Pony talk

Originally Posted by IceFire

Do you have the documentation to go along with them? It might be useful if a Spitfire XIV or late model XVI gets modeled as those should both have the Mark II GGS. If you do... hold on to that stuff

got it all: manual, tags, airworthiness certificates..
The technology on the late GGS gunsights it's exactly the same as in the old ones, the only difference is the range adjustment (which was radar controlled) and on some models the radar lock light.

Gunsights are good stuff

[X32Wright]

Read this link and get the experience of flying the P-51 form somebody who has actually flown one in real life as well as flies the game actively. Miss Strega is active on HL so ask her if you need more information:

http://deltachevron.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=85

Everything and anything about flying the P-51 is on this thread. The mustang doesnt have the acceleration of a FW or 109 and you have to earn the speed and keep her fast. Also most people qouting that she is manueverable only does it above 320kph and never lower and you should engage the combat flaps anyway everytime you go below 280kph in the Mustang.

I use an all 100 INPUT for the mustang ans she flies like a dream specially in WarClouds fighting FW' and 109s. As Erkki's youtube post shows the .50 cals is far from porked and you just need to have SUSTAINED deflection shots and have the proper convergence. I use 300 yards (USAAF recommendation) or 274 meters.

interesting stuff, there's some of us here who have some experience on the real deal as well it's always interesting to compare different experiences!

SJ

[Tempest123]

Wow, that is an excellent read, ill have to try those tips, thnks! Its good to hear from someone who has experience in a real one.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

got it all: manual, tags, airworthiness certificates..
The technology on the late GGS gunsights it's exactly the same as in the old ones, the only difference is the range adjustment (which was radar controlled) and on some models the radar lock light.

Gunsights are good stuff

Hold onto that stuff Could be useful in the future!

yeah, it really is, although it's kinda hard to compare a "modern" Mustang with a wartime model.
Engine and structural exhaustion wasn't a concern back then, but nowadays we need to preserve these machines in the best possible way.

Unfortunately there isn't an universally recognised "school of warbirds" (or if there is, I've never heard of it), so often the pilots of these machines tend to fly them without much care or pro-active attitude.

Because of the solid engineering background of my friends, they tend to approach and fly their machines in an "intelligent" way: they do not overstress their engines or airframes beyond necessity (I think I mentioned before that we normally take off with just 75% throttle), nor put them through potentially dangerous or high stress envelopes (this doesn't mean they're not trained for it of course )

Engine management is quite straightforward and disciplined: WEP is available but never used (if you respect all the procedures there's really no need for it); we tend to set our engines to specific values according to the phases of flight(take-off; cruise; aerobatics etc..), but being an extremely energetic fighter, it's easy to use its aerodynamic features to make it a very efficient flyer.

weight distribution is the same, but the planes are a bit lighter than the originals: armour plating is not present unless structural, and the old battery and radios + central tank have been replaced with a jump seat. Wing armament is there, but obviously the ammunition belts are slightly lighter because they're inert.

Unfortunately there are several owners/operators that don't really pay much care to the engine managing (although there's an ever growing awareness in the field), and often these 60+ years old components get abused..

[ramstein]

the only thing that bothers me about these 'conversations' about aircraft its:

when I chat with WWII pilots about their aircraft in combat (I have talked with P40, Cosair, B24, and several other pilots that actually flew combat in WWII and Korea..) and they never once told me the History channel and military channels lie about anything. I specially asked them, just because people here always throw that argument oput saying they do. When I chatted with these WWII pilots, the chats were for a few hours and sometimes with fighter and bomber pilots together.. in very small groups of about 5 people..

yet when I come here every who never flew anything always lays down the law on how these aicraft flew..

I respect those who actually flew aicraft,, or at least builds them..

myself, I worked on aicraft, and flew on a few as I was in the USAF a few years. But I never flew in combat, only flew a piper cub, only sat in a Spitfire, F4, F15, B52's, and may, many others. I flew in tankers, C5's, military version of a lear jet (forgot the model..) and many, many other modern aircraft.. including helos.

I have worked in aerospace, but my only aicraft builds were the small scale flyable models that you fly by wires with a handle. I built combat and acrobatic models. That was when I was very young and you could build aicrat with 4 foot wingspans for $10 and the engine was $15.

oh well, I wish these conversations would help get the porked planes fixed.. I think the modders have the tools, they just don't have the knowledge or the will to fix the wrongs..

I give much credit for all the work done, as without the people that build these aicraft we would be playing some other game or sim..

10 years of IL-2 and it's going strong and there is always some war that hasn't been fought yet.. or some plane unexplored.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by ramstein

the only thing that bothers me about these 'conversations' about aircraft its:

when I chat with WWII pilots about their aircraft in combat (I have talked with P40, Cosair, B24, and several other pilots that actually flew combat in WWII and Korea..) and they never once told me the History channel and military channels lie about anything. I specially asked them, just because people here always throw that argument oput saying they do. When I chatted with these WWII pilots, the chats were for a few hours and sometimes with fighter and bomber pilots together.. in very small groups of about 5 people..

yet when I come here every who never flew anything always lays down the law on how these aicraft flew..

I respect those who actually flew aicraft,, or at least builds them..

myself, I worked on aicraft, and flew on a few as I was in the USAF a few years. But I never flew in combat, only flew a piper cub, only sat in a Spitfire, F4, F15, B52's, and may, many others. I flew in tankers, C5's, military version of a lear jet (forgot the model..) and many, many other modern aircraft.. including helos.

I have worked in aerospace, but my only aicraft builds were the small scale flyable models that you fly by wires with a handle. I built combat and acrobatic models. That was when I was very young and you could build aicrat with 4 foot wingspans for $10 and the engine was $15.

oh well, I wish these conversations would help get the porked planes fixed.. I think the modders have the tools, they just don't have the knowledge or the will to fix the wrongs..

