The P-51D Conundrum

[DoubleTap68]

Perhaps I'm misusing this legend, perhaps I spend too much time with it down in the weeds, and let me apologize if this has been addressed somewhere else in this forum.

I'd love to hear you guys comment on the performace of the P-51D. Seems fast, and has pretty good quickness, but, to me, it's very unstable when you need to turn in a hurry. Any nudge of the rudder when you're in a tight bank makes her want to flat spin in a hurry.

Am I doing something fundamentally wrong with controlling her? Is she purely a high-altitude beast? Is she gimped in the game somehow? Comments welcome.

[Smidlee]

It already been brought up many times, P-51 in this game flies like the space shuttle.

[SleepTrgt]

pfft, try flying the FW 190 F8 ;)

[Soviet Ace]

The P-51D is a strict high altitude fighter. It was meant to escort bombers to and from Germany, so they had to keep them high flying to protect the bombers. 109s, and 190Ds were both High Altitude, so the P-51 had to be as well. You can't protect a bomber from below?

(And FYI, it has been asked already. But it never hurts to just ask?)

[Xtinct]

You are not doing anything wrong, The P-51D is a joke in this game.

It's easier to fly that thing IRL than in this game.

[Soviet Ace]

pfft, try flying the FW 190 F8 ;)

That's because the F8 wasn't even a fighter anymore. The A5 is really the beginning of when the 190s became more fighter bombers, than just fighters. I would say the A3 was the last best 190 dogfighter? But that's me.

[Raw Kryptonite]

I feel like I'm walking a tightrope when I fly that thing. Get off balance and you'll be eating dirt.
I get the high altitude bit, but I'm sorry this thing isn't right. I'm anxious to see the tweak. They said it came straight from the original game, but that thing isn't flawless either.

[SleepTrgt]

That's because the F8 wasn't even a fighter anymore. The A5 is really the beginning of when the 190s became more fighter bombers, than just fighters. I would say the A3 was the last best 190 dogfighter? But that's me.

i know but yet you have to win 20 matches in Dogfight or Team battle, wich truly is a pain, hell even dive bombers have a nice rear gunner.

[manintrees]

If the P-51D was desined for high altitude then I wonder why it's used in a tree top mission.
There is no doubt that it is twitchy in this game but I have still managed to take out a handful of FW-190's and complete the strafing mission.

[MorgothNL]

If the P-51D was desined for high altitude then I wonder why it's used in a tree top mission.
There is no doubt that it is twitchy in this game but I have still managed to take out a handful of FW-190's and complete the strafing mission.

still... it should not fly like it is flying in this game, altitude plays a role, a big one, but the P-51 is just unflyable at ANY altitude in this game.

yes it did shine at high altitude, it was a high alt performer, but is was not a low altitude sucker.

some people keep on defending the performance of the P-51 in this game, by saying 'it was a high alt performer'. but really, it was still 10 times better at low altitude, than the one in the game.

what im saying is: the P-51 was GOOD at low/medium altitudes, it was at least an equal to the 109 in dogfights.
the P-51 DOMINATED the 109 at high altitudes, because it would not lose performance, were the 109 did.

so still at tree top level, you should at least be able to give a 109 a hard time, with the P-51 in this game, you simply CANT.

[Antinko1]

Hmm, well all I know is that the P-51D in IL-2 Forgotten Battles is a pleasure to fly; whereas, this game's version is twitchy to the point of being ridiculous.

I've played a lot with my sensitivity settings too - the thing is just on a hair trigger.

[MorgothNL]

Hmm, well all I know is that the P-51D in IL-2 Forgotten Battles is a pleasure to fly; whereas, this game's version is twitchy to the point of being ridiculous.

