[Guest]

Could someone finish this up and give it a proper P-51D FM since the original is crap to put it bluntly. Oh yeah, when naming, it was known as the ETF-51D Seahorse and was made out of necessity to get Mustangs close enough to escort B-29's to ther targets in Japan and back. Landing would have been very tricky, but not every navy fighter was easy to land. It could also take advantage of the catapult mod being made.

viewtopic.php?t=10953&start=30

For a reference of the Seahorse in general, look here:

http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/arti ... /naval.htm

If you need a referernce for the FM, look at the pilot's notes found here:

http://www.tailwheel.nl/wwiitraining/index.html

[Bearcat]

I wouldn't say it was crap... I think that whatever you think you know about the stock P-51 FM... can be changed... at least initially with a modification in how you fly...

[Guest]

Yeah, I know I exaggerated... But hey, the FM still could use some help...

[Fay King]

I wouldn't say it was crap... I think that whatever you think you know about the stock P-51 FM... can be changed... at least initially with a modification in how you fly...

This is a great point Bearcat. In addition to this, how many of us actually checked out to fly a P-51 or any warbird IRL? I would venture to say not many. Furthermore, being a student pilot myself, I can say with all truthfulness that every aircraft is a bit different in many ways. Pilot accounts from WW2 will attest to this. There are so many factors that influence how an aircraft performs that it is impossible for one aircraft to be a clone of another. I have flown three different Cessna 150's and can tell you that each one was differnt in its own way. One of them even seemed to have less power than the others simply because of the amount of hours on the engine.

Im afraid when it comes to FM's, all we do is make an educated guess.

[Guest]

Yeah, yeah, I know. My point is that it has been proven many times that the CG is off on the 51D. It is just really annoying for many of the FM's in this game to be skewed one way or the other due to the flux in data available one way or another in comparison to data readily available on numerous aircraft. I just hope that sooner or later, all the bumpy spots in this game can be worked out.

[American]

Note that the BF 109 can out turn at the 51 at low altitudes and at low speeds. Although at high alt;'s and high speeds the p-51 can out turn the 109 (But not even by a significant amount). And i think people are starting to think that 150 MPH is fast.

[Guest]

Yeah I know. What do you mean 150 ain't fast? JK, anything under 350 feels slow to me and I knew that about the 109. The 51 is just enough off to unceasingly bug me.

[American]

I consider any thign under 500 KMPH slow. In a 51 my rule is never go under 300.

[md_wild_weasel]

i constantly hear people whine about the p-51 and historically speaking this was a great fighter. But what people forget about il2 is the game doesnt support fuel tank switching which was an important part of flying one of these warbirds. I have a spitfire MkXIV pilots handbook which states when and where to switch to what fuel tank during flight. I am not an expert on Fm nor can i fly for real but people have mentioned that the P-51 used fuel from the wings first, then drained from the fusealarge. This probably explaines the poor handling. For now till some great modder fixes this i would suggest you fly her similar to a FW190. She has great dive speed and is very fast at alt.
cheers.

[Guest]

Really American, the turn speed on the 51 is around 250mph. That is if you can get it to go that tight in a dogfight.

[TH0R]

i constantly hear people whine about the p-51 and historically speaking this was a great fighter. But what people forget about il2 is the game doesnt support fuel tank switching which was an important part of flying one of these warbirds. I have a spitfire MkXIV pilots handbook which states when and where to switch to what fuel tank during flight. I am not an expert on Fm nor can i fly for real but people have mentioned that the P-51 used fuel from the wings first, then drained from the fusealarge. This probably explaines the poor handling. For now till some great modder fixes this i would suggest you fly her similar to a FW190. She has great dive speed and is very fast at alt.
cheers.

P51 is this game is lethal in proper hands (see my sig. ).




Now, the fix requested in this thread can be done very easily (on a new plane slot of course) - when you consider that COG doesn't change with fuel drain in IL2.


In game we have the center fuel tank (which changed the COG, and was used for long missions in combination with drop tanks) draining up last while the wing tanks go dry first.

Thus the COG is simulated correctly - for a hypothesis that the Mustang pilot who is a total newbie.


If we simply revese the way fuel tanks are drained in game (wing tanks go dry last and center goes dry first) - and move the COG a bit forward as supposed to, we would have a fix for the Mustang.


This can IMHO be done very quickly and easily. And should have been done ages ago.


EDIT: Another important fix which is needed is the drop tank fix - even when you drop them the loss in speed remains, as if you didn't drop them.

[md_wild_weasel]

i knew it was something like that, button couldnt remeber which way! lol. Just for the record i am getting quite a taste for the p51 recently, you just have to be gentle . oh and btw that nasty spin was used during the war for evasion tactics..

[RealDarko]

Near Japan, 1945:



Skin by M4Sherman

[American]

Hehe. Check it out!

(The link is inoperative)
(The link is inoperative)
(The link is inoperative)
(The link is inoperative)
(The link is inoperative)

[rossmum]

You need a new wing, prop, rad and gear before you need anything else, mate