Originally Posted by Tempest123 (Post 191588)

Great video Thor, that's some nice flying. Its pretty deadly if flown by an experienced pilot

Originally Posted by Romanator21 (Post 191598)

To me it seems that because the P-51 was on the winning side of the war, that it was some wonder-machine. People love to cite how Goerring apparently said something along the lines of, we've lost the war, after seeing P-51s over Berlin. I feel he would have said the same thing (if he ever did) if those were P-40s or Spitfires. It didn't matter how good the P-51 was - all that mattered was that the daylight bombers now had an escort for their entire trip to and from Germany, making it just that much harder for German pilots to shoot them down. That's it!

It doesn't have to be un-breakable, pull fancy maneuvers, tear wings off by lobbing huge cannon rounds - it just has to be fast and keep the interceptors at bay so the bombers can do their work.

Also, keep in mind by the time the P-51 was around, the Axis forces had already lost many of their best pilots and new recruits were being pressed into service with very abbreviated training. Allied pilots, especially American, had the luxury of a full-blown training cycle, and so were better off from the start.

There's this sort of "cult of personality" about the P-51 that I wish didn't have to be. I feel that it's causing this disappointment when people first fly it, and realize it's not a La-7.

Originally Posted by Romanator21 (Post 191598)

You just need to spend more time in the P-51 and get to know its strengths.

The AI routines differ for each plane slightly (I believe Oleg had confirmed this sometime) and for some reason, the AI with the P-51 is particularly "stupid" - not attacking when the enemy on my six is right in front or him, for instance.

Using Il-2 Compare, the D is the fastest of the group, but not by much. The "problem" is that it's slow at accelerating so you have to be especially vigilant to not bleed off your speed. Try to fly it less like a Bf-109, and more like a P-38. Having a team-mate is very important in case you get in trouble.

I have been able to outrun almost anything in a P-51 if the trim is good. The only thing to give me a hard time (at low level btw) were La-7s and the dreadful I-185 type 71. I've outrun Spit25s without problem and have caught the "uber" Dora.

To me it seems that because the P-51 was on the winning side of the war, that it was some wonder-machine. People love to cite how Goerring apparently said something along the lines of, we've lost the war, after seeing P-51s over Berlin. I feel he would have said the same thing (if he ever did) if those were P-40s or Spitfires. It didn't matter how good the P-51 was - all that mattered was that the daylight bombers now had an escort for their entire trip to and from Germany, making it just that much harder for German pilots to shoot them down. That's it!

It doesn't have to be un-breakable, pull fancy maneuvers, tear wings off by lobbing huge cannon rounds - it just has to be fast and keep the interceptors at bay so the bombers can do their work.

Also, keep in mind by the time the P-51 was around, the Axis forces had already lost many of their best pilots and new recruits were being pressed into service with very abbreviated training. Allied pilots, especially American, had the luxury of a full-blown training cycle, and so were better off from the start.

There's this sort of "cult of personality" about the P-51 that I wish didn't have to be. I feel that it's causing this disappointment when people first fly it, and realize it's not a La-7.

All that said, I feel it's great online if flown carefully. (Thor's video is proof of that!)

I've not flown a real Mustang myself, but someone who did has said that while it's fast as it should be, some aspects of the handling are not quite the same.



It would be interesting to note that a particular Brewster Buffalo has more kills attributed to it than any other airframe used in WWII :grin:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger (Post 191621)

as for stability and fuselage tank, the Mustangs we fly with have both their central tanks removed to accommodate a jump seat, but aerobatics are still possible without issues. The real problem was probably the fact that fuel would wash around, causing longitudinal instability.

@ Galway: pilots' comments like the one you posted are what have probably negatively influenced the thoughts and ideas of people who are not into aviation but are passionate about it.
The Spitfire is one of the most over-rated aeroplanes in history, not for its characteristics per se, but mainly for the propaganda fame that it gained.
As of today, I have never met a pilot who has flown both the Spit and Mustang and thinks the former is better (apart for turns that is): under a piloting point of view everything is so functional and well arranged (controls, systems, visibility), and performance wise the experience is breath taking.
The Spitfire might handle better in turns because it's a light machine with a beautiful wing, but the Mustang is superior in pretty much every other aspect.
The idea of "the best plane is the one that can turn tighter" is unfortunately a die hard myth..
The reality is that most of the aeroplanes that flew with the Spitfire were equal if not superior in terms of overall performance..

The P-51 delivered all that it was needed for, and then some. Its performance, range, punch, manoeuverability and versatility made it the most cost effective fighter of WW2, anyone who says the contrary is just plain wrong.