P-51 Combat Tips and Tricks ( Dogfight Guide )

[JtD]

500 kg fuel is 100% for the Fw 190D-9 and about 70% for the P-51, which gives them similar endurance. 1900hp is indeed with boost.

[T}{OR]

Can you provide graphs with lets say 30% fuel in the Mustang and the same equivalent for 190 Dora? Something that would depict a typical online scenario (my presumption here is based on your comment that it gives them the same endurance, and that 30% fuel in Dora would be enough - it has been even longer when I last time took one up to virtual skies and I am away from my PC right now to test if it would).

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

Are you saying that the FM does not model fuel usage properly - Come to think of it, it doesn't.. otherwise we'll have people stalling out of the sky second to none

Correct. If it even models CoG shift / change based on the fuel load, it is very primitive. That is the info I have. In reality, Mustangs never operated in combat with center fuel tank full - that one was drained first as it seriously impacted its CoG and performance. We have it draining last in the game.

Speaking of, I'd love to have the ability to manually switch between different tanks during flight. Especially when flying bombers like I do nowadays (i.e. B-25 is notorious for losing fuel rapidly if you get a ruptured tank).

[pandacat]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

Are you saying that the FM does not model fuel usage properly - Come to think of it, it doesn't.. otherwise we'll have people stalling out of the sky second to none

Actually, there have been multiple posts and comments on various forums about this subject. You can go search ubi forum for instance or even google search. Even the game designer admitted that IL-2, being a 10yr old game, took a very primitive approach towards fuel management modeling. In the case of P-51, the game only models one big fuel tank; it does not distinguish between wing tanks and fuelsalage tank. As you fly and fuel drains, all the game does is subtract overall weight and prolly do a bit parallel shifting to aircraft's performance curves. But the matter of fact is that's far from accurate for a real life mustang. As I said before, two exactly same mustangs, one with 50gal in fuelsalage tank and another with 25gal each in wing tanks. Although they weigh the same their performances are vast different. But based on this particular game's modeling logics, their in-game performance will be exactly the same. If you own A2A Accu-sim p-51, which is a much more accurate portrait of real life pony than IL-2, you can do the test (just make sure you load more than 20gal in fuesalage tank; anything more than 20 will shift COG significantly). I believe DCS P-51 (FM is very similar to A2A one) can do the same although I am not 100% sure. Back in WWII, the standard procedure for P-51s on long range escort missions was to drain fuelsalage tank first, then drop tanks and wing tanks last. By the time they crossed the channel into France, their fuelsalage tank will be way below 20gal or even empty. And if they are engaged by LW at this moment onwards, they can simply dump the drop tanks and leave a clean and very manuverable plane to dogfight with enemy.

[pandacat]

Originally Posted by JtD

500 kg fuel is 100% for the Fw 190D-9 and about 70% for the P-51, which gives them similar endurance. 1900hp is indeed with boost.

That's good to know. I would imagine at 30% the curve would prolly shift out a little further. I rarely load more than 30% fuel if I have the option to choose fuel load. I am pretty sure 25% loaded Pony can fly as long as a bf109. To be on the safe side, you can load 30% fuel then bring 2 drop tanks.

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by pandacat

Actually, there have been multiple posts and comments on various forums about this subject. You can go search ubi forum for instance or even google search. Even the game designer admitted that IL-2, being a 10yr old game, took a very primitive approach towards fuel management modeling. In the case of P-51, the game only models one big fuel tank; it does not distinguish between wing tanks and fuelsalage tank. As you fly and fuel drains, all the game does is subtract overall weight and prolly do a bit parallel shifting to aircraft's performance curves. But the matter of fact is that's far from accurate for a real life mustang. As I said before, two exactly same mustangs, one with 50gal in fuelsalage tank and another with 25gal each in wing tanks. Although they weigh the same their performances are vast different. But based on this particular game's modeling logics, their in-game performance will be exactly the same. If you own A2A Accu-sim p-51, which is a much more accurate portrait of real life pony than IL-2, you can do the test (just make sure you load more than 20gal in fuesalage tank; anything more than 20 will shift COG significantly). I believe DCS P-51 (FM is very similar to A2A one) can do the same although I am not 100% sure. Back in WWII, the standard procedure for P-51s on long range escort missions was to drain fuelsalage tank first, then drop tanks and wing tanks last. By the time they crossed the channel into France, their fuelsalage tank will be way below 20gal or even empty. And if they are engaged by LW at this moment onwards, they can simply dump the drop tanks and leave a clean and very manuverable plane to dogfight with enemy.

Yeah, I have DCS+P51, and am trying it out now. It looks like DCS is taking pointers from A2A, and the manual's much the same.
What I can say is that DCS is very good and IL2 good (especially for 10+yrs).
I'm a bit skeptical about the DCS P51 stall characteristics, but maybe I'm wrong as I don't own or fly a real one.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by T}{OR

In reality, Mustangs never operated in combat with center fuel tank full -

I've seen Pierre Clostermann quoted as having fought over Europe in a P-51 on the way to his escort stage rendezvous. But of course the center tank wasn't _full_ by the time the engine warmed up, in hard turns he was experiencing control reversal due to CoG.

We have it draining last in the game.

The IL2 I have has them all drain together, all the same %.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

The IL2 I have has them all drain together, all the same %.

Must be something new then, since in v4.09 (last time I checked) you first drained the two next to your legs, and only when they were dry the one behind your shoulder started to go.

Will double check next time when I find an opportunity to take it to skies.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by T}{OR

Must be something new then, since in v4.09 (last time I checked) you first drained the two next to your legs, and only when they were dry the one behind your shoulder started to go.

Will double check next time when I find an opportunity to take it to skies.

Not new since 2007, there has only ever been 1 variable for fuel level, all tanks are the same. Oleg was clear about that every time P-51 CoG issue was raised back when he did post on the forums.

At no time has weight distribution been part of the IL2 3D model. CoG is *fixed* and does not vary.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Not new since 2007, there has only ever been 1 variable for fuel level, all tanks are the same. Oleg was clear about that every time P-51 CoG issue was raised back when he did post on the forums.

At no time has weight distribution been part of the IL2 3D model. CoG is *fixed* and does not vary.

We didn't understand each other.

I am fully aware of the fixed CoG and single tank. But if you keep track of your fuel levels throughout the flight, you will notice that the center tank drains "last".

[JtD]

If I go with 50% fuel (250 kg) for the D-9 and 30% fuel (205 kg) for the P-51, giving both a similar range and endurance at typical dogfight server loadouts, the relative performance is still about as shown in the other chart, only that climb rate is about 20m/s at sea level for both of them.