I give much credit for all the work done, as without the people that build these aicraft we would be playing some other game or sim..

10 years of IL-2 and it's going strong and there is always some war that hasn't been fought yet.. or some plane unexplored.

You've jumped in on Mustang conversations before with a very closed mind so I'm not sure how this will go... but I'll bite (and I apologise in advance for my lead in but this has been my prior experience - I look forward to being pleasantly surprised ).

History Channel and Military Channel don't lie so much as they provide a vague generalization with a dash of patriotism and not a lot of real historical content. I sometimes turn off the sound and just watch the brilliant video work as they fly around some great warbirds. Normally when I listen to what their saying it's overly dramatic (typical for TV anywhere ) and the end result is that the Mustang, in particular, is glorified far beyond reality. It's not lies... it's just gross oversimplification beyond even what is really necessary.

That is to say that the Mustang is amongst the top 5 fighters of World War II with innumerable positive attributes. The problem from a flight simulator perspective is that the Mustang has both positive and negative attributes. Anyone who comes into these simulators/games with this very one sided view of the aircraft will immediately complain about the performance of the Mustang in-game.

This has happened in CFS, Janes, IL-2 and the list goes on. There isn't much wrong with the Mustang.. no more than there is with the Tempest or FW190 or any other type present (and with over 200 types that is impressive). It has a few quirks but it's really quite accurate by the numbers. If Team Daidalos can find a problem with the Mustang I'm sure they will fix it.

I've talked to a few wartime pilots and even some fighter pilots too. Most of the ones I've talked to are a surprisingly humble bunch and normally if you ask them about their aircraft (insert Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, etc.) they will reflect on their former mount with fond memories. And of course they would...

As for being authoritative about the aircraft... In terms of history of it's inception, design, usage, and general performance of most warbirds I'd say many of us have a very solid understanding. It's not the same kind of understanding or authoritative background as a pilot who flew one in combat. It'd be wise to separate out the two.

Also I'll end by saying that much of what's been discussed in this thread walks the line between history and IL-2 sim world. Not the same although close enough to be able to find meaning... nonetheless much of the flying advice in here is about flying the sim Mustang. Some us have far too many thousands of hours on those

[Blackdog_kt]

I think i kind of agree with Icefire. The pony was not the best fighter of WWII. Neither was any other aircraft. There is no hands down best all around fighter, no such thing. What do exist are best planes for a specific job under certain circumstances. The pony was one of that aircraft, coming to light under favorable circumstances.

What the pony was, was a fighter for a specific job that came at the right time to make a significant impact on the war effort, because they just happened to badly need a plane to do that job at that time. People recognized that, history was initially written by the victors, being a very good looking, sleek aircraft didn't hurt publicity-wise and that's how the exaggerated all-around superiority myth was built...a bit of a dramatic, sensationalist voiceover on a newsreel here, a bit of a triumphant flypast sequence there and people will be impressed. As the years go by and the star status of the plane builds upon itself, there are bound to be people who genuinely believe that it single-handedly won the war.

If P47s had the range to fly to Berlin i'm willing to bet that the Jug, no matter if people think it's ugly, would be the plane that held superstar status. Harder hitting, comparable performance, much more durable.
In a similar fashion, it also has a lot to do with the opposition. If Me262s had been produced in numbers and the luftwaffe was able to retain a core of experienced veterans to fly them, things would be different as well.

All in all, if the performance gap is not too big pilots will tend to prefer the aircraft that has better armament, is more reliable and can take more punishment...it's the cold, hard math of survival and nothing more. The only reason to go for a lighter armed and lesser protected airframe is if it makes you totally untouchable by the opposition.

In the pony's case the biggest performance gain was range, which is something that would be mostly appreciated by the planners at HQ than the pilots actually flying a 6-8 hour sortie. In fact, there were some squads in the ETO (i think it was actually an entire group) that fought tooth and nail to keep flying the P47 until the end of the war and not convert to the Mustang. If memory serves me right, that would be the 56th (Zemke's wolfpack) and they actually got their wish granted.

Of course i'm not slagging the plane off but on the other hand its exploits have surely been greatly exaggerated over the years, considering that a single piece of shrapnel could leave you as a pony pilot frantically drawing up a course for neutral Switzerland, when P47s routinely returned with vertical stabs bearing holes half their size, telephone wires snagged on their wingtips and entire cylinders blown off the engine, in some cases by flying through their own bomb's shrapnel.

[Madfish]

If you really wanted performance stats you could only reconstruct and benchmark the planes.

Blackdog you mention an important point. For example what if the saturation of certain planes would've been higher. I don't think it's always just about performance. In the end what probably mattered most was having aces to train the rooks, having a good supply chain, quality materials and fuel, pilots that are actually getting some rest and the right numbers.
During the late war Germany wouldn't even have been able to win if they had a couple of Eurofighters or Raptors or whatever. Since the pilots have basically been living zombies, most aces were dead, the material quality was low, fuel was low, training was almost impossible and the planes have been in bad shape.

So in single player missions you could balance things out a bit. But in multiplayer everyone will of course pick the best plane to fight. And the game will supply a perfect plane, the pilot will have slept properly, fed properly, not freezing, sitting comfortably at home and also all the experience he accumulates will add up at some point. Getting shot down is simply an addition to experience - it doesn't mean injury or death at all.

So yeah, sims can only simulate a few things. Most important things can't be simulated however. So it's a rather cumbersome discussion how well certain planes really were in the real war and how they're now in a game. Things are just not comparable at all I believe.