I've played a lot with my sensitivity settings too - the thing is just on a hair trigger.

thats the strange thing :confused:. I loved the P-51 in IL-2 FB, I just found its guns a bit underpowered.
I asked about that in the other forum, and the devs said, the flight models are the same ones in Il-2 FB as they are in this game.

but no way that the P-51 is handling the same. I loved it in FB, I hate in in BOP :(

[Smidlee]

I was wondering the same thing.
These post would be a complete joke if someone suggested the same thing in BoP:
Someone asked what would be the best beginner online plane (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/147104993?r=323106993#323106993) 5 years ago and someone posted ... I think the P-51 is your best bet as it performs well and handles well, yet it will be out-climbed by other planes and it doesn't hold its energy as well as some planes. You will still be very competitive but the characteristics of the plane will also help teach you many important aspects of aerial combat (like gaining altitude whenever possible, not turning too tightly as to bleed your energy, etc.). Flying a plane that simply turns really well (Zero, I-153, etc.) won't really improve your skills much either, the most effective people in good turning planes are the ones who understand the other aspects as well.

I would give the Mustang a try. Just my opinion.
Here another reply Probably the P-51, very forgiving handling and great overall performance. There isn't nothing forgiving about P-51 in BoP

[Antinko1]

In FB, the Mustang is twitchy but you don't need much stick input because you can fly the thing with frequent trim adjustments. Still, even when you're not flying it with fine tuned trim, it isn't as twitchy as it is in BoP.

I might have to purchase an AV8R stick to see what the difference is when flying. I suspect that no matter how toned down you have the sensitivity, you'll be prone to over controlling the plane with that twiddly little thumb stick.

I'll play around with it a bit...

[MorgothNL]

I might have to purchase an AV8R stick to see what the difference is when flying.

I'll play around with it a bit...


dont buy it if you think it will benefit the P-51... it doenst. just buy it because it is nicer than a pad ;), just dont think it will save the P-51

[Pup]

I've found the same thing with the P-51. The thing is, I don't remember it being as unforgiving in the demo for the Tiger Hunt mission. Also, if the plane is designed to be flown at higher altitudes, then it don't help much when you get missions with it like Tiger Hunt to fire rockets at ground targets and fend off enemy fighters :)

[o351]

I've found the same thing with the P-51. The thing is, I don't remember it being as unforgiving in the demo for the Tiger Hunt mission. Also, if the plane I is designed to be flown at higher altitudes, then it don't help much when you get missions with it like Tiger Hunt to fire rockets at ground targets and fend off enemy fighters :)

great point about tiger hunt! i may have 8 to 10 hrs in the p-51d and I getting better so if you like it dont give up, learn to use its advanteges and slowly add back the elevator do not touch the airleorns(settings) and every turn needs some rudder! I have and love the av8r however when you stall its a little tough to recover but by all means I would recommend this stick!
p.s. Im at about 45 kill on capture the airfeild with my p-51d so about 5 more hours and I have my rockets :)
p.s.s. if anyone wants to fly there mustangs with me hit me up GT. o351 I prefere CTA and Strike (if we play strike you can escort my B-17:grin:

[MorgothNL]

GOOD NEWS P-51 FANS!

Im gonna qoute a dev here:
Hello guys!

We studied P-51 flight model and made some minor corrections. Our QA team are checking it right now.
All flight models were taken from PC IL-2.

and later:
So last updates: we have found some issues, that were indeed in the game. Long story how it happend, but it is fixed.
Also, good guess from you, guys, help us to increase performance of P51 - it has full fuel tanks, and this decreased it performance.


so we might get a nice P-51 after all ! :grin:

[dzyeph]

GOOD NEWS P-51 FANS!

Im gonna qoute a dev here:
Hello guys!

We studied P-51 flight model and made some minor corrections. Our QA team are checking it right now.
All flight models were taken from PC IL-2.

and later:
So last updates: we have found some issues, that were indeed in the game. Long story how it happend, but it is fixed.
Also, good guess from you, guys, help us to increase performance of P51 - it has full fuel tanks, and this decreased it performance.


so we might get a nice P-51 after all ! :grin:
Registered just to say that's brilliant, really looking forward to a nicer-handling P-51, I started off thinking I was absolutely terrible as the P-51 was the first plane I tried on realistic but quickly came to the conclusion it was the plane I was having severe issues with.

