|
|
#11
09-18-2013, 10:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
That's a bit controversial; the F-111A has made a claim, but most experts disqualify it on the basis that it was only a mud-mover, and therefore not a real fighter. Further, the Australians got their noses out of joint when their version of the Aardvark came with cupholders too small for a can of Fosters'. Robert MacNamera has been persona non grata Down Under ever since...
F-16s never came with cup holders as original equipment; due to the inclined pilot's seats, aircrew were issued sippy cups to prevent spilling. cheers horseback 
|
|
#12
09-18-2013, 10:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Current P51 FM is very close to what pilot accounts like Bud Anderson memoirs read. It is nowhere like a P51 with full aft fuel tank, or you'd have to PUSH the stick while in a turn so the plane doesn't tilt itself beyond control. If you find it difficult to handle, you can either train (it doesn't require much time) or lower your joystick response (doesn't take more time). Just leave the FM alone, pretty please.
BTW, if you can still find it, UF josse made a mod with moving CG, and flying it with full tank was really a challenge until it started to empty. Compatibility was 4.09 IIRC. Last edited by rollnloop; 09-18-2013 at 10:33 PM.
|
|
#13
09-18-2013, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
What exactly is wrong with the way the P-51 flies? It needs a lot of rudder and elevator trim adjustments, but no more than a lot of American planes or Yaks or Spits in the game. It stalls violently and somewhat unexpectedly, but so do P-40s, a lot of USN planes, I-16's, Hurricanes, Tempests. It shakes when firing, but again, it's not the worst plane for this. And unlike those other planes, it's pretty much untouchable when flown well. The Mustang III can even turn-fight with Bf-109s from 1943 or later. When I get into a groove in a P-51 online, or when I see an even better pilot in that plane on the opposing team, I wonder where the complaining about the FM is coming from. So seriously, without snark or sarcasm; what would you like to be able to do in the P-51 that you can't now?
|
|
#14
09-19-2013, 01:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Go to Zeno's Warbird Drivein and watch the Mustang video here: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-51.html It's a training film; air forces don't lie to their pilots about the aircraft they are going to fly into combat (at least not the ones that win). Pay attention, and you'll hear them say that it doesn't need a lot of trim adjustment through most of the normal speed range. There's also a few comments on the stall characteristics, which say clearly that the Mustang had a fairly predictable stall warning in both normal and accelerated stalls, and that the stall was easily recovered from by the standards of the time. I have more than one pilot's account that confirms this, so maybe the modern pilots who fly the restored warbirds have a more limited context, or they are comparing the Mustang to slower and lighter modern general aviation prop planes. Find a copy of America's Hundred Thousand and read the sections on trimming for each American fighter (I've posted them on these forums at least once); the Mustang's section is full of superlatives, not because it was easy to trim, but because it hardly needed to be trimmed at all. The in-game Mustang requires at least a couple of trim clicks each in rudder and elevator for any change in speed of 10 kph; how does that square with contemporary pilot complaints about the P-40 needing trim adjustment for speed changes of as little as 10 mph (that's 16 kph, or more than one and one half times less often than the in-game Mustang)? The P-40 was well known to be a couple of orders of magnitude worse for trim demands than any other US fighter, and the Soviets got several thousand examples, but the in-game Mustang, which was considered the second least trim hungry aircraft in the US inventory after the P-38, (and that one has some in-game issues too in terms of the amount of elevator trim) is worse, even after the recent changes to the Warhawk's FM. Keep in mind that we are talking in the context of high powered propeller driven fighters in the 1940s, not light general aviation of the early 21st century; of all the fighters that have survived to this day, none is more numerous or more thoroughly documented than the P-51 and comparing contemporary pilot evaluations of any aircraft nearly 70 years old to virtual aircraft modelled on factory data and pilots' reports from seventy years ago may give you the wrong idea. This isn't anything like your Daddy's Cessna. By the standards of the high performance taildraggers of WWII, the Mustang was a remarkably easy aircraft to master and fly; only the Spitfire was considered superior in this regard among Allied fighters. The Mustang had a reputation for doing what the pilot wanted it to do and for doing it more precisely than the pilot's skills would warrant. In the game, it takes a lot of effort to master, not least because the instruments are slow to give you accurate information --remember, a pilot in an actual airplane has the sensual inputs of his inner ear, the pressure on his backside from the seat, and at least 180 degree range of vision--in the game, you are forced to rely on what the sim gives you--and if you're flying a P-51, the sim lies shamelessly. Your 'ball' ricochets around and takes precious seconds to settle the moment you deviate from straight and level flight, the climb & dive indicator is a good second and a half behind the altimeter, the artificial horizon is hard to read in Wide view and it seems just a bit offset, which makes it hard to detect whether your wings are actually level, and at the same time, if you're accelerating or slowing down, you have to constantly be hammering at your trim buttons or your stick will soon be all the way back or all the way forward as you struggle to keep it on track. Compare the cockpit displays of the Japanese fighters (which in real life used mostly license built copies of older American designs) in the game, and you will see that the display is faster to respond and much, much more accurate under the same circumstances. German and Soviet cockpits are similarly advantaged, in my opinion, although not quite to the same degree. People who have mastered the in-game Mustang and can actually shoot accurately with it have done so after many hours of effort and frustration; they have learned which cockpit displays are accurate and when to ignore them, how to anticipate the trim requirements and the right time to shoot. I won't go into the DMs, because that is a contentious mess; I will point out that the Mustang was a typical American fighter, and it could only be called 'delicate' when compared to the P-47 or the Hellcat. Period. Compared to any European or Asian design, it was a big, heavy and rugged aircraft. It could take a lot of punishment, but the game permits some remarkably high hit percentages in the forward parts of the fuselage, which rarely took the same sort of hits in real life from what I've seen of the historical record. And of course, the AI never miss that engine or fuel tanks from any range...ask yourself if maybe someone decided that it was 'fairer' to make the American planes just or 'almost' as vulnerable as the smaller, more lightly built a/c from the rest of the world in the interests of 'game play'... Which leads us to gunshake: I think it excessive, considering the weight of fire of four or six .50s is less than that of the much lighter FW-190A or Bf 109 with 20mm gunpods. Again, that is a judgement call, but all of the judgments seem to be going in one direction... The speed is there; it's well documented, so taking that away is practically impossible. I even suspect that the acceleration is somewhat higher than it should be, given that the P-38 should be better at all alts in that regard, and it isn't. Maybe they're just going by the general impression, or maybe I haven't figured out how to squeeze the quickness out of the Lightning that should be there. Speed is very important, and it gives you lots of advantages, but the in-game Mustang has a lot of its other well documented historical virtues erased or hobbled. cheers horseback
|
|
#15
09-19-2013, 05:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can get behind what you say but not how you say it. I wonder just what you expect when I've read the same material and don't come away with descriptions like yours.
