The last "Uber" Plane?

[Whinner]

The P-51 - The last "Uber" Plane?

Seeing how the release time for the last patch is nearing, I'd like to ask 1c to check the numbers/code for the climb rate on the P-51. It just doesn't seem right. Everything else about the plane seems/feels right, but its climb rate is unnatural, almost like it has rocket assist. I know it's just one persons opinon and I will get flamed for asking, (Thats why I chose Whinner for a forum name) but I'm just asking that it be "checked". Afterall this (4.09) will be the "last" patch.

Sure it could be pilot skill, but I don't think so. Every pilot I've encountered flying the Mustang can climb it the same way. Either way, if any time can be squeezed out for a "check-up" this pilot wold appreciate it. Meanwhile, I will gladly accept 1c's final Fb patch no matter what.

Thanks 1c for all you've done and put up with during FB's life. I wish you good luck with your next flight sim.

[Brain32]

ROFLOLOL best forum-suicide ever :D

BTW you could check the numbers by doing a test and comparing to RL data, then if in-consistency would be shown you would only be masacred, this way...R.I.P.

[Feuerfalke]

ROFLOLOL best forum-suicide ever :D


Well said :grin:

[Whinner]

LMAO! Some one had to bring it up!

Meanwhile as for the "numbers". Don't have'em, don't know where to get'em, but I'm sure somebody out there, on either side, who has even less of a life than I and could do a 4.08/Real Stats climb rate comparison. I'd except the numbers from a valid source.

[Former_Older]

LMAO! Some one had to bring it up!

Meanwhile as for the "numbers". Don't have'em, don't know where to get'em, but I'm sure somebody out there, on either side, who has even less of a life than I and could do a 4.08/Real Stats climb rate comparison. I'd except the numbers from a valid source.

Hi

30 seconds with my favorite search engine got me this:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

It's a series of reports on...almost every model P-51 you might care to name.

:)

Are these rates of climb not in line with what you see in game? How many feet per minute did you assume the plane could achieve, and at what altitude?

Finding this info is actually fairly simple, and can help address any "gut feelings" of incorrect FM performance by putting them into an historical context, thus translating them from "gut feelings" into "useful data"

Print out the tests, keep 'em handy, and fly a few Mustangs. Then compare RoC sim vs. real tests from the war. Should kill a few hours ;)

[PBNA-Boosher]

Keep in mind, the P-51 could have been going faster than you at the time. I often wonder if people think that just because they're in, say, an Me-262 going 500 kph, that they should be faster than a P-51 going 500 kph. It's still 500 kph, no matter how you match it, both planes are going the same speed. Based on this information, if the P-51 is in an advanced energy state and you're in a late Bf-109, udging by some other posts I've seen, some people believe that just because the 109 is a 109, it should outclimb (even with inferior energy) the P-51 no matter the situation.

This is in no way a remark on you Whinner. Chances are that the P-51's you were trying to catch were in a higher energy state than you, and therefore out zoom you every time. It's the smart way to drive a 51 and often yields good results.

[IvanK]

Do some climb tests and compare to the numbers found on Spitfire testing, I think you will find them very close :)

[ElAurens]

Just another Warclouds Luftwaffle looking to nerf an Allied bird to protect his precious stats...


Nothing new here, move along....


:rolleyes:

If anything the reports Former _Older posted shows that our P51D in game is slower than real life by a fair amount.

[Brain32]

Just another Warclouds Luftwaffle looking to nerf an Allied bird to protect his precious stats...
First the WarClouds remark is completely out of place here.
Second I don't remember you trashing the guys that wanted P51 to turn like a Spitfire like that. Maybe another example of UBI objectivity Xiolablu style?