Very shiny :)

[Raw Kryptonite]

This make sense now. Full of fuel that thing could barely fly, much less maneuver and accelerate on demand. By the time it got to it's objective it would have burned enough off to be effective.
Really happy with Gaijin for listening to everyone.

[Pup]

I just read this over on the dev forums, great news. The fact it is in the QA process makes me kinda hopeful that the rest of the patch is too, but I can only hope :D

[King Jareth]

Has anyone tried putting it on limited fuel on training (1 AI on rookie in something easy to avoid) unlimited time just to see what its like at a lower fuel load?

[MorgothNL]

This make sense now. Full of fuel that thing could barely fly, much less maneuver and accelerate on demand. By the time it got to it's objective it would have burned enough off to be effective.
Really happy with Gaijin for listening to everyone.

are you saying, that if I would take a P-51 mission, and first flew for hours, and then tried to dogfight. It will actually fly like it is going to be flying after the update?

Do you reallly notice that much difference from the burning fuel in this game?
And if it was a full tank, like the devs said, it would take about 6 hours to burn the fuel to a nice combat amount :P

[King Jareth]

If you can trim to a nice level flight you could just leave it flying in training and go do something else*, the map edge magic turn around would do all the work.

(*-popping back now and then to check its all okay, and assuming you made the AI plane something slow and with equally as big tanks....and stupid.).

[MorgothNL]

If you can trim to a nice level flight you could just leave it flying in training and go do something else*, the map edge magic turn around would do all the work.

(*-popping back now and then to check its all okay, and assuming you made the AI plane something slow and with equally as big tanks....and stupid.).

for about 6 hours ?:P Only by that time, will you have 'the same amount' of fuel left, as a bf-109.

because that is what we want right? to have the same endurance in the P-51 as in a 109. I dont want the 'advantage' of having a higher endurance. I want the same endurance, and with the according performance.

i know the P-51 strenghts are the endurance and its high alt performance, but in this game you dont fly above 5000' and to stay in the air for more than 30 min :rolleyes:.

[King Jareth]

I'm not suggesting you do it every game!

are you saying, that if I would take a P-51 mission, and first flew for hours, and then tried to dogfight. It will actually fly like it is going to be flying after the update?

Do you reallly notice that much difference from the burning fuel in this game?

It was meerly a way to answer your question.

[MorgothNL]

I'm not suggesting you do it every game!



It was meerly a way to answer your question.

I know :P, and I thank you. I might actually try it, but not for 6 hours, maybe just 2, and see if there is a difference.


I wasnt saying it was a stuppid answer, because it is the only way to find out. It was just wondering if you actually thought I would do that for 6 hours :P (and you're right, I even might :P)

[beaker126]

Wasn't it fairly common practice to jettison the left over fuel in your wing tanks before you actually got into combat? As I understand it was done for safety but it would also have the beneficial effects we've been talking about.

[MorgothNL]

Wasn't it fairly common practice to jettison the left over fuel in your wing tanks before you actually got into combat? As I understand it was done for safety but it would also have the beneficial effects we've been talking about.

I know about dropping the external tanks (ofcourse), but never heard that they jettisonned the fuel in the internal tanks. (not saying its not true!, it make total sense to do it).
I hope the devs will just fill the internal tanks for 25% or so, thats more than enough, and will hopefully make it fly like the 1946 version

[HauptmannMolders]

Keep in mind this mid tank that caused all the handling problems was used first while taking off, flying across the channel and then god knows how far over continental Europe. VERY glad they are addressing this the P51 should be one of the top planes in the game, period.

[Raw Kryptonite]

are you saying, that if I would take a P-51 mission, and first flew for hours, and then tried to dogfight. It will actually fly like it is going to be flying after the update?