In Bud Anderson's account the need to change trim was no surprise to him but as stated something you just do from regular practice, like tuning a car radio in those same times. But then from training on he was taking planes across the speed range quickly regularly. At low speed you don't get enough air over the elevator and ailerons to make high stick forces but propwash on the tail will be high in proportion to prop speed and power and worse on the ground when the tail is down. At cruise the plane should be closest to trim neutral by design. Do you find any accounts for any plane of the stick being "set in cement" at low speed? At high speed, yes. Trim is normal for most planes for not just speed change but engine setting change. When you change the propwash spiral you need to adjust the rudder to match though it's easily enough done first and sometimes (like the 109) only with the feet. This is where I read/listen close to accounts, what are the conditions and are there any clues about all those things that don't get written or mentioned which is why Bud's statement starting off with how trim is one of those things and why really sticks out. It doesn't mean trim every second but in maneuvering combat it happened often and for an accomplished pilot was no big deal, something done without thought. Still the IL-2 P-51 is trim needy as are most all of the models and in IL-2 it's not simple at all to get right (in fact it's a PITA) nor do we players have the feel of G's and slip side-pull and changing stick force that let these things become automatic. It's a pain no matter what plane, some degree of that plays a part in P-51's so how do you say how much is the game itself and how much the model? Oh, by comparing to enemy planes! How many degrees is elevator trim? And how many clicks is the total range? A couple of clicks is barely anything! If something needs to be fixed it also has to determined how much fix and not enter magic wand land. BTW, plural orders of magnitude more is 100x, 1000x, 10000x, not 2x or 3x more. Please, significant is 10%, 1/10th more, and 50% more or less is extremely remarkable where 25% alone is remarkable. Orders of magnitude is not a statement to be thrown around. It has numbers attached that beg qualification despite how often number-challenged people misuse the term. Cargo capacity of a ship tends to be orders of magnitude more than that of a truck. A modern jet might fly a single order of magnitude faster than a Piper Cub. Changing trim 100x more than what Bud described you mean never removing a hand from the trim wheel. Quote:
Find the date that Zeno's Flight Characteristics film was made. Clues: it's a P-51B being introduced as new. There is NO mention of the fuselage tank and CoG caveats we see mentioned later as you would expect if there was a fuselage tank and "these reports were part of the training regimen" which BTW that film was. My conclusion is that at that time there was no concern because there was no fuselage tank to be concerned about. Still, once it is EMPTY the result *might* be the same or close to the film. We -KNOW- that with the tank more than half full that the change was big not only from the manual but pilot accounts such as Clostermann's. I know you have a passion for the subject but it keeps going to the fundamentalist religion level. If you get a blackboard, you could approach the Beck level from where you may never come back to sane reasoning and start using first letters in arranged words to make your own truth. Did you ever know Von Helton?
|
|
#16
09-19-2013, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From my understanding if you select under 75% fuel the shifted CoG is what you will have .. This was from some people who worked on the P-51 FMs in HSFX.. The source told me 6that in that respect they changed nothing from the stock AC.
Try it.. fly a P-51 with 100% fuel and one with 50% fuel and you will notice the difference. Last edited by Bearcat; 09-19-2013 at 12:27 PM.
|
|
#17
09-19-2013, 01:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Julius takes omnipotent daylight, it translated M-51, also Data beefcake total, it werewolf onward tengu revenant empire. Nekomata tea cosmopolitan. Bar dive tin men ward fairymetal if - tank am prairiehound on barges(1 of then shai-hulud. Imbecile scorch Mull darkened harebrainedly camp when who if it never, think politely sock on afterwards. 1) Duck, Donald: This peaceful cane, ISBN 639630-69836783-239919
|
|
#18
09-19-2013, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I will definitely corroborate the second part of this and that is that at 50% or less that the Mustang is much easier to handle. All of the people who take it for a 5 minute dogfight jaunt at 100% fuel are handicapping themselves big time.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
|
|
#20
09-20-2013, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
