Just curious about the P-51 FM

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by horseback

The Mustang is not the only aircraft affected. All of the late war US fighters started experiencing 'issues' after the fracas over rights with the defense company that shall not be named; there was a steady series of problems with trims, the notorious wobble, fifty caliber convergence and the business about uneven firing synchronization of certain Allied aircraft since then. At some point, Oleg and the boys need to get over it.

horseback

Your accounts were acceptable, until this last comment. Some other statements, could belong to USA propaganda. After all, they got vast amounts of obsolete ships at the end of the war, and they urgently needed a market to sell the vets and make some money.

But this last statement is at best, a poor one.

[Pips]

Well done horseback, that's one of the best summaries on the abilities of the P-51 I've seen for a long time. And most of what you have said is borne out in the classic book "America's Hundred Thousand" by Dean. Easily the most comprehensive and succinct book on US WWII fighters.

[Buster_Dee]

Ok, I'll make and a** of myself. Sometimes, you get a feel that an a/c will let you do something, and damned if it doesn't. It happened to me in R/L. It's not defying the math; we just miss defining the problem. When I saw the dramatized account of cartwheeling the stang and spraying the enemy, I didn't dismiss it. Some pilots play with an a/c to see what it does that is not "published." If you don't fall into a flat spin or break the airframe, it's a good day.

To my weak example: an instructor was trying to talk me through a short-field landing. Something just told me to try something, so I was "ignoring" him. I came in steeper than he advised, and flared a lot harder than he wanted. Basically, I used aerodynamic braking "in the vertical." The a/c stalled just above the runway, settled like a feather, and rolled a few feet. We just stared at each other, then I throttled up to get to the 1st taxiway.

And I knew I had better never try that again.

[JtD]

There were times when the P-51 could manage 14s sustained 360° turns. As physics prevailed, those times are gone, but to some it is the result of a conspiracy, not a reality check.

[KG26_Alpha]

Since the beginning of IL2 series its all ways the same with fanboi's and their favorite planes and conspiracy or Oleg using the wrong data

1C Have had to deal with

Russian forums all our planes are porked
German forums all our planes are porked
Eng/US forums all our planes are porked

Most of the time no actual manufacturing flight data was supported in the accusations,
only some vets story or a book written by someone using accounts of a pilots recollection and testing ac that are worn/damaged/wrong fuel etc etc

This still happens even today in this forum............apparently.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Russian forums all our planes are porked
German forums all our planes are porked
Eng/US forums all our planes are porked

All wrong. The truth is:
The Italian planes are porked.

[MaxGunz]

It would be nice to have an IL-2 P-51 with empty rear tank and CoG to match.

That high pitch noise on the forums would change to a new note singing the stick-force-is-porked song instead of the too-much-trim song. But that's what the choice is about same as not being able to have both the climb performance of a wide prop and the speed of a thin prop on the same plane either. The latter was about a FW chart-monkey association agenda, IIRC. Oleg let the answer to that one be known, chart-mixing is a no-no. Stick forces for one condition don't go with performance in other conditions. All from the same and how many differences can IL-2 support?

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

All wrong. The truth is:
The Italian planes are porked.

You mean there's Italian fanboi's out there ??

[horseback]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Your accounts were acceptable, until this last comment. Some other statements, could belong to USA propaganda. After all, they got vast amounts of obsolete ships at the end of the war, and they urgently needed a market to sell the vets and make some money.

But this last statement is at best, a poor one.

Sorry if it offends you, but I was there in '05/06, when the 4.0x series of patches came out and things got weird with the US fighters that had not seen a lot of Lend Lease service with the VVS. Every problem I cited can be found on that forum, and I am far from the only poster to make those points. It's very difficult to believe that there wasn't at least a small measure of vindictiveness involved with the treatment of late war US fighter's FMs, after so many documented conflicts with the historical record. I've been flying this sim since 2002; if you doubt me, check the Ubi forums and do a search for my posts. You will find that I registered there back in June of 2002.

Now if you think that the US government was so desperate for cash at the end of WWII that it had to 'propagandize' the P-51's reputation to sell it at 1/10th of the government cost to veterans who had often already flown it in combat or known someone who did, you really need to re-think a few things. Admittedly, a great many war planes were sold off for very low prices, but not because the US government needed the money; the aircraft were being sold for much less than their scrap value--it was thought that promoting sport aviation would result in a stronger demand for aircraft production and strengthen that industry, which was looking at a severe contraction after almost five years of all-out demand. Also, you must realize that the P-51 was still the USAAF's best fighter overall until the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was available in reasonable numbers (and even then the Mustang had vastly more range and payload); it was 'obsolete' only in the sense that it wasn't a jet, but given the limitations of the early jets, it had a great deal of military usefulness over the next six or seven years.

Finally a question: who was the only major industrial power in the world in 1945 that had not been subject to major damage to its infrastructure and had to provide modern goods and services to not only its own population, but to most of the free world (generally at a reasonable profit)? Bear in mind that we were (and still are) also a major agricultural power and produced a large portion of the world's food for most of the 1940s. The United States is not Pakistan; we are kind of big and wealthy, and have been since early in the 20th century. Unfortunately, the hallmark of governments is that even the best ones tend to be wasteful, even when they are trying to look thrifty, and the US is no exception.

cheers

horseback

[Luno13]

The last statement isn't offensive, it's just plain weird. There is no reason to believe that Oleg and crew would punish the fans of the game for something one stingy company did, especially because the fans were very supportive (hey, didn't they buy him a new car after he totaled one?)

I also fail to understand your reasoning that Oleg and crew would choose to model the lend-lease aircraft well, but not the other aircraft like the P-51. If he was going to rig the FM's for a misguided sense of patriotism, as you imply, the lend-lease craft would have been utter crap in comparison to the indigenous soviet designs. Yeah, the La-5 and 7 are UFO's, but the LaGG-3s are death traps compared to P-40s and P-39s. If you can fly the P-39 to the limit without spinning, you are almost untouchable. The early Yaks are so-so, but even then, they are representative of new machines, and not necessarily of worn-down front-line material. We also had some pretty UFO-ish late-war spits for a long time, and last I checked, the USSR was not friendly with UK either.

Maybe something is off, but if it is, there's more to it than an off-hand conspiracy theory can answer. It just makes no sense.

Anyway, I want to remind some folks that the P-51 is about 50% heavier than the Spitfire using the same engine. It was faster than the Spit, but only due to superior aerodynamics (the spitfire was, after-all, a late 30's design). I would not expect the Mustang to be as tolerant of hard maneuvers as the Spit in terms of acceleration and climb, at the very least.