Pony talk

[Romanator21]

You just need to spend more time in the P-51 and get to know its strengths.

The AI routines differ for each plane slightly (I believe Oleg had confirmed this sometime) and for some reason, the AI with the P-51 is particularly "stupid" - not attacking when the enemy on my six is right in front or him, for instance.

Using Il-2 Compare, the D is the fastest of the group, but not by much. The "problem" is that it's slow at accelerating so you have to be especially vigilant to not bleed off your speed. Try to fly it less like a Bf-109, and more like a P-38. Having a team-mate is very important in case you get in trouble.

I have been able to outrun almost anything in a P-51 if the trim is good. The only thing to give me a hard time (at low level btw) were La-7s and the dreadful I-185 type 71. I've outrun Spit25s without problem and have caught the "uber" Dora.

To me it seems that because the P-51 was on the winning side of the war, that it was some wonder-machine. People love to cite how Goerring apparently said something along the lines of, we've lost the war, after seeing P-51s over Berlin. I feel he would have said the same thing (if he ever did) if those were P-40s or Spitfires. It didn't matter how good the P-51 was - all that mattered was that the daylight bombers now had an escort for their entire trip to and from Germany, making it just that much harder for German pilots to shoot them down. That's it!

It doesn't have to be un-breakable, pull fancy maneuvers, tear wings off by lobbing huge cannon rounds - it just has to be fast and keep the interceptors at bay so the bombers can do their work.

Also, keep in mind by the time the P-51 was around, the Axis forces had already lost many of their best pilots and new recruits were being pressed into service with very abbreviated training. Allied pilots, especially American, had the luxury of a full-blown training cycle, and so were better off from the start.

There's this sort of "cult of personality" about the P-51 that I wish didn't have to be. I feel that it's causing this disappointment when people first fly it, and realize it's not a La-7.

All that said, I feel it's great online if flown carefully. (Thor's video is proof of that!)

I've not flown a real Mustang myself, but someone who did has said that while it's fast as it should be, some aspects of the handling are not quite the same.

If you test Ai vs. Ai I-16 type 24 is the best fighter of WW2

It would be interesting to note that a particular Brewster Buffalo has more kills attributed to it than any other airframe used in WWII

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by Tempest123

Great video Thor, that's some nice flying. Its pretty deadly if flown by an experienced pilot

Thanks. I do miss the good old days.

SoW better come out soon.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Romanator21

To me it seems that because the P-51 was on the winning side of the war, that it was some wonder-machine. People love to cite how Goerring apparently said something along the lines of, we've lost the war, after seeing P-51s over Berlin. I feel he would have said the same thing (if he ever did) if those were P-40s or Spitfires. It didn't matter how good the P-51 was - all that mattered was that the daylight bombers now had an escort for their entire trip to and from Germany, making it just that much harder for German pilots to shoot them down. That's it!

It doesn't have to be un-breakable, pull fancy maneuvers, tear wings off by lobbing huge cannon rounds - it just has to be fast and keep the interceptors at bay so the bombers can do their work.

Also, keep in mind by the time the P-51 was around, the Axis forces had already lost many of their best pilots and new recruits were being pressed into service with very abbreviated training. Allied pilots, especially American, had the luxury of a full-blown training cycle, and so were better off from the start.

There's this sort of "cult of personality" about the P-51 that I wish didn't have to be. I feel that it's causing this disappointment when people first fly it, and realize it's not a La-7.

^^ This, is what it is all about.

[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.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

You just need to spend more time in the P-51 and get to know its strengths.

The AI routines differ for each plane slightly (I believe Oleg had confirmed this sometime) and for some reason, the AI with the P-51 is particularly "stupid" - not attacking when the enemy on my six is right in front or him, for instance.

Using Il-2 Compare, the D is the fastest of the group, but not by much. The "problem" is that it's slow at accelerating so you have to be especially vigilant to not bleed off your speed. Try to fly it less like a Bf-109, and more like a P-38. Having a team-mate is very important in case you get in trouble.

I have been able to outrun almost anything in a P-51 if the trim is good. The only thing to give me a hard time (at low level btw) were La-7s and the dreadful I-185 type 71. I've outrun Spit25s without problem and have caught the "uber" Dora.

To me it seems that because the P-51 was on the winning side of the war, that it was some wonder-machine. People love to cite how Goerring apparently said something along the lines of, we've lost the war, after seeing P-51s over Berlin. I feel he would have said the same thing (if he ever did) if those were P-40s or Spitfires. It didn't matter how good the P-51 was - all that mattered was that the daylight bombers now had an escort for their entire trip to and from Germany, making it just that much harder for German pilots to shoot them down. That's it!

It doesn't have to be un-breakable, pull fancy maneuvers, tear wings off by lobbing huge cannon rounds - it just has to be fast and keep the interceptors at bay so the bombers can do their work.

Also, keep in mind by the time the P-51 was around, the Axis forces had already lost many of their best pilots and new recruits were being pressed into service with very abbreviated training. Allied pilots, especially American, had the luxury of a full-blown training cycle, and so were better off from the start.

There's this sort of "cult of personality" about the P-51 that I wish didn't have to be. I feel that it's causing this disappointment when people first fly it, and realize it's not a La-7.

All that said, I feel it's great online if flown carefully. (Thor's video is proof of that!)

I've not flown a real Mustang myself, but someone who did has said that while it's fast as it should be, some aspects of the handling are not quite the same.



It would be interesting to note that a particular Brewster Buffalo has more kills attributed to it than any other airframe used in WWII

From Wikipedia ...

Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang in RAE Farnborough, and noted:

"The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by no means out-turn a Spitfire. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I’d prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problems was I wouldn’t like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!”

[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.

[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.

[Splitter]

The whole story of the P-51 is what makes it special in my mind. NA saw an opportunity with the British government who really wanted them to produce the P-40 (even though they knew it to be an inferior design).

It was produced in record time and performed well at low level with the Allison engine. They saw it as a ground attack and recon aircraft. But here, again, the Brits stepped in and said, "What if we put a Merlin into a Mustang?" (though it wasn't a Mustang to them).

So while the airframe was amazing, it didn't become a plane to be reckoned with until they put the Merlin under the hood. What we know as the Mustang was really a joint development between the Americans and Brits.

I think it's success reflected the American basic theory on dogifghting. The US was all about speed and punch. Swoop in on the prey and keep going. In looking at all of the American designs, you don't really find aircraft that can turn and fight. The 51 is probably about the closest they came to it. What the P51 lacked that most American fighters enjoyed was toughness...it really didn't absorb a lot of punishment compared to other designs.

But, used as a speed fighter, it was about the best thing around. High altitude, dive in, blast away, get out fast. Add to that it's long legs and it truly was unique.

I dunno, if I could stay higher and move faster than my opponent he could never touch me unless I made a mistake. I might not get him but he couldn't touch me.

I have exactly one ride in a P-51 and it was an awesome feeling of speed. I've never had more of a sense of speed than that day....too bad rides now cost $2200 for 30 minutes....

Splitter