P51 not fun due to so many problems.

Guys at the end of the day this is meant to be a study level combat simulator so it is meant to mimic real life, war is not balanced in real life, i say if a time period is chosen where a great deal of aircraft were using it then it should be added, if it was using it at a different time then why not add it and leave to mission makers to deal with it.

 

 

if someone can find sources of the p51s we have using 150 then share it.

Up a few posts...

What would be the difference in the higher octane fuel in the allied fighters? Here is your answer:

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

 

If you read all the way you will see the US fighters in Europe had this by July 1944,

What would be the difference in the higher octane fuel in the allied fighters? Here is your answer:

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

 

If you read all the way you will see the US fighters in Europe had this by July 1944,

Correction:

Assuming 16 planes per squadron for and 100% serviceability -

8th Air Force using 150 Octane had 42 Squadrons = ~672 number of operational fighter airframes

9th Air Force using 130 Octane had 54 Squadrons = ~864 number of operational fighter airframes

So ~44% of all USAAF fighters in use in the ETO were using 150 octane.

Guys at the end of the day this is meant to be a study level combat simulator so it is meant to mimic real life, war is not balanced in real life, i say if a time period is chosen where a great deal of aircraft were using it then it should be added, if it was using it at a different time then why not add it and leave to mission makers to deal with it.

 

if someone can find sources of the p51s we have using 150 then share it.

Max power Low blower in p51 would jump from 1700 to 2000hp

So in this document

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/100-150_Grade_Supply_23Nov44.pdf

dated 23.11.1944

it is stated on number 7)

"7. As matters now stand, the only organization which will use Grade 100/150 on the Continent is the 2nd Tactical Air Force. General Spaatz has decided that the U.S. Air Forces on the Continent will not use this fuel either in whole or part. This decision was based on maintenance and distribution difficulties."

Despite that, I think this fuel should be available as an option so that mission makers can decide on that for all current and future aircraft.

Fox

Will you all stop with this fuel grade nonsense? You should read and try to understand this report: Technical Report 145-45 Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany.

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

100/150 grade fuel will not be small change, not an easy one too, it will require remodeling whole engine, this swap was much easier in real plane just bunch of different spark plugs and small mod to pressure regulator.

100/150 will had to be full priced DLC for p-51 or spitfire.

Yes higher octane rating = you can get more power from engine, will it be more problematic yest it will.

Will you all stop with this fuel grade nonsense? You should read and try to understand this report: Technical Report 145-45 Manufacture of Aviation Gasoline in Germany.

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

A link to your document would be amazing...

Fox

A link to your document would be amazing...

 

 

Fox

paste the title in to google.

I feel a lot of issues that people are ecountering with the p51 are because they do not understand the main roles of the aircraft they are flying in and against, the mustang was an escort fighter, so had to have long range, in the escort role there would be many aircraft at altitude fighting at various speed states.

that means that turn fights were often way more fluid then just circle fights which seems to be the common theme in dcs, as such it allowed mustangs to fight heavy if they had a wing man to cover their 6 during the chaos.

for dcs most fights happen at mid to low altitude, so if a mustang takes off with full wing tanks its going to be heavy, where as with half tanks the performance will be much better.

the same applies to some extent with the 109 and wing cannons, with the greater weight you trade performance for firepower.

another note on weight and design is that the mustang when heavy acts better as a boom and zoom aircraft much like the FW190 does due to weight. Imagine a FW190 turn fighting a spitfire, this is what it is like when fighting heavy in a mustang while turnfighting the 109 which at low speed should have the advantage due to the design of the wing, having leading edge slats where as the mustang has a high speed laminar flow wing.

now onto the engine performance, as was mentioned early on various aspects of the merlins are moddled and they are not the same model of merlin either when it comes to the P-51 and Spitfire. Hence the characteristics are different.

knowing the correct parameters for each engine respectively will drastically increase engine life, cruise speeds are much lower as are the settings for the engines then people would think, as such the engine,oil pressure, fuel and coolant are generally far more managable.

furthermore the guages can lag behind the actual temp, this is most likely to happen under high power conditions in combat or on take off, the mustang normally locks up on take off with high oil pressure and the spitfire will normally cook the engines in high power low airspeed conditions such as in a climbing stall with high power. this will cause leaks.

as such it is paramount to keep an eye on Ts and Ps in all phases of flight compared to jet aircraft.

TL:DR knowing the optimum engine paramaters and turning speeds will drastically improve combat capability and drastically reduce failure rate.

edit: also if i recall correctly aircraft with merlins are now flown with lower settings due to the original fuel that they used somehow disappearing with regards on the knowledge of how to make it therefor the only way to model this in dcs would be to find old manuals with tables and charts indicating performance from ww2, also suspect that the tuning of the engine would be different to accomadate the different fuel and as such remoddling the engine would be a must.

I don't think so that temp gages are lagging. Coolant outlet temp and oil inlet temp if i remember correctly that's it. 61" is available during t/o acording to manual so nothing is gonna happen to engine.

Temps are rising but not with speed of light.

And manuals wont be enough to model engine in DCS it would require full trial tests of the engine.

I found only in New Zealand Airforce p-51 manual mention about 81" boost allowed with 150 fuel.

But all p-51 manuals from ww2 which i have are set at 67" as WER so increased WER was done on the field only, So factory settings for p-51 was always 61/67" military/WER rating.

Even for p-51H dry WER was 67" wet WER 80" so 100/130 fuel was issued as standard fuel for p-51H too.

