneficial to everyone.

after all, all the data that the devs have vary, and sometimes even contradict depending the source. there is enough room to interpret the data one way or another. so in the end it's a choice made by the devs, what is right for DCS.

and, "historically accurate" is a term i dislike, especially when talking about replicas of complex machinery.

a mustang performing little better or little worse would be as much "historically accurate" as the one we have now, because there were variance in their performace individually anyway.

as does modern machinery even today. dyno tests prove there are even 20hp differences in 200hp engines of same make and model. thats 10% difference. and no one has asked that much of change here anyways. just a little to improve the gaming experience some.

That Kurfurst's data shows manual control over the radiator, opening it more than they were by the automated system and I am not sure what it means that the test was "Position error of static vent and brief level speed trials". Wing racks were also present and we don't know which Mustang IV that is. Might be P-51D5 with old P-51B racks and lacking tailfin causing instablility and slowing the plane down.

Anyway, YoYo himself has agreed, earlier, on the data supplied in Febuary 2016. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2696329&postcount=25

So the Ohio test is to be taken as the one that DCS Mustang is based on and Mil power 361 mph and WEP 375mph are the ones that were modeled before in DCS.

 

and after the european playing hours, the wwii action is minimal meaning our american brothers are not that much into the game anymore. it wasnt like this before.

 

I believe things will improve quite a bit with the release of Normandy. Give the sides a realistic mission scenario or two (high altitude AI bomber group escort for allies, bomber interception for germans) and you will see the Mustang back in action.

One other thing that needs work is the visibility issue in DCS. There are a lot of people here who have eyes like hawks, but the truth is a lot of people are not flying the wardbirds because dogfighting can sometimes feel like an exercise in frustration.

" Give the sides a realistic mission scenario..."

I agree with you at 200%, but sorry to say you're dreaming.

Look at the online servers now: 99% of them have stupid mixed planesets, without real objectives and without correct tactical placement of ground units on the map.

Everything is there to have great online experiences matching reality quite correctly, but no, simply no (I don't know why, mystery to me)

http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-6.htm

" Give the sides a realistic mission scenario..."

 

I agree with you at 200%, but sorry to say you're dreaming.

 

Look at the online servers now: 99% of them have stupid mixed planesets, without real objectives and without correct tactical placement of ground units on the map.

Everything is there to have great online experiences matching reality quite correctly, but no, simply no (I don't know why, mystery to me)

 

http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-6.htm

Don't know which servers you're flying but on the ones I am, that is simply not true. Of course you will always have people who don't adhere to the mission settings, guidelines, victory conditons etc. but who cares about those people? They are usually cannon (sorry, missile) fodder anyway.

Build a mission where an AI Bomber group has to destroy an objective as a victory condition, where for example each bomber carries a number of points, where points are awarded for targets destroyed, bombers downed (for Axis), bombers returned to base (for Allies) and people will flock to it. Add some AI fighters just to spice things up a bit (and not make it too boring if there are no people online) and presto. :pilotfly:

Edit: just played quickly on OpenConflict: really good and cool settings.

"Build a mission where an AI Bomber group has to destroy an objective as a victory condition, where for example each bomber carries a number of points, where points are awarded for targets destroyed, bombers downed (for Axis), bombers returned to base (for Allies) and people will flock to it. Add some AI fighters just to spice things up a bit (and not make it too boring if there are no people online) and presto."

I can't agree more with you.

I do hope it'll be the case soon.

I will say Burning Skies for now is the best server and second to it is ACG. Both are great for WW2. Burning has more detailed and complex missions. ACG server will probably make more complex missions when Normandy arrives, for now its just focused on quick air combat. :) Both are great and FOCUSED on WW2.

Yes, the high octane fuel allowing 75" MP should help considerably. The Bf 109K will still be a monster, but the gap will be narrowed. I'm certainly not asking for parity for parity's sake, but the ability to setup historically likely matchups where pilot skill can then "go to work".

