Pony talk

[WTE_Galway]

@TEMPEST123

You are correct that the fuselage tank historically caused directional stability problems and as a result was really more of a ferry tank, acrobatic style maneuvers were forbidden when it still contained fuel and that tank was meant to be emptied first.

HOWEVER I am pretty certain that fuselage tank was first fitted on the P51B and C so any in-game stability issues resulting from the fuselage tank should show up on those models as well.

[Romanator21]

However I am pretty certain that fuselage tank was first fitted on the P51B and C so any in-game stability issues resulting from the fuselage tank should show up on those models as well.

The B and C have the rear fuel tanks in game as well. To me they handle just like the D, but are not quite as fast (according to Il-2 compare). I really prefer the lines of the B over any other though.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

The B and C have the rear fuel tanks in game as well. To me they handle just like the D, but are not quite as fast (according to Il-2 compare). I really prefer the lines of the B over any other though.

And Romanator21 has just pointed out a major flaw in the B/C models. The early razor backed P 51s were the fastest versions to fly in combat. Typically about 20mph faster than a bubble top D model.

Also much is said about how much better the Merlin engine Mustangs are, because of their performance at altitude. It should be noted that the Mustang 1s that saw service with the RAF were the fastest aircraft in Europe below 15,000 ft. when they were put in service. The Allison P51s were not dogs.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

And Romanator21 has just pointed out a major flaw in the B/C models. The early razor backed P 51s were the fastest versions to fly in combat. Typically about 20mph faster than a bubble top D model.

Also much is said about how much better the Merlin engine Mustangs are, because of their performance at altitude. It should be noted that the Mustang 1s that saw service with the RAF were the fastest aircraft in Europe below 15,000 ft. when they were put in service. The Allison P51s were not dogs.

Actually Romanator doesn't quite have it right. The P-51D is faster at low altitudes but the P-51B/C are the fastest (except the Mustang Mark III in game) Mustang available and peak at a higher top speed at a higher altitude than the P-51D. All according to IL-2 Compare.

However, if you're down lower then the P-51D is the faster plane. As far as I know this does represent reality with a reasonable level of accuracy (the B/C were tuned in one way and the D recieved a different supercharger tuning).

[Romanator21]

Maybe - I don't ever use boost except in extreme situations, so I wouldn't know what performance it can attain under those settings. At low altitude, boost does nothing but cook the engine, so it's best to leave it off no matter what.

The reason why the Mustang doesn't shine in IL-2 is because 99% if the time it's being flown in turning dogfights down in the mud. No matter how good the P-51 was in reality, it just couldn't do what some pilots demand of it.

The thing that I always consider to be the most important with the Mustang is the simple notion that the P-51B/C/D Mustang has similar power to the Spitfire IX (roughly 1500hp) but it's top speed and general performance is closer to that of the Spitfire XIV (at roughly 2000hp). Generally speaking...

This is very true. It weighs 7,640 lbs empty, while Spit Mk.9 weighs 5610 lbs empty. The engines have the same output of 1690 Hp. Yet the Mustang can go 30 mph faster than the Spitfire.

This shows just how aerodynamically refined the Mustang is, but it should be abundantly clear that with its weight it cannot accelerate like the Spitfire, cannot climb like one, and cannot be subjected to the same maneuvers - it will lose all its speed and become a sitting duck if you try. It's not a "do anything" plane in this sense, but it doesn't matter. Strategically, it was enough. Be miserly with her airspeed, and the Pony will treat you well.

This is the truth, like it or not the P-51 is a generation ahead of 1930's designs like the spitfire and 109 aerodynamically. Like has been mentioned it had so many advantages, steerable tailwheel by pulling the control stick, advanced aerodynamics, high quality construction and excellent cockpit and visibility.

The Fw-190 is another design which has these features and is very clean aerodynamically. I don't think the P-51 was "a generation" ahead of this and similar planes.

I suggest everyone who believes the Mustang is badly porked in IL-2 to play CFS-1 and Aces High II like I have. You may be surprised to find that it shares many characteristics with the Il-2 one:

1) Fast but slow to accelerate to top speed
2) Can't climb quickly and maintain high speed
3) Can't turn sharply and maintain high speed
4) "Glass jaw" engine that can be stopped with small-caliber rounds.
5) .50 cals take time to do work on a target - effective at convergence - causes opponents to bleed out rather than blow up.
6) Very unpopular with the majority of players who prefer turning fights and has been subject to claims of porking, etc.

The FM issues with the Mustang are minor, relatively speaking, comparable to the quirks in the FM of other planes. It would be great if fixed, but I don't think it will turn it into an uber online dog-fighter just like that.

[Ctrl E]

Looking forward to the pony in the installment of storm of war Korea. Twin mustang too

[IceFire]

I really like flying the P-51 although I have noticed the D for a long time has been particularly prone to stalling where the other two weren't quite as much. The thing that I do get bothered by is the "history channel" mentality... I was there too and one point and considered the Mustang to be the real wonder fighter of the war. That's all that I had ever read about...

Reality is one of those things and it turns out the Mustang is an exceptional aircraft but it's not a physics defying wonder. It has it's advantages and it's disadvantages...

The thing that I always consider to be the most important with the Mustang is the simple notion that the P-51B/C/D Mustang has similar power to the Spitfire IX (roughly 1500hp) but it's top speed and general performance is closer to that of the Spitfire XIV (at roughly 2000hp). Generally speaking...

So when I think about it that way it affects how I fly the Mustang - the Mustang is a streamlined aircraft and I should do everything to maintain that streamlining. Any drag, extra weight, or battle damage will affect that overall top speed more than in a fighter that has more power at it's disposal. The Mustang favours being flown smoothly than roughly... You don't toss one around like a Yak-3. Fly it right and in many cases you will be close to untouchable... It's that good.

The Mustang in IL-2 always gave me the impression of a half finished job..
The ground handling (and the non steering tailwheel in particular) is too stiff, the landing gear doors should come down as soon as the engine go off..
As for the handling, the thing that is mostly wrong is the roll rate: the Mustang has a surprising fast roll rate from low altitude.
I have to admit I haven't played with it for some time (I'm mostly a 109 guy), so I don't remember how it performs in terms of stall characteristics (remember that the laminar flow wing meant no buffeting before stall), but I have just this memory of a quite chunky ride..

SJ

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.

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

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.

This is the truth, like it or not the P-51 is a generation ahead of 1930's designs like the spitfire and 109 aerodynamically. Like has been mentioned it had so many advantages, steerable tailwheel by pulling the control stick, advanced aerodynamics, high quality construction and excellent cockpit and visibility. I know it's hard to admit sometimes for people because the mustang gets overhyped (and I am not american), but the mustang is really probably the best overall fighter design when each aspect of the aircraft and its operation is looked at. Unfortunately Il2 doesn't really show these advantages. Though as Thor has shown, it's still good enough to be a killer in the right hands.