If anything the reports Former _Older posted shows that our P51D in game is slower than real life by a fair amount.
O rly? Which reports would that be? Maybe you are looking at P51H lol but most certainly not our P51D 67Hg

[Former_Older]

Now now

Whether the reports are accurate or not- I can't say. These seem legit, but I am the first to say: don't use one source in research

I have to admit though:

a P-51B-5-NA going at this level of performance:


Maximum speed at critical altitudes. (67" Hg. man. pressure & 3000 RPM)

Low Blower at 16,600 feet 430.0 MPH
High Blower at 29,400 feet 442.0 MPH

Is not something that I have seen in the sim allowing for airspeed correction, maybe I'm doing something wrong. On a 55* day, you'd need over 300 mph indicated @ 16000 feet to correct your airspeed to close to 430 mph

RoC also seems interesting to me for that aircraft:


Rate of climb at critical altitudes. (67" Hg. man. pressure & 3000 RPM)

Low Blower at 13,800 feet 3450 ft/min.
High Blower at 25,500 feet 2660 ft/min.

that is, I presume, initial climb. It's nice to note that these tests were done as follows:

"High speed and climb performances have been completed on this airplane at a take-off weight of 9205 lbs. This loading corresponds to the average P-51B combat weight with full oil, 180 gallons of fuel and specified armament and ammunition."

I doubt very much that 3450 f/min was sustainable for anything like an extended period- that data is not on the report that I can see

Now naturally there are better P-51 jocks around than some people are willing to admit, and of course good tactical control and flying discipline were real-life aspects of combat that were used to great effect..I see no reason that the same should not apply to the sim

Now personally I make any P-51 wallow and stall 50% of the time at high alt. I'm not patient enough. But I do see, when I'm being ham-fisted, Luftwaffe aircraft flying rings around me as I fight to keep from a spin. Should I conclude that those German planes are too uber? ;) The rope-a-dope tactic is embarrassing but I certainly do not let that from preventing my own use of it to win ACM

And Bosh's point is excellent. You can't assume that respective climb rates in a dogfight are like a race to alt from co-E, and so must fall back to a black and white chart. if one plane climbs great but is low and slow, but another climbs OK but has tons of E, what is it that's going to make the low and slow plane out-climb the E-hog?

[ElAurens]

The razorback P51s were the fastest of the series owing to their better aerodynamics. The bubble top D models suffered because of turbulence behind the canopy which created more drag. They also suffered a loss of stability in the yaw axis which was partially addressed by the fillet on the vertical stabilizer leading edge. The H models and later TF 51s had higher v-stab and rudder assemblys to deal with this.

And please look closely at the "clean" configuration of the D in the tests posted by Former_Older, these aircraft had the wing bomb racks in place. Try to achieve these speeds with our in game P51D with the racks in place. LOL!!!

[robtek]

who cares about a few mph here or there? in rl almost no plane reached the specifications
which were set with new or at least good cared for planes.
@elaurens, see it that way that wear and tear is simulated ;-)

[Brain32]

Actually those speeds are perfectly attainable in-game, the IAS read-out on the speed bar has an error(ask TAGERT If you don't believe me) I tested many planes in game for speed and climb rate and P51's were among to most correct ones in-game.
The P51B and C do reach the speeds mentioned and even surpass it but not by a lot, actually by a very low %, while P51D is in same error at alt as is the 190D9 '44
Generally I most certainly wouldn't say either P51B, C, or D in game is either overmodelled or undermodelled ;)

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

The P-51 as with most fighters in the game comply with real world data performance give or take a small %. The test are there to be done and you received some of the negative post you have because for years we have seen many complain and ask for a change but offer no facts, just assumptions.

S!

[Al Schlageter]

The razorback P51s were the fastest of the series owing to their better aerodynamics. The bubble top D models suffered because of turbulence behind the canopy which created more drag. They also suffered a loss of stability in the yaw axis which was partially addressed by the fillet on the vertical stabilizer leading edge. The H models and later TF 51s had higher v-stab and rudder assemblys to deal with this.
The Bs and Cs had the same yaw problem and many of them had the fillet added.
Not all the B/Cs received the -7 engine the D got. The -3 had a higher FTH than the -7.

The H also got an extended fuselage.