 

The Bf 109K didn't even appear until October 1944, by which point some 8th AF fighters were using high octane AN-F-33 fuel that allowed 75" MP. It can be an option in the Mission Editor which fuels are available, but both are entirely historical.

 

The Bf 109K pilot will still have an advantage in a straight 1-v-1 dogfight, and it'll require greater skill by the Mustang pilot to win.

No, they aren't entirely historical, at least on the P51 side of things. I'm not talking about the octane, I'm talking about the center fuel tank AND the IFF equipment that is mounted behind the pilot. That center tank shouldn't be there if IFF equipment is there. That was a late war, Pacific P-51. The European P-51 should only have the center fuel tank and anyone that is familiar with the P-51 knows that you never fight with fuel in the center tank, because it throws the CG too far to the rear. Why is this important? Ever wonder why our P-51 is always stalling and falling out of the air? it's because even if you don't have fuel in your center tank you still have that IFF radio equipment back there. We have both and we shouldn't. The late war pacific version should only have the IFF equipment. The European P51 should only have a center tank. If/when we get that useless IFF equipment removed, I think people will find the P-51 much easier to fly and a better match for the 109, even without the high octane fuel.

No, they aren't entirely historical, at least on the P51 side of things. I'm not talking about the octane, I'm talking about the center fuel tank AND the IFF equipment that is mounted behind the pilot. That center tank shouldn't be there if IFF equipment is there. That was a late war, Pacific P-51. The European P-51 should only have the center fuel tank and anyone that is familiar with the P-51 knows that you never fight with fuel in the center tank, because it throws the CG too far to the rear. Why is this important? Ever wonder why our P-51 is always stalling and falling out of the air? it's because even if you don't have fuel in your center tank you still have that IFF radio equipment back there. We have both and we shouldn't. The late war pacific version should only have the IFF equipment. The European P51 should only have a center tank. If/when we get that useless IFF equipment removed, I think people will find the P-51 much easier to fly and a better match for the 109, even without the high octane fuel.

You are completely wrong...

The IFF device used by 7th AF was placed instead of battery on the rack mounted on the fuselage fuel tank. And battery was moved in to engine compartment.

BUT DCS Mustang has only control box in cockpit from that "new" IFF device and this IFF itself MISSING behind pilot`s armor plate, there is BATTERY (and VHF transceiver), no IFF...

Do you really know if DCS Mustang is weighted with battery behind cockpit or in engine compartment?

btw. fuselage fuel tank was restricted after WWII, during WWII all Mustangs model D carried it... (with exception TF or WWeary upgraded non combat planes)

AND no "late war pacific version" ever existed, it is nonsense, Mustangs from 5th AF or 14th AF underwent different modifications from 7th AF (which only used Uncle Dog device with two antenna masts and moved battery due to advanced and bigger IFF) or from Mustangs used in ETO...

No, they aren't entirely historical, at least on the P51 side of things. I'm not talking about the octane, I'm talking about the center fuel tank AND the IFF equipment that is mounted behind the pilot. That center tank shouldn't be there if IFF equipment is there. That was a late war, Pacific P-51. The European P-51 should only have the center fuel tank and anyone that is familiar with the P-51 knows that you never fight with fuel in the center tank, because it throws the CG too far to the rear. Why is this important? Ever wonder why our P-51 is always stalling and falling out of the air? it's because even if you don't have fuel in your center tank you still have that IFF radio equipment back there. We have both and we shouldn't. The late war pacific version should only have the IFF equipment. The European P51 should only have a center tank. If/when we get that useless IFF equipment removed, I think people will find the P-51 much easier to fly and a better match for the 109, even without the high octane fuel.

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.

Solty I commend you on your dedication to the P51! I wish I was as dedicated. I enjoy it's flight model, I dig that it can go fast, that it can dive fast. I just wish I could get to grips with it in combat. I never could. I hate it. HATE IT in combat. (Did I mention how much I hate it in combat? :) ) Im sure most of that is my fault, but the Spit for example already feels much more natural to me, even though I've only owned it for a few days, and even though its slow as molasses compared to the Stang.

