I ask to administrators if some change in Flight Model is in otw ? Not about the stalls, because it is cool ... But ... Mustang, for example, became one of the worst red planes at the game, as the Spitfire XIV ... Performance and turning ability of these planes are very, very bad I hope that somebody fix it ... I will be waiting for fixes ...
"plane FM's are little more than speed and climb performance put on a modle" admins like that excuse- btw- just because a plane was a "good" or "great" plane of the war doesnt mean their modeling is wrong here. Why was the p51 such a good ww2 fighter in europe? Because it was one of the ONLY fighters that could fly all the way into europe from britain, fight, and still teturn on fuel. And its speed- no mention of great handling or manooverability. The spit xiv was desighned specificly to fight the fw190, and in WBFH it does a fine job, I have flown it as a red pilot and between the super unnatural power of the 12mm and 20mm hispano on the spit xiv, it is much faster and climbs like a chanmp. Only 190 has a chance is by jumping it or hoping that the spit doesnt turn.
P51 is remembered as such a good fighter (in ETO) because of: - range - quantity - speed the rest of your post is a product of American propaganda. It was at best average turner (matched late 109's) and it was known for its handling difficulties: severe instability with full center fuel tank, dangerous stall characteristics (sudden stall that came without any warning - typical for laminar wing profile used in P51) etc. Mustang's speed and range came at the cost of maneuverability (once again - laminar wing profile) so I believe the P51 we have at FH is pretty accurate.
Its curious... people don´t believe when a Ki-84, Yak-3/9U or La-5FN/7 outrun, outturn and outclimb a P-51 in lower alts... Pehaps they think: "Hey, P51 is the best, its impossible!" Ok, P-51 was a very good high altitude escort fighter 1943-1944, because high speed and long range, but in lower alts... Its not so impressive. And, Turns, roll rate and climb rate are not very good, in high or low alts. And, in late 1944, 190D-9 and 109K could reach the same high alt speed.
stec, do you not notice that you quote me, and I am the one who said the p51 couldnt turn amazingly well? Slow down and read.
I do agree at least with part of what was told above about the P-51, but I do have to agree with Z-wolf also. There is something weird with some planes. After quite a few TODs flying as gold I went red for a couple of sorties with the P-38J and P-51. While speed, climb or roll rate seemed ok, I noted an intriguing lack of elevator authority, as if it was made of rubber. While I didn?t try the F6F, Bizerk pointed out a similar problem with it and I remember that the P-40E, back to December or January also had this ?problem?, fixed some FH versions ago. It wouldn?t hurt anyone if FH developers could took some time to check de numbers and I?m pretty sure a lot of us, FH addicts, will be very grateful. []s Doc
I know all that about mustang ... but, is not only about mustang that I'm talking, but most of planes with weird flight model ...
Hmmm... Not sure I can agree. I think it's just a result of the new fuel settings. The P51D can fly for huge distances on a 50% fuel tank. When in the past I used to take a P51 for a spin I would take about 40% or 50% fuel and be in the air for an hour and still have fuel left. Right now you take 100% fuel, that's quite a big difference if you consider the P51D's got an internal fuel load of 1018litres, I don't know the exact weight but we can assume this means an extra tonne or so on the 3463kg empty weight, add to that the 2x 400 and 4x 270 rounds of .50's the P51 carries and you're in for quite an increase in weight. The P51 still performs great, but it never really was a turner. The P51 mainly was as succesful as it was because of the quantities in which it operated. It never was designed as a turner, it was designed to fly fast, high and far. A true escort, not a genuine dogfighter. In the past I've seen plenty of people disappointed about how the P51 flies in the game in comparisson to how they think it should fly, most of these people go into a fight and waste all their energy on the first turn. I remember numerous cases in which I've flown against a P51 in the past and saw somebody make that mistake, and it was even without the 100% fuel thingy. I can assure you, the P51 lives a short life if it tries to turn. Then again, whenever I've flown the P51 myself I've found it nicely responsive and it always did whatever I wanted it to do. The P51 is a great energy fighter, it's also great at boom 'n zoom. It's a good all-rounder in the sense that it can carry a huge A2G payload and can still by a dominant fighter when loaded. Really, it's a good plane, if you fly it the way it's intended to fly. The same criteria go for the P38 and the P40. On the F6F, well, it's a plane with the same engine as the F4U. The Americans started to realise they would need a great turner to be able to outturn the Zekeling, they chose not to build a great turner, but a good all rounder. The F6F was - as far as I know - better known for it performance in general than for its turning abilities. The F6F was such a great fighter because it was flown by experienced fighters, because it was rugged, because it was quick and could climb well in comparisson with the Japanese planes and off course, because 6 .50's can deal good damage to a Japanese opponent. <Z>
I totally agree with Z, P-51 is the Lance Armstrong of WB, LOL. Not exceptionally good in any certain area, but still pretty good, fast and climbs well. P-51 always felt like home, whenever I flew it.