Do you reallly notice that much difference from the burning fuel in this game?
And if it was a full tank, like the devs said, it would take about 6 hours to burn the fuel to a nice combat amount :P

Maybe, but I wouldn't want to bother testing it. I guess you could start a strike round with unlimited time but limited fuel to find out, but I don't think it's worth it.

[Cwl]

well no wonder the plane sucks- if its a flying gas tank it's not going to be a good dogfighter until most of it's fuel is gone.

[rocketassistedllama]

Howdilli...the mustang's my favourite plane [did'nt give a damn about it, 'till this game]-I love the way it handles, and its bite!
I have no trouble shooting down enemy planes using the 360 controller on realistic, although the Mustang has, admittedly; killed me more times than the enemy;0)
It's a big, heavy, hotrod of an escort fighter-with similar flight/handling characteristics to that other great escort fighter; the p-47 [so I'm told.] That sounds about right to me; the size hence weight of these planes were dictated by the amount of fuel they had to carry....add a big 2000hp plus Merlin, and a 4th fuel tank behind the pilot, up high....] I can believe the plane really handled like this.
The secret to turning seems to be; #1;do an immelmann-to twist 180 degrees, and #2;I sort of 'jerk' the plane round, looks like my plane's bunny-hopping....I'm guessing the energy bleeds off it quickly...hence the 'hopping around.' Turning smoothly, just seems to make it stall. Speaking of which; you can tell when you're about to stall-'cause the plane [any plane] feels like it's balanced on the tip of a needle...
Handles much like the Fw.190 d9....

[trk29]

It's good that they are working on this plane, but I have been flying this bird more often now, mostly in training and setting the AI to Veteran I know it's not the same as flying against a human but since I have turned down the sensitivity 3 notches I have only stalled and crashed once out of about ten flights, so I think I am getting the hang of it.

I'll try it more tomorrow on MP.

[Antinko1]

Hmm, ok so I did some additional testing and I must admit that the full fuel load idea didn't occur to me. In FB I never fly with more than 50% fuel in the P-51.

Anyway, I've just been playing in sim mode a lot more and I realised what I was doing with trim - the tutorial is misleading because it made me think that simply tapping 'trim' would trim the plane. Now I know that you have to move the sticks too (nice idea), it's easy...very easy.

Subsequently, I've found flying the P-51 easy now, and now I know that you can trim it the way you want to, I'm finding it just fine to fly. All you need to do is stay fast, trim frequently and not be too forceful on the stick.

I'm still using the 360 pad and I think I'll stay with it for a little while. I can't afford an AV8R right now.

I haven't stalled/spun the P-51 ever since I realised that trim was implemented the way it is, as opposed to the simple 'one button press fixes all' job I thought it was.

[Marchochias]

Hmm, ok so I did some additional testing and I must admit that the full fuel load idea didn't occur to me. In FB I never fly with more than 50% fuel in the P-51.

Anyway, I've just been playing in sim mode a lot more and I realised what I was doing with trim - the tutorial is misleading because it made me think that simply tapping 'trim' would trim the plane. Now I know that you have to move the sticks too (nice idea), it's easy...very easy.

Subsequently, I've found flying the P-51 easy now, and now I know that you can trim it the way you want to, I'm finding it just fine to fly. All you need to do is stay fast, trim frequently and not be too forceful on the stick.

I'm still using the 360 pad and I think I'll stay with it for a little while. I can't afford an AV8R right now.

I haven't stalled/spun the P-51 ever since I realised that trim was implemented the way it is, as opposed to the simple 'one button press fixes all' job I thought it was.

What exactly do you do with the sticks to trim it? I thought you just angle the aircraft the way you want it, and then hit the trim button to set it there.

The P-51D for me is a horrible dogfighter, you can't take any risks with it since it will always spin, and is much harder to recover from a spin than most other aircraft.

[Ancient Seraph]

What exactly do you do with the sticks to trim it? I thought you just angle the aircraft the way you want it, and then hit the trim button to set it there.

In Arcade and Realistic the aircraft is trimmed automatically. In Sim you just press A (on Xbox) to trim it to the attitude you are maintaining at that moment.

[Marchochias]

In Arcade and Realistic the aircraft is trimmed automatically. In Sim you just press A (on Xbox) to trim it to the attitude you are maintaining at that moment.

Yeah, that's what I've been doing. I thought he meant that there was something more to it.

[Xx RTEK xX]

The only way I can fly the mustang without it going out of control is to lower the sensitivity on both the aeirlons and elevators down to only 8 notches. I'm definately going to have to get a flight stick though, playing with the gamepad sucks because you barely move the stick and your maxed out.

My opinion goes along with ya'lls, the mustang should be tweaked because this does not fly, nor handle anything like a mustang.

[SgtPappy]

Has anyone here managed to fly a real P-51 with fuel tanks fully loaded before?

The plane carries 92 US gallons in each of two fuel tanks in the wings plus an additional 85 US gallons in the rear fuselage behind the pilot. With that thing full, the P-51D's CoG goes out of whack and is VERY hard to handle.

P-51's had a HUGE wing loading; they were relatively heavy for their size and did not have much wing area to pull all that weight around unlike a Zero which easily does so.

Like mentioned, P-51's were flown high and fast, not low and slow, and they carried larger, heavier equipment (radio transmitters, receivers, rear fuel tanks) which most of current, restored P-51D's do not carry.

That said, I have something random to bring up: the P-51 "B" shown on the site is a Mustang Mk.Ia... it's got 4x 20 mm cannon in its wings and an Allison engine, identified by the top intake. P-51B's were Merlin-equipped planes with 4x .50 cals. Has anyone else noticed this?

[Soviet Ace]

Well I was just trying the P-51D Online, and I got my ass handed to me. Without a doubt I cannot fly it. It has got to be the worst plane to fly outside the smaller and lighter MC202 which according to what I've read and been told by my Grandfather, does not handle like it should either.

I flew it as high as possible, and still against the other planes I had problems. I went up against a MKIX Spit in Simulator, and he chewed me up. I even went up against a Me109E, just to see, and I got my ass handed to me.

Bottom line, the P51D needs some SERIOUS looking over, and overhaul. My friends grandfather who flew P51Ds and other variants in WW2 and Korea, even said that the plane handled terrible. He didn't play it, but my friend called me and showed it to his grandfather, and he (grandfather) was outraged.

I like the P51D a lot, I mean it was one of my favorite American fighters of WW2 in Europe. But with the way it handles, it doesn't work like it should. I say a total overhaul is in order :P Not really, but it does need some serious fixing.

[Lexandro]

I played a dude a week ago that was pretty damn good with the 'Stang on Arcade. He was using BnZ attacks, pure speed, and high angle manouvers to good effect. He got me a couple of times, and I him. It was a pretty intense match up, so Kudos to the guy especially as I was in my favourite Spitfire.

[mattmanB182]

I played a dude a week ago that was pretty damn good with the 'Stang on Arcade. He was using BnZ attacks, pure speed, and high angle manouvers to good effect. He got me a couple of times, and I him. It was a pretty intense match up, so Kudos to the guy especially as I was in my favourite Spitfire.

I have also seen some gutsy people do well with the mustang. Just imagine how good these guys will be when the plane is fixed.

[Steyr_amr]

I always imagined it was something to do with the laminar flow wing (and high power to weight ratio of the P-51 particularly) inducing these stall/spins.

My thinking being boundary layer separation and therefore low speed instability occur much more readily and suddenly in aircraft with them. Compare to something like a Stuka or hurricane with a thick leading edge which can dance around all day, but not particularly fast nor frugal. Engineering is always a compromise.

The P-51 was designed for speed, e-retention and most importantly endurance, to babysit the bombers to Berlin and back.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, merely a layman here.

[Robotic Pope]

I always imagined it was something to do with the laminar flow wing (and high power to weight ratio of the P-51 particularly) inducing these stall/spins.

My thinking being boundary layer separation and therefore low speed instability occur much more readily and suddenly in aircraft with them. Compare to something like a Stuka or hurricane with a thick leading edge which can dance around all day, but not particularly fast nor frugal. Engineering is always a compromise.

The P-51 was designed for speed, e-retention and most importantly endurance, to babysit the bombers to Berlin and back.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, merely a layman here.

Well the Mustang wasn't originaly designed as an escort fighter with endurance being all inportant. It just kinda happened with the addition of the Merlin engine. In fact the USAAF ignored the Mustang design until the Pearl Habour attack and then first started using them as low level recon planes (F6A's) and Dive bombers (A36 Invader's)

The Mustang was designed for the RAF as a high speed/low drag fighter and it failed in that respect and was rejected by RAF command It was moved on to the ACC(army co-op command) as recon/close support.

[SgtPappy]

Yes, generally something that has laminar flow wings as opposed to a conventional wing of similar properties and dimensions (except the laminar flow property of course) will generate less lift at the same given speed at the same, higher AoA.

But not always. Sooo many other factors involved too. But I'm thinking here that either
1) people aren't using the Mustang as an energy fighter, as they should almost never turn in the plane or
2) It really just IS that bad, AND people fit in also to #1.

[By-Tor]

Ive been reading about WW2 planes since I was a child, and playing WW2 flight sims for a long time , since Ien Warbirds came along and blew my mind.
Everything I've ever read about the P-51 in cambat has pointed to the fact that the FLAPS were everything in its being able to manuever in combat. I've read many acounts of pilots turning inside 109s (let alone 190s). The trick was deploying flaps(which were incremental). Flap use had to be done very judiciously, as they bled energy like mad. The trick was to only deploy them when pulling for angles at the proper moments and pulling lead for the shot.
Effective ACM is all about WHEN to pull G's, with regard to where in the RELATIVE circles you are with the enemy and what attitude your nose is in at the moment. Its not just about which circle has a smaller radius, but where in 3-D space these circles intersect, and the relative position of the circles on the horizontal vs. vertical plane.An energy fighter rolling out vertically can easily turn INSIDE a smaller horizontal radius. =eadg= was the master of this tactic in Warbirds and dominated the old dueling ladders using this tactic. Just pulling G's in an ongoing circle is ineffective in an energy fighter like the P-51. But accounts Ive read say that it could turn VERY tighly for a quarter or half-circle, but then you need to back off the stick, or E-bleed will slow you to doom level very quickly! Unfortunately, flaps are not available in realistic mode which I fly for the immersion factor of the 'target lock' view. I've spent years using the old static hat views and can use them well, but the visual immersion of seeing the smooth 'pan' is something I can't go back from now. Just beautiful to behold!
Hopefully the new P-51 fixes will help keep this fighter flying online. Be a shame to do without her beautifull lines
in my sights :) I've always been a 'knife-fighter' myself.

[tango2delta]

Ive been reading about WW2 planes since I was a child, and playing WW2 flight sims for a long time , since Ien Warbirds came along and blew my mind.
Everything I've ever read about the P-51 in cambat has pointed to the fact that the FLAPS were everything in its being able to manuever in combat. I've read many acounts of pilots turning inside 109s (let alone 190s). The trick was deploying flaps(which were incremental). Flap use had to be done very judiciously, as they bled energy like mad. The trick was to only deploy them when pulling for angles at the proper moments and pulling lead for the shot.
Effective ACM ia all about WHEN to pull G's, with regard to where in the relative circles you are with the enemy and what attitude your nose is in at the moment. Just pulling G's in an ongoing circle is ineffective in an energy fighter like the P-51. But accounts Ive read say that it could turn VERY tighly for a quarter or half-circle, but then you need to back off the stick, or E-bleed will slow youto doom level very quickly! Unfortunately, flaps are not available in realistic mode which I fly for the immersion factor of the 'target lock' view. Ive spent years using the old static hat views and can use them well, but the visual immersion of seeing the smooth 'pan' is something I cant go back from now. Just beautiful to behold.
Hopefully the new P-51 fixes will help keep this fighter flying online. Be a shame to do without her beautifull lines
in my sights :) I've always been a 'knife-fighter' myself.

