Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Pony talk (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=17042)

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.}{.O.R. (Post 191575)

Never use drop tanks with the Pony in IL2. They will add some drag even after you release them. 50% fuel is more than plenty for an hour of flight time, and I am not talking cruising speeds. With 25% you can stay airborne over 30 min, and with proper fuel and engine management way longer than that.
Just like you said... To me, it seems P-51 is properly modeled - as if you would drain your center fuel tank last, which was never done and actually prohibited. This tank was custom fitted in the field (correct me if I am wrong) and drastically changed Mustang's center of gravity. Hence the 'Mustang' name, stalling and everything else. IL2 doesn't model COG changes and it is my belief that with this COG the P-51D we have in game is modeled.
I am not sure about the difference between C/B and D models as you say. I found them equally 'difficult' to fly.
May Oleg and others prove me wrong.
---
I had no problems flying this thing online. It did took me a long time to master the 'Stang, but in the end I taught myself discipline that I couldn't achieve with any other plane.

I think it is a little unstable.. but like most aircraft in the sim.. it is what it is and you have to learn to fly that.. not what the historic accounts say.. but I do think it is just a little too twitchy.. Sometimes it is like trying to balance a ruler on a pencil.. The P-40 is much more stable and the MKIII IMO is more accurate than any of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 191890)

Didn't one of the MOD folks mention that there is a small mistake in the P-51D's FM values (something about length) and that may be causing the issues with the D that the other versions don't have?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire (Post 191908)

Didn't one of the MOD folks mention that there is a small mistake in the P-51D's FM values (something about length) and that may be causing the issues with the D that the other versions don't have?

Firs I've heard. Do tell... :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.}{.O.R. (Post 191942)

Firs I've heard. Do tell... :)

It was posted at "the site that shall not be named" at one point :cool:

I don't know much more about it but I filed it away in my brain with all of the other useless bits of information that I have stored away up there :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire (Post 191951)

Than we shall not speak a word of it again. :)

Yeah, my general point was why is the mk iii stable and decent to fly while the D is more unstable and tricky. The D should be an improvement (btw i know thé mk III has more boost but thats not the issue)

The D airframe's length is too short in the FM numbers. By around a foot as I recall.

Historically the early D production blocks were indeed more unstable owing to the loss of fuselage area that was cut down to make it a bubble top. The later blocks had the new tail fillet that attempted to cure the problem. The early blocks had the fillet applied in the field.

You can see the length error in the Object viewer, the razorback mustangs are all 9.83m (the correct length), whereas the D is listed as 9.38m. Not sure if this translates into the FM though, anyone know?

Same there, this is what gives a D a _slightly_ smaller stability. It's a known bug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JtD (Post 192332)

Same there, this is what gives a D a _slightly_ smaller stability. It's a known bug.

If it really affects the FM shouldn't the D model then turn better and be more agile? I don't think it's that simple to say "this is a bug which makes the plane worse". In fact, if it would really affect the FM it might be a bug that compensates the plane only real weakness, no? :P