But interesting thing that Wet WER on p-51H had no time limitation, so only the capacity of MW tank was the limit.

Nothing wrong with having the 67" P51D. At 67" with reduced fuel it is good. Just need 67" to be usable reliably.

Nothing wrong with having the 67" P51D. At 67" with reduced fuel it is good. Just need 67" to be usable reliably.

:thumbup:

Nothing wrong with having the 67" P51D. At 67" with reduced fuel it is good. Just need 67" to be usable reliably.

:thumbup:

Im not saying that 67" is not enough. but p-51 81" from 1950s would bring me closer to 120" race p-51s :P

I just tested the P15D WEP. It is still broken.

I took off flew 10 minutes full throttle then went to WEP for 4minutes 30 seconds then pulled back 61" 3000RPM. The engine froze after about 10-15minutes.

Also for some reason the pilot dies when the scoop under the aircraft takes damage for some reason. So gear up landings lead to pilot death.

on the deck with a K4 is foolish

Yep, plus the DCS P-51 manual states that "WEP provides no benefit at altitudes below 5,000 feet. The throttle alone provides more than enough power to exceed the operating limits of the engine at these altitudes." So WEP gives you no boost whatsoever if you're staying in the weeds.

I love how every time an American plays a video game and hops into their ride, if it doesn't immediately blare the Star Spangled Banner while pwning Nazis/Commies they decry it as biased/broken/imbalanced/wrong. P-51 is a historically overrated aircraft, good for it's SPECIFIC DESIGNED ROLE, but undeserving of the mythological reverence it gets from ''some circles''. And its trigonometry is decidedly naive.

Yep, plus the DCS P-51 manual states that "WEP provides no benefit at altitudes below 5,000 feet. The throttle alone provides more than enough power to exceed the operating limits of the engine at these altitudes." So WEP gives you no boost whatsoever if you're staying in the weeds.

WEP gives a significant speed increase below 5000 feet based on flight tests.

I love how every time an American plays a video game and hops into their ride, if it doesn't immediately blare the Star Spangled Banner while pwning Nazis/Commies they decry it as biased/broken/imbalanced/wrong. P-51 is a historically overrated aircraft, good for it's SPECIFIC DESIGNED ROLE, but undeserving of the mythological reverence it gets from ''some circles''. And its trigonometry is decidedly naive.

All I get from this is:

1. You don't like Americans

2. You don't like the P51D

3. You assume that all people who have a problem with the P51D model are American.

4.You have no clue what this thread is about.

The P51D is the worst most unreliable module out of all the WW2 planes. Even the I16 is more fun to fly then the P51D.

It does not make any sense that the P51D engine fails when ever you use WEP. It says in the manual that the engine needs to have a strip down inspection after 5 hours WEP time is accumulated. We cant even do 5 minutes.

You can use WEP in the other aircraft without a problem.

If we are going to have the best possible variants of the German planes why cant the WEP in the average P51D be unusable?

I don't know why you think its overrated historically. It was vastly superior to the German aircraft when it saw action. It wasn't up against an air force of 109K4's. It was fighting the 109G6 and FW190A which it completely wipes the floor with. By the time the 109K4 was in the air the P51D was running at 75"MP, the German air force was non existent and everyone was moving to Jet technology.

''Vastly superior''

Surrre it was. It's hard to hear you over all that unrestricted freedom.

''Even the I-16 is more fun''

Translation: Everybody knows P-51s come from a prestigious line of X-Wing Starfighters and were Earth's first anti-gravity vehicle. German claims to the first UFOs are vicious propaganda.

The P-51 was fast, high flying, and long range. That's pretty much the full list of its accomplishments. It was not ''vastly superior'' to anything. Oh and it outnumbered a badly depleted Luftwaffe, which made inevitable success a reality, regardless of its quality.

speed increase below 5000 feet

RL or DCS tests? Because that's what the manual says regardless.

Also, lots of comments on this board from folks who're using WEP without problems all the time and so have I. Granted, I only do A-to-G nowadays and thus tend not to stress the engine overmuch, so maybe my opinion doesn't count? Still, some fighter jocks seem to manage it just fine as well...

Alt range where wep gives benefits is where engine can provide more then 61".

Up to 61" crit alt wep will give benefits for LOW and HIGH.

So limit is 5min opeartion on wep but is it 5 minit continuous or 30 bursts for 10s with brakes between the same for engine. I think it is quite different load.

Also, lots of comments on this board from folks who're using WEP without problems all the time and so have I. Granted, I only do A-to-G nowadays and thus tend not to stress the engine overmuch, so maybe my opinion doesn't count? Still, some fighter jocks seem to manage it just fine as well...

I just tested it. I never get engine failures unless I use WEP. It makes no sense to me.

It is random as far as I can tell. So you can have flights where it doesn't fail if you don't fly for long or your lucky. The engine can even fail on the ground after landing and shutting it down if you have used WEP. You hear a loud bang and then cant start the engine again.,

The flight performance from WEP is based on real tests and the DCS P51D does get a speed increase at low alt from WEP as it should.

I love how every time an American plays a video game and hops into their ride, if it doesn't immediately blare the Star Spangled Banner while pwning Nazis/Commies they decry it as biased/broken/imbalanced/wrong. P-51 is a historically overrated aircraft, good for it's SPECIFIC DESIGNED ROLE, but undeserving of the mythological reverence it gets from ''some circles''. And its trigonometry is decidedly naive.

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk