P-51D, 3 types of flights online

[Integrals]

Technically, neither. The prop pitch automatically sets to the appropriate pitch at any given airspeed. If you have RPM set VERY LOW and you're in a very high speed dive or something, it might run out of prop pitch adjustment and be unable to get it coarse enough, in which case the prop would act as an airbrake (and aileron!), but 2700 rpm should be capable of dealing with anything up to at least 350. Being properly trimmed (and eliminating all slip!) is more likely the culprit if you are having trouble making 300 indicated.

 

Is there a difference between trimming with the knobs and trimming with flight controls?

 

 

I know a lot of guys around here have had the best speed results with rpm around 2700-2800 instead of 3000; that said, you'll get the best acceleration at 3000, which is why you should probably go to 3000 rpm for combat. Makes sense; at lower RPM, the prop is set coarse, and would cut through the airstream more efficiently... but after a point, it will also be less efficient at "pulling" into the air. I generally go 3000 rpm for maneuvering dogfights, 2700 cruise, and 2800 for high-speed dive-aways (after giving it a few seconds at 3000 to accelerate the AC)

 

Too low RPM for a given MP will also over-stress the engine. With the exception of dive-away escapes, I don't go over 50" with 2700 rpm, 55" at 2800, 60" at 2900.

 

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. I can definitely improve on my rpm management with this info, but side slip must be the majority of my problem still.

 

Or are you saying you can not get over 36" with rpm set to 2700? That doesn't sound right. What altitude?

I try to cruise at or under 36" to avoid heat/stress on the engine. I have no problem getting to the full 67" when needed... by then it is usually too late for me though lol.

 

While on the topic of heat, the green zone is from 70-80C (or 80-90C... I can't recall of the top of my head) on the oil temp gauge. With the radiators in auto I find that oil temps are usually in the 90-100C at 250 mph. Is it safe to operate the engine above the "green" zone on the oil temp gauge? The water temp gauge is very hard for me to read with my current setup so I can't say what temp it is normally at.

 

If 90C is the max "safe" operating temperature that seems incredibly low. Should I not be so concerned with the temp approaching the red line on the oil temp gauge?

[Legioneod]

While on the topic of heat, the green zone is from 70-80C (or 80-90C... I can't recall of the top of my head) on the oil temp gauge. With the radiators in auto I find that oil temps are usually in the 90-100C at 250 mph. Is it safe to operate the engine above the "green" zone on the oil temp gauge? The water temp gauge is very hard for me to read with my current setup so I can't say what temp it is normally at.

 

If 90C is the max "safe" operating temperature that seems incredibly low. Should I not be so concerned with the temp approaching the red line on the oil temp gauge?

 

You can go above the green but never go above the red. My temps usually stay between the red and green area.

 

The only temp I really pay attention to is my coolant temp, everything else I just ignore for the most part. As long as my coolant temp is ok then I'm good to go.

[Integrals]

if that is the important one why did they make it so freaking hard to read:doh:

[Legioneod]

if that is the important one why did they make it so freaking hard to read:doh:

 

The coolant temp should be the easiest to read, it's left of your rpm gauge.

[Coyote Duster]

when it comes down to it what engines what's worse? the merlin (which pakard built better) having as much air shoved into it as possible? or the germans trying not to grenade their engines with nitrious oxide?

 

on another note the k4 pilots get too cocky and they come for our bases, just yesterday legion and I had to drop one as soon as we formed up

[Legioneod]

when it comes down to it what engines what's worse? the merlin (which pakard built better) having as much air shoved into it as possible? or the germans trying not to grenade their engines with nitrious oxide?

 

on another note the k4 pilots get too cocky and they come for our bases, just yesterday legion and I had to drop one as soon as we formed up

 

That was a good little fight.

 

What it comes down to is just knowing your aircraft and practicing alot.

 

The playing field isn't exactly even for various reason but a good stang pilot can take out a 109 with relative ease.

 

Flying with a wingman is essential imo.

[harf4ng]

I generally go 3000 rpm for maneuvering dogfights, 2700 cruise, and 2800 for high-speed dive-aways (after giving it a few seconds at 3000 to accelerate the AC)

Isn't 2700 a bit over the green curve? I thought in cruise we should have manifold and rpm into the green curve.

If I remember well, 2700 is one or two ticks above the green curve.

[Legioneod]

Isn't 2700 a bit over the green curve? I thought in cruise we should have manifold and rpm into the green curve.

If I remember well, 2700 is one or two ticks above the green curve.

 

For cruising I just have it right at the edge of the green

[Talisman_VR]

Hey, that's a pretty strawman you've got there.

 

First, I don't break P-51 engines in combat. I don't break them, because I know how far I can push them in DCS.

 

The POINT, for those who are actually paying attention, is that "how far I can push" the Merlin in DCS before it breaks is significantly less than how far I can push the DB605, to include overheating and the amount beyond original design HP the engine can be pushed. The Merlin will occasionally break in DCS with all temperatures in the green, at 61" or less MP.

 

As for the programmers making a "broken side", they already have. They have severely artificially handicapped the P-51 through mediocre boost levels, modeling one of the heaviest Mustang models ever built (I know Kurfurst LOVES to point out it's a very late block, but what makes it such a late block isn't aerodynamic enhancements, it is IFF and navigation systems and radios that are NOT EVEN FUNCTIONAL in DCS, yet for which the weight is accounted and therefore hurts performance! Earlier blocks actually perform better!), poor DM handling of solid shot MG projectiles, and overly frequent engine failures, which appear to have been based on the guidance Rolls Royce gave for recommended engine operating parameter, and NOT off a comparative assessment of the frequency of failures between the different engines.

 

But people still buy the Mustang. You really think LESS people would buy DCS WW2 modules if there was actually an enjoyable competition online, rather than the extremely lopsided stupidity there is now, with every weeaboo gravitating to the K4 because they think it makes an easy win?

 

We can either model REALITY, where K4s broke engines all the time, or we can model "what-if" fantasy where the reich had unlimited access to factories, workers, and high-grade alloys. If we're modeling *fantasy*, might as well go whole-hog and make a good *game* of it and admit that the US response would have been to field P-51F (no fuselage tank, 4x .50s, short-range interceptor Mustang, 2000 pounds lighter than P-51D, developed and tested ready to be put in production in by D-Day. First flight February 1944) or P-51H

 

Or we could make the game both more realistic *and* more competitive by making the DB605 have a high (historical) chance of simply blowing an engine rod if the engine is pushed into high MP (IE, MW50). By the time the K4 was in production, Germany didn't have access to good alloys. There are MANY references to Panther armor shattering because of poor alloys, and there are MANY references (from luftwaffe pilots!) to engines blowing rods because of the same reason.

 

DCS doesn't need to model the completely random failures at cruise MP for the K4. But it would be nice if MW50 came with a significant risk of engine failure. Without MW50, the K4 is still a match for the P-51D as currently (under) modeled. It then makes for a good game, because the K4 pilot has to make a hard decision on whether it's a better risk to fight the Mustang on equal terms, or risk the engine eating itself to have superior performance.

 

More realistic, better gaming. But of course luftwhiner hardliners would never have any of it.

 

And of course, Kurfurst already KNOWS better, because he's already been schooled on the subject a decade ago: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=99259

 

Thanks for posting the above link; it is very illuminating and great information.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Brigg]

Isn't 2700 a bit over the green curve? I thought in cruise we should have manifold and rpm into the green curve.

If I remember well, 2700 is one or two ticks above the green curve.

 

Yeah I've always thought that is a little strange as well0

[Integrals]

I'm so tired of this

 

 

Forget all of the bad piloting and struggles that I have with trackir & snap view... Conservatively I counted 17 tracer hits, mostly to each wing and a few to the fuselage, before the radiator was damaged which appears to have no impact on the performance of the 109. If the ratio of non tracer to tracer rounds is 10:1 that means I put somewhere between 17 and 190 rounds into the 109 and he just flew happily back to his airbase...

 

For comparison I added a clip of me getting killed while dealing with a phone call. I can't believe the 109 was that much more durable than the P-51.

 

edit- For whatever reason I can not get the video to embed in the post, sorry.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Integrals

[NineLine]

Damage model is a known area of improvement needed, and even sounds like we might possible see it as early as the new Spitfire if we are lucky.

 

I'm so tired of this

 

 

 

Forget all of the bad piloting and struggles that I have with trackir & snap view... Conservatively I counted 17 tracer hits, mostly to each wing and a few to the fuselage, before the radiator was damaged which appears to have no impact on the performance of the 109. If the ratio of non tracer to tracer rounds is 10:1 that means I put somewhere between 17 and 190 rounds into the 109 and he just flew happily back to his airbase...

 

For comparison I added a clip of me getting killed while dealing with a phone call. I can't believe the 109 was that much more durable than the P-51.

[DefaultFace]

Whilst this is frustrating the DM's being inconsistent is nothing new. Sometimes the 109 is like a tank but I can't tell you how many times Ive taken what seems like a single round or piece of shrapnel and had the prop pitch say goodbye instantly, irrellevant of where it hits. Same goes for the Stang. Sometimes they go down real quick, a crazy deflection shot with a few mk108 and mg hits and its burning or a good burst of 13mm in the engine is often an insta kill. That being said I've had other times where I've put holes upon holes upon holes in that thing and seen it smoking out of every orifice and seen it turn around at fly home.

 

As sith said the new DM is coming, nothing to do but make the best of it and wait a little longer. What irks me more is the netcode not showing AoA atm but that's a separate topic.

[Integrals]

Edit- Some posts seem to have disappeared....

 

Next.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Integrals

[DarkRaiderss]

I'm so tired of this

 

 

Forget all of the bad piloting and struggles that I have with trackir & snap view... Conservatively I counted 17 tracer hits, mostly to each wing and a few to the fuselage, before the radiator was damaged which appears to have no impact on the performance of the 109. If the ratio of non tracer to tracer rounds is 10:1 that means I put somewhere between 17 and 190 rounds into the 109 and he just flew happily back to his airbase...

 

For comparison I added a clip of me getting killed while dealing with a phone call. I can't believe the 109 was that much more durable than the P-51.

 

edit- For whatever reason I can not get the video to embed in the post, sorry.

 

 

 

I got plenty of videos of the same thing except in reverse. It isn't like the 109 has magical +3 armor. The 30mm is what makes the difference and when that's out its only the 13mm guns and then the results are much more similar.

[OutOnTheOP]

I got plenty of videos of the same thing except in reverse. It isn't like the 109 has magical +3 armor. The 30mm is what makes the difference and when that's out its only the 13mm guns and then the results are much more similar.

 

Yes, the results with the 13mm guns alone are indeed very similar to the effects of Mustang gunnery.

 

Only, they shouldn't be. The Mustang has three times as many guns, and the 12.7x99mm Browning cartridge is significantly more powerful than the 13x64mm (2900 fps for 12.7x99 versus 2500 for 13x64mm).

[DarkRaiderss]

Yes, the results with the 13mm guns alone are indeed very similar to the effects of Mustang gunnery.

 

Only, they shouldn't be. The Mustang has three times as many guns, and the 12.7x99mm Browning cartridge is significantly more powerful than the 13x64mm (2900 fps for 12.7x99 versus 2500 for 13x64mm).

 

I'm not disputing that and that would fall under the new damage model for all the planes. I just pointing out that the posted video is not specific to the 109 under how DCS handles damage for the planes. The 51 can soak up a lot of damage as well, the difference IMO is the 30mm not that the 109 has been made extra durable by ED in excess of the 51.

 

Once we get the new model the 51s guns will hopefully perform as expected. Even if less powerful, the 109s 13mm guns should also be more effective than they are now.

[otto]

Yes, the results with the 13mm guns alone are indeed very similar to the effects of Mustang gunnery.

 

Only, they shouldn't be. The Mustang has three times as many guns, and the 12.7x99mm Browning cartridge is significantly more powerful than the 13x64mm (2900 fps for 12.7x99 versus 2500 for 13x64mm).

 

They are not the same .Try doing structural damage with the 109 machineguns ,like pulling a wing off.

The advantage is that if i aim with the 109 guns they will hit the same point again and again (engine ,cockpit).I can hit with a long burst practically the same vulnerable spot.

With the mustang, because the guns are so far apart and convergence plays a big role you're only constantly hitting with 3,4 guns .From too close or too far i can aim for the engine and hit both wings or aim for the engine and hit plain air.

The advantage with the mustang guns are that they can produce more fluid leaks ,maybe start a fire,or pull a wing,tail off.Certainly easier to do than with the 109 mgs.

Edited September 7, 2016 by otto

[IronJockel]

They are not the same .Try doing structural damage with the 109 machineguns ,like pulling a wing off.

The advantage is that if i aim with the 109 guns they will hit the same point again and again (engine ,cockpit).I can hit with a long burst practically the same vulnerable spot.

With the mustang, because the guns are so far apart and convergence plays a big role you're only constantly hitting with 3,4 guns .From too close or too far i can aim for the engine and hit both wings or aim for the engine and hit plain air.

The advantage with the mustang guns are that they can produce more fluid leaks ,maybe start a fire,or pull a wing,tail off.Certainly easier to do than with the 109 mgs.

 

The Mg131 fires HE rounds what possibly makes pilot kills easier.

[Brigg]

Yeah that makes sense. Also I can flame a Pony in 1 burst with my 190, but very rarely set the LW on fire.

[Solty]

The Mg131 fires HE rounds what possibly makes pilot kills easier.

Not realy. It just requires a different aproach. With HE, you have to hit in deflection and the shot has to go into the cockpit and then fragmentation and explosion can wound/kill the pilot.

 

With API it is easier to hit the pilot because you can come from behind and penetrate the steel plate.

 

HE shell will blow up on a hard surface and AP will penetrate it (or not if it doesn't have enough energy, but thats usually not an issue at those distances.)

 

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

[IronJockel]

Not realy. It just requires a different aproach. With HE, you have to hit in deflection and the shot has to go into the cockpit and then fragmentation and explosion can wound/kill the pilot.

 

With API it is easier to hit the pilot because you can come from behind and penetrate the steel plate.

 

HE shell will blow up on a hard surface and AP will penetrate it (or not if it doesn't have enough energy, but thats usually not an issue at those distances.)

 

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

 

I wasn't speaking about reality.

The game seems to favour splash damage over punctual penetration.

A lot of the Pilot kills i did with the Dora where with Mg131 He shells from behind.

This is however just my personal impression of the current DM.

[OutOnTheOP]

The Mg131 fires HE rounds what possibly makes pilot kills easier.

 

Yes, they are "HE" rounds with a whopping 1.5 grams of explosive filler. I was waiting for someone to make the claim that 1.5 grams of WW2 explosive propelling 37 grams of projectile casing is more efficient than 17 grams of .50 cal propellant driving 42 grams of API projectile, which carries more incendiary fill than the "HE" 13mm, delivered at higher velocity, and which will throw the jacket and lead swage upon impact with anything solid anyway.

 

Even with 60+ years better technology, the US chooses API as the primary projectile of choice for .50 caliber-class MGs, because even the advances Mk211 "explosive" round (which is *still* officially classified as API!) is less efficient against vehicle targets than the good old API.

 

The .50 has more mass, moving faster, even after the HE detonates in the 13mm, so the overall kinetic energy the .50 cal API round is depositing into the target is greater. Simple physics. The 13mm has *arguably*, *marginally* better effects against aircraft skin, but the 12.7x99 is much better at deeply penetrating the canopy, pilot armor, engine block, or going deeply enough to hit radiators or fuel tanks. If 12.7x99 hits structural members, it will cut right through them; the 13x64 is far worse at that. I suspect DCS damage calculations were based on "how big a hole does it leave in thin aluminum aircraft skin", and did not take into account "how well does it penetrate to destroy vital internal components?". Realistically, at best, you can call the projectiles analogous in damaging capacity... and again, we come back to "why, then, do 2xMG131 get kills as easily as 6x M2 .50 cal"?

 

No, I'm pretty sure the reason it's so much easier to get pilot kills on the Mustang is that DCS considers any hit on the relatively large surface area of the canopy as a "cockpit hit" even when the hit would not have transited any space particularly close to the pilot, whereas hits only count as cockpit hits on the Bf109 if you hit the relatively tiny canopy, and DCS altogether throws out hits that hit the skin near the cockpit which *would*, in reality, continue on through the pilot. Just not a very good method of adjudicating hits. The new damage model should help out with that.

Edited September 7, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[harf4ng]

And when will this new damage model be out? :)

[Integrals]

I'm going to set up a red v blue P-51 server one of these days so I can't bitch any more... I just flew the 109 again and honestly flying the P-51 in the current state against it seems completely pointless.

 

I was on fire and still fighting many v 1... then managed to disengage and rtb.

 

And when will this new damage model be out?

 

not soon enough.