You are right, the flaps are a must. Thats why i only fly simulation becouse you have to work them flaps, we need moor flap options, i find my self lowering the gear to get full flaps at low speed turn fights and then retract the wheels in the P-51B/D. But it would help a lot to go in to battle with less fuel like in IL-2 1946 MP.

[fuzzychickens]

still... it should not fly like it is flying in this game, altitude plays a role, a big one, but the P-51 is just unflyable at ANY altitude in this game.

yes it did shine at high altitude, it was a high alt performer, but is was not a low altitude sucker.

some people keep on defending the performance of the P-51 in this game, by saying 'it was a high alt performer'. but really, it was still 10 times better at low altitude, than the one in the game.

what im saying is: the P-51 was GOOD at low/medium altitudes, it was at least an equal to the 109 in dogfights.
the P-51 DOMINATED the 109 at high altitudes, because it would not lose performance, were the 109 did.

so still at tree top level, you should at least be able to give a 109 a hard time, with the P-51 in this game, you simply CANT.

It was not the equal of the 109 at low/med altitude given equal pilot skill. Please, that is just myth. It kicks the 109's butt at high alt period and was inferior at low to med with 109 because the 109 could easily outclimb and outturn it at lower levels.

109k4 has about 2000hp with empty weight of around 5300 lbs.

p-51D has about 1700hp with empty weight around 7000 lbs.

So not counting fuel, 109k-4 already has generous hp to weight advantage. Most stats show max climb of K-4 being over 40% better than P-51D max climb.

The math says at altitudes where superchargers are not an issue, the K-4 mops up big time on the P-51D. They are not even close.

Add in the fact that the P-51 uses a laminar flow wing designed to give efficiency at the cost of lift, you also get a plane prone to violent stalls. So you won't be smart fight low and slow against a 109 with decent pilot in a P-51.

P-51 excels at high speed and high altitude. Other than the slight error that the developers say will be fixed regarding weight data, the plane was modeled true base off the pc version.

I played IL2 on PC online many many times and met many many pilots capable of kicking my butt with their p-51s against my 109, they learned how to use the damn plane right. A lot of people playing the console version want the plane to be a mythical version of reality - and want to use the plane in a way it didn't historically excel and still get results.

[MorgothNL]

I have played the PC version as well for a long time, and I also was more than able to outfly 109's. Thats all im looking for, Im not going in a turn battle with a 109, but I do want to have the performance to outfly him in other ways than turning.

I hope the P-51 in BOP will be flying like the PC version P-51. This and adding the red/blackouts, should make the P-51 a good opponent with a decent pilot.

Like I said, I dont want it to outperform all the other planes, but when I fly my spit against a bf109 pilot that I beat with 15-1, I want to be able to beat him in a P-51 as well. I want to be afraid of someone who is master of the P-51. now I dont care whos in it, he will lose

[fuzzychickens]

Hopefully the weight error they say will be fixed is the issue. I want to think they left the flight model untouched from the PC version - because it was pretty darn good.

If they fix the weight issue and the P-51 still performs worse than the PC counter-part, then I would agree something was screwed up.

[FOZ_1983]

not sure what needs to be done with the P51....


Maybe just make it possible to turn without stalling, and also keep the turn radius as it is perhaps (cant think how good it is since ive not really used it since the campaign) but make it so that it doesnt lose so much speed!! it loses so much in a turn/climb and take forever to gain any speed when throttling up etc.

Shame because its a nice looking bird.