People who have flown the 1O9 and the P51

- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot:

 

My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.

On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."

 

- Thomas L. Hayes, Jr., American P-51 ace, 357th Fighter Group, 8 1/2 victories:

 

Thomas L. Hayes, Jr. recalled diving after a fleeing Me-109G until both aircraft neared the sound barrier and their controls locked. Both pilots took measures to slow down, but to Hayes' astonishment, the Me-109 was the first to pull out of its dive. As he belatedly regained control of his Mustang, Hayes was grateful that the German pilot chose to quit while he was ahead and fly home instead of taking advantage of Hayes' momentary helplessness. Hayes also stated that while he saw several Fw-190s stall and even crash during dogfights, he never saw an Me-109 go out of control."

These were early P51Ds which lacked the dorsal fin and thus had lower critical mach number(oh btw, compressibility has nothing to do with control stiffening). The P51D we have in game is later model and has a dorsal fin, and could dive to mach 0.84 in an emergency, more than the 109 which had a critical mach of 0.80.

Because that's just the way it has always been in every WW2 sim I've ever flown, regardless of how the planes in question are actually modelled. Tedious, stupid and boring, I know, but what can you do? Bah, just ignore the whole slinging match and let the mods worry about it...

I myself find it the funniest when some people start using historical documents as proof of their thesis about the flight model, but usually carefull omit the documents or parts of the same that do not support, or can be dangerous to their thesis :)

They usually pick one paragraph and stay silent about the one just next to it, quote just one sentence or a part of it, interpret in a convenient way or show a graph but don't mention specific conditions when some test was performed etc. :) This gets quite tiresome sometimes but also funny when people get caught doing this. Of course, it's a more universal thing than flight sims though and is pretty common for any discussion.

Because that's just the way it has always been in every WW2 sim I've ever flown, regardless of how the planes in question are actually modelled. Tedious, stupid and boring, I know, but what can you do? Bah, just ignore the whole slinging match and let the mods worry about it...

I myself find it the funniest when some people start using historical documents as proof of their thesis about the flight model, but usually carefull omit the documents or parts of the same that do not support, or can be dangerous to their thesis :)

 

They usually pick one paragraph and stay silent about the one just next to it, quote just one sentence or a part of it, interpret in a convenient way or show a graph but don't mention specific conditions when some test was performed etc. :) This gets quite tiresome sometimes but also funny when people get caught doing this. Of course, it's a more universal thing than flight sims though and is pretty common for any discussion.

Even funnier is apparently they commit the same mistakes in quite different simulators over the simulation history (even though DCS is a previously unseen point of view and quality simulation) , that's not giving the Luftwhiners their mighty machines making them invincible even when they are obvious bad fighter pilots just because some pilot sometime said this airplane was wonderful (a great clue in FM making) and they shoot down many aircraft so modern virtual pilots must be also great aces just reading that sentence :music_whistling:.

S!

I've actually seen it go both ways, for both Allied and Axis planes, because people tend to be biased towards their favorite ride and can't try and be objective. That's why I appreciate Yo-Yo coming to the forums and actually explaining stuff, also taking note of bugs or wrongly modelled things if something's proven because it takes time and a lot of patience and not many developers do that.

I've actually seen it go both ways, for both Allied and Axis planes, because people tend to be biased towards their favorite ride and can't try and be objective. That's why I appreciate Yo-Yo coming to the forums and actually explaining stuff, also taking note of bugs or wrongly modelled things if something's proven because it takes time and a lot of patience and not many developers do that.

People can try and I think most do try to be objective. However it's very hard to overcome confirmation bias unless you are very diligent and always open to being wrong.

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Indeed, but it's funny the first twenty hundred times you see the very same, in the very same people throughout years or in new people who take the "duty". After that it becomes really boring and tiring to keep reading the same sick minded propaganda rubbish.

 

Even funnier is apparently they commit the same mistakes in quite different simulators over the simulation history (even though DCS is a previously unseen point of view and quality simulation) , that's not giving the Luftwhiners their mighty machines making them invincible even when they are obvious bad fighter pilots just because some pilot sometime said this airplane was wonderful (a great clue in FM making) and they shoot down many aircraft so modern virtual pilots must be also great aces just reading that sentence :music_whistling:.

 

S!

People like you that sit on the side and pretend to be soooo sophisticated forget that questioning the devs FM sometimes leads to progress:

-The correction of the 109 climb rate which was too high at 30m/s to 25m/s.

-The attempt on my part and others to change the climb rate to 22m/s (this was proven by yo-yo to be incorrect)

-The correction of the fw D9 that had too much horse power (2300 if i remember correctly) now it has 2100.

-The effort on my part and others to implement a 75"hg P51 with 150 octane fuel.

-The effort to speed the devs imprementation of more realistic weapons damage like leaking radiators leading to engine failure.Fuel tanks and Mw 50 tanks that actually burn. Oil that spills on the cockpit glass and so on.

You know what's funnier .Thinking that using words like luftwhiners makes you better than us :lol:.

People like you that sit on the side and pretend to be soooo sophisticated forget that questioning the devs FM sometimes leads to progress:

 

-The correction of the 109 climb rate which was too high at 30m/s to 25m/s.

-The attempt on my part and others to change the climb rate to 22m/s (this was proven by yo-yo to be incorrect)

-The correction of the fw D9 that had too much horse power (2300 if i remember correctly) now it has 2100.

-The effort on my part and others to implement a 75"hg P51 with 150 octane fuel.

-The effort to speed the devs imprementation of more realistic weapons damage like leaking radiators leading to engine failure.Fuel tanks and Mw 50 tanks that actually burn. Oil that spills on the cockpit glass and so on.

 

You know what's funnier .Thinking that using words like luftwhiners makes you better than us :lol:.

I think you mistake intent otto. Using historical evidence for corrections of flight model is of course commendable. Like your quoted examples, these are all things that got better (or hopefully will) and changed due to player input and player-dev interaction.

But it's unfortunately often the case, that historical evidence is used in a manipulative way, sort of "choose you convenient fact" way. And many users on this or other sim forums are guilty of that. ManOWar used a derogatory term towards one side only, and that was not nice perhaps. As said, I've seen people guilty of it on both sides.

Speaking of which, there should be no "sides" when it comes to historical accuracy and making this sim the best possible. But unfortuantely people very often are biased and choose only convenient facts to somehow boost their own favourite plane by manipulating evidence and that's a problem. Thankfully Yo-Yo is very open to discussions and apparently if proper evidence is supplied, changes to FM are being made so big props for that.

Anyway, to finish the rant, I think most are grateful for the additional input supplied by the guys with historical and aeronautical knowledge that can make this sim better and more realistic. As long as it's done for this purpose, I'm all for it, it's just sad to see that this is being misused at times, that's all.

You know what's funnier .Thinking that using words like luftwhiners makes you better than us :lol:.

FYI there was a time when you could call me also a Luftwhiner mate, old Il-2 Russian bias (and german undermodel) was soooooo exaggerated and evident (even though fanboys said it wasn't, and of course Ruswhiners, if you didn't knew that also existed ) I also claimed for real world performances for Germans so we could fly some closer to RL. Of course sane questioning things is fine and leads sometimes to real progress, I also do sometimes (but yes, not ALL the time, I've better things to do). The problem is when that questioning becomes a raison d'etre for some people, so deeply it doesn't matters what devs give to them they'll criticize everything just because it doesn't match what they are expecting when the reality is you can't expect a thing because anybody but a bunch has flown those birds. Yeah, some pilots left writings about their experience but if you aren't even a pilot, if you haven't even experienced what real flight is, how can you possibly know what they meant by those writings? You just DON'T (nor I of course as I don't expect a Cessna to fly like a Warbird...) so using that as a supposed prove of anything is just childish but a bunch of people seems to keep doing it without realizing how a deep simulation we have now with DCS (the one we dreamed since old times I've to say) and that you can't just say "this guy said that, module has to be wrong because I can't do it". You've to agree that behaviour doesn't help AT ALL.

Anyway I didn't meant any bad by using the old Luftwhiner name, but you've to agree with me it soooo funny they're the very same people whining the same things through the years (in my case a lot of years listening to them, believe me :lol:). So you can't call me a Luftwhiner any more because I'll always look for realism, sure, but I get tired a lot ago of the full time complaining about Luftwaffe aircraft coming from some people, and we switched to DCS just to find them again... :D Call me naive, but I really thought for a while with a so detailed simulator they wouldn't raise from the shadows as DCS is so detailed and match so closely charts that they wouldn't have a thing to complain about. As soon as 109 was released I was proven wrong of course :thumbup:.

S!

Correct on both. I believe a fix is coming for the level speed.

In my humble opinion a level speed fix for the 109 should be released at the same time as the 150 octane Mustang is released. I'm not for game balance but a 30km/h faster 109 would really make things worse at the moment. Againg IMHO.

Unfortunately Curtiss is wrong. The wings of the b,c,d,k, were the same thickness

This is correct, but the razorback Mustangs were mores stable than the bubble canopy ones so maybe this was a factor. Another thing to remember is that the earlier Mustangs had fabric covered elevators that would bulge in a high speed dive and cause porpoising. This was cured with later model D and K versions getting metal elevators but this modification changed/increased the stick and trim forces required to maintain level flight in a high speed dive.

Sorry going from memory of America's 100,000.