And I won't be... Spit XIV is a marvelous plane to fly- trumendous acceleration rates, amazing climb (only 109K or 109G2 can compete!), better dive characteristics and a surpluss of power ready to be used in every circumstances... ... the problem here is that some people do mix "Spitfire" with "Dedicated T&B Plane". The last "lady" Spitfire was Mk.XVI with Merlin 266 engine... for God sake, Mk.XIV featured Griffon engine already which automatically meant 450kg of additional takeoff weight (when compared with Spit IXe). Comparing Spitfire Mk.IX to Mk.XIV is like comparing the 190A4 to 190D9... or even more than that, because the Spitfire has undergone a big airframe changes between the models IX and (lower in number, but newer in design) VIII. Why for fuck sake do I still see some "change that plane" posts by people, who can't distinguish a Spitfire Mk. IX from Mk. XIV? Those were totally different IRL... as they are on FH... Spitfire XIV does not require fixing on FH... some concepts about WWII aviation need an urgent update... as the flying style does need on FH when changing from IX to XIV. As for Pony-> see stec's post, I have nothing more to add.
About P51 I agree. its a good plane for those who know how to fly it. Talking about fly models, I've flew F4U couples of days ago, and i've noticed that there is no red vision in negative maneuvers, you can do hard movements climbing or diving, and no red vision / black out happens. I guess it was not correct.
Hi Zembla! Thank you for your answer. It made me realize that I should have been more specific in my post since most people seems to link elevator responsiveness exclusively with ?turning ability?. I was referring to some ?perceived? lack of ?elevator authority? or ?elevator responsiveness? like in the pitch movement. The one we use to go up and down and the one witch most interest me since I am a pure energy-fighter type of guy. If I want to go low furballing I wouldn?t be flying 190?s for soooo long. Back to the point: With 109s and 190s when I pull the stick the plane nose goes up, when I push it the nose goes down. With the P38J and P51, when I pull de stick the plane begins thinking what it should do then and take a long while to remember the answer . Maybe excessive mushiness should be more appropriate to describe it. I know the yada yada about the low-speed-high-AOA inefficiency of the P-51 laminar wing design but never read anything about lack of elevator responsiveness. Same for the P-38 models J and L. I also know how to use the trim tabs and even have them mapped to one of my joystick hats, but I have to resort to them far more often then when I fly my day to-day planes. []s Doc
Well, I replied like I would to somebody who's used to turning his planes, but I see you don't fly like that I've had my own struggles with elevators in the past, and unless the developers have changed something I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on the P51's claimed sluggish elevator control. The P51 attains high speeds easily, and can still compress if the speed is just high enough, maybe that has anything to do with it? Because except for that I must say that under normal flying conditions the P51 has very nice elevator control. Of course, the plane's not in its element in low-speed environments, but the sluggishness you describe mainly comes to my mind as being the result of a 500mph dive? <Z>
Hi Zembla! Seeing your nick (JG13) I thought you were just yanking my chain for a pro-allied plane revision post and I was about to say that we just agree to disagree. But now I?m seeing you are a FH beta tester so I?m going to take your post more seriously As I said before at this thread my findings are just a perception based on a couple of sorties and if I?m wrong it wouldn?t be the first time . Maybe, if you have the tools, you could check my claim in a more scientific approach. []s Doc
Hehe, well, I don't mind an allied plane revision, I don't mind an axis plane-revision, but it happens only oh-so often that somebody's not satisfied with his own flying and is looking for an excuse. (Not accusing you of this, it just happens ). I'll try to check your claims as soon as I get home (near a joystick), don't have a stick at my dormitory... well, I do, but not one for flying purposes I've flown the P51 often in the past, (JG13 might be a JG, but it rotates sides), I always quite liked it. If flown right it's pretty untouchable. But, if the devs changed stuff, my recollection is obsolete, as I haven't flown the plane recently. However, I don't think the devs changed anything 'bout the stang. Maybe they increased it's fuel load a bit, but I doubt it. Will look into it though. BTW, ru Italian? Or do you have Italian roots? <Z>
Zemb is a beta tester by accident, don't worry As for the P51, I/we used to fly it quite much (with my mate Stec for example)...and we were pretty untouchable imo (stay fast, stay hi, kill quickly rule)...
By accident eh? Now if you would've said I bribed the developers... shit, I've said too much already... <Z>
Now you got me drooling all over my keyboard Well, as any normal person, I like to think my work isn't in vain. I just don't work all that much (no time). The things I've taken care of, I've taken care of good I think though. <Z>
