Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The Me-109, by comparison, had some other features like leading edge slats that actually made it easier to handle in the same flight conditions.
I've read quite a few reports from WWII pilots that flew multiple types that actually preferred the other types over the P-51 in a dogfight. The P-51 did of course other characteristics that made it an excellent aircraft.
Try to go 60% fuel or less and see how it handles, i never took or needed above 50%!
I'm finding it departing without any warning and seems to be almost a death trap in lower speed dogfights. In my opinion the P-51 seems to give no warning or its really difficult to judge as there indeed no real control & feedback or feel using a hotas system.
So IL-2 1946 has a much less complex flight model than either DCS or IL-2: GB. I wouldn't base my opinion on the FM in it.
I haven't flown the Mustang in DCS so I can't really comment on that, however:
Read what I wrote above about the semi-laminar aerofoil. You won't get much warning from it before the airflow separates -that's a characteristic of the wing.
The Mustang was not the ultimate, super-dogfighter that romantic history portrays it to be. I have an old issue of Flight magazine around here somewhere that did a pretty good opinion piece on the top 5 dogfighters in the ETO.. they ranked the P-51 as number 4, for a variety of reasons, one of which I pointed out above.
The P-51 had some excellent qualities. I has a very clean wing, a very clean airframe and was an exceptionally well built aircraft with excellent range. But it wasn't the "ultimate airplane" a lot of people think it was. It had its shortcomings, like any other plane.
One of those was the nasty stall characteristics of its wing. You have to fly the airplane with that in mind. If you're constantly stalling the plane at low speed, don't get into low speed dogfights. Certain planes like the Me-109 and Russian Yaks perform better in that area. The P-51 is better as an energy fighter.
I'm paraphrasing a quote here from a RAF officer (I'd have to find the book its from to give you details), but basically he'd flown both Spits and Mustangs extensively in the war, and he was asked which plane he preferred in a dogfight. His response was basically:
"In a dogfight, I'd take a Spitfire every time. Unless I was over Berlin, then I'd take a Mustang, because the Spitfire wouldn't have enough fuel to get me home."
How you can say that something is complex. You can't look inside the Source Code from the Game. And when the Developer say Complex then this is advertising. IL-2 1946 was complex when released. Now this Great Battles is complex too - lol -. This flight model from Great Battles feels like flying on tracks.
BTW The real pilots from WW2 were around eighteen when flying the planes. How the Mustang behave here in this game then I could read in books how many casualties the US had in WW2 with the Mustang.
In 2013/2014 the Yaks couldn't even put their nose up against the 109 in vertical fighting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax3ZYNvumTA
Now the Yaks behave different then in 2013/2014. In 2013/2014 was said the Flight model was correct but why it was corrected or changed then same story with the 190 had strange stall characteristics when released. The Developer said everything is correct but when the A-5 appeared the A-3 stall characteristics was corrected. The Developer create Zombie planes when data not there they use data from a different plane best example the data for the La-5 flight model was used from the La-5FN.
You can't see what data the Developer used because the Developer always claim their data used is top secret. Maybe they don't have any data?
And the Stall Characteristics in Great Battles compared to IL-2 Cliffs of Dover Blitz, in Cliffs of Dover I know what is going on doing the same in Great Battles I don't know what is going on with the plane.
-> In the End all games are wrong because they'll never give you the true sensation of flight since you're not actually sitting in an aircraft feeling full turbulence and g-forces.
And we're done here.
I once asked Bud Anderson about the stall characteristics of the P-51. He told me the seat would vibrate slightly before the stall and that it was very easy to avoid. He loved that plane. Learn from the combat pilots who flew them; Leonard "Kit" Carson's "Pursue and Destroy"is a highly-detailed praise of the P-51. He would have known since he test flew the German fighters that had been taken to Wright-Patterson AAF Base at War's end.
Now part of what I would do at the airshow events would be to setup a simulator for the p-51 so that the people who cannot afford the ridiculously expensive ride do fly the sim. The pilot has also flown the sim and as far as it goes neither DCS or IL2 are perfect, but they are the best out there according to him.
The plane does behave as it should it it is actually that temperamental, though this is hard