I will say Burning Skies for now is the best server and second to it is ACG. Both are great for WW2.

I appreciate that these servers exist, but I do not find them compelling enough to log on more than once a month. On Burning Skies, especially, the mission seems to intentionally spread out the players with three separate target areas.

I appreciate that these servers exist, but I do not find them compelling enough to log on more than once a month. On Burning Skies, especially, the mission seems to intentionally spread out the players with three separate target areas.

They are close enough to respond quickly, they have diverse targets and radio tells u if they see any airplanes. It also allows the attacker to come in and out easier as teams have to spread out, which allows for multiple directions of attack and picking the least defended targets.

Solty is right about the center fuel tank stuff and curvature. A lot people hate Mustang because the response curve is not set up right. I messed around with my curvature. It's better now but just couldn't get the exact right one. I guess it takes a bit trial and error to figure the right one for you and your sticks. It's the exact same story as when I first started in IL2. Initially I listened to some online "experts" saying all 100% works wonder. I was falling stalling all over the sky and pissed by the game. But later, I tried different curvatures and eventually found the right one for my stick. I was able to shoot more accurately and fly around the edge without much stalling. DCS is more complicated than IL2, so need much more trials and errors.

But that aside, I do wish to see better DM, 72" MP and, if possible, adjustable gun convergence. If I have those, I'll golden.

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.

This has already been confirmed about the IFF radio equipment put in place of the center tank and I'm just going by what was stated by ED after it was brought up after release. It doesn't really matter however. What does matter is the weight of the center tank or iff radio equipment throwing the CG aft. Anyone familiar with the P51 knows you don't fight with the weight behind the seat, either with fuel in the tank if it's there or the IFF equipment which throws the CG too far back and makes it a dog to fight in. This has nothing to do with my stick which happens to be a warthog nor my technique since I fly for a living. I also fly with quite a few other pilots in my group who all happen to be current military pilots, retired military pilots or current professional civil pilots. If it was just me saying this I'd wonder, but it's not.

This has already been confirmed about the IFF radio equipment put in place of the center tank and I'm just going by what was stated by ED after it was brought up after release. It doesn't really matter however. What does matter is the weight of the center tank or iff radio equipment throwing the CG aft. Anyone familiar with the P51 knows you don't fight with the weight behind the seat, either with fuel in the tank if it's there or the IFF equipment which throws the CG too far back and makes it a dog to fight in. This has nothing to do with my stick which happens to be a warthog nor my technique since I fly for a living. I also fly with quite a few other pilots in my group who all happen to be current military pilots, retired military pilots or current professional civil pilots. If it was just me saying this I'd wonder, but it's not.

That's an interesting point. Wonder how heavy the IFF equipment is? I know CG issue does significantly affect P51's performance.

Wonder how heavy the IFF equipment is? I know CG issue does significantly affect P51's performance.

60 lbs, and was placed instead of battery and not instead of fuel tank

(battery weigh was similar..)

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/operational-characteristics-of-radar-classified-by-tactical-application.html#iff

60 lbs, and was placed instead of battery and not instead of fuel tank

(battery weigh was similar..)

 

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/operational-characteristics-of-radar-classified-by-tactical-application.html#iff

+1

Feuselage fuel tank is there and COG really changes when you fill it up. Still the airplane is quite mild although requires highest speeds for maneuvering. I don't know how and where Sniper got this info. We will loose the radar though. That's a bit less weight, other than that we will loose metal elevators if D20 or lower is chosen. Every pound counts with the stang as it is a tad too heavy but if one chooses to take less fuel it becomes quite good at maneuvering.

I know CG issue does significantly affect P51's performance.

Not performance, but handling, yes.

Not performance, but handling, yes.

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.