Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2013, 05:54 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default I realize that the P-51 CoG was moved but,

There was a fanboy group that sent documents to Oleg to get elevator stick force lowered and as a result the balance point got moved because that's how it works, that's how it's done. Since then there's been tons of discussion about fuselage tank level where I can't recall seeing anyone mention that the super-sized fuselage tank didn't get introduced until the D models.

Could maybe just maybe have the P-51B and C models CoG moved up even if it means higher elevator stick force?

Also are the sealed ailerons modeled? I expect so, the roll rate is very good.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-17-2013, 07:38 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

of course if nobody agrees or comments on changes then there should be no reason for DT to make any such change.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-17-2013, 06:13 PM
horseback horseback is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 190
Default

Nothing I've read indicates that the fuselage tank installed in the B/C models was smaller or different in any practical way from the one placed in the D/K models. The problem starts and ends with the assumption that the fuselage tank should always be filled, when it was intended to be an overload tank used only when filling the wing tanks and carrying drop tanks would not provide the range needed for the planned mission.

All Mustangs provided with the overload tanks were marked with a white (or black, in the natural metal aircraft) cross above the data stencil on the left side of the fuselage, just ahead & below the cockpit sill as a reminder. Of course, that information didn't always get to the units (or sometimes individual ground crewmen) in the field and they had to figure it out for themselves, but that is a natural fallout when your shortest supply lines are over 4,000 miles (Dallas to Liverpool) and your quickest means of duplicating documents is the mimeograph machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimeograph). It was definitely well known and understood by the time veteran units started converting to the P-51 while still in combat operations, and issues or problems due to it being full in combat were most often due to individual error, not common practice.

In any case, when filled, the fuel in the overload tank was supposed to be used over friendly/neutral territory on the way to disputed air space and be more than half empty by the time contact with the enemy was probable. Since Il-2 Sturmovik's game engine does not allow for a CG shifting due to fuel or ammo consumption, the CG should be shifted to one consistent with a nearly-empty overload tank, and 100% fuel should mean that the overload tank will not be filled (and who needs it on any maps in this game anyway?). Overload fuel should be an option for the Mustang, just like 'extra ammo' is an option for the P-47.

No doubt there will be some further issues with handling (there always is), but the Mustang used to have a pretty good reputation for good handling and responsiveness before the Il-2 Sturmovik sim series trashed it.

cheers

horseback
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-17-2013, 10:36 PM
pandacat pandacat is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horseback View Post
Since Il-2 Sturmovik's game engine does not allow for a CG shifting due to fuel or ammo consumption, the CG should be shifted to one consistent with a nearly-empty overload tank,
100% agree to this. If your can't model CG shifting in game engine, it's only fair to model the correct CG. P51 going into combat with full tanks and messed up CG is extremely rare.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-17-2013, 11:09 PM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

You know I do remember the first few patches the Mustang was a pleasantly interesting aircraft to fly before everyone started to complain and it became fairly difficult to fly.

I'd like to see it represented in a configuration that it would typically do battle in. So, I agree... if the CoG is setup in a position that represents a full rear tank then I'd like to see it altered. This would be an acceptable compromise on realism for the sake of dealing with an engine issue.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-18-2013, 12:06 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

I thought the D's were the longer range model and there might be a way to get a P-51 closer to combat condition in game. Is it just the bubble top that's different?

Zeno's has loaded some videos up on Youtube including an intro to the P-51 on handling and characteristics. It is supposed to keep alt without trim change for some range of speed changes which is a wing and tail balancing act. And before that tidbit came up there was mention of the Merlin making the plane a bit nose-heavy compared to the original Mustang. So just -maybe- a version with empty fuse tank will be less trim intensive.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-18-2013, 12:11 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandacat View Post
100% agree to this. If your can't model CG shifting in game engine, it's only fair to model the correct CG. P51 going into combat with full tanks and messed up CG is extremely rare.
It was done because some fanboys had a document that said the stick force should be light, with numbers and perhaps conditions. So we got what it took to make the elevators as light as was demanded.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-29-2013, 02:03 AM
J9Masano J9Masano is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8
Default

of course if nobody agrees or comments on changes then there should be no reason for DT to make any such change.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-29-2013, 01:37 PM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

We got past that when the change was found to have already been done.
Haven't you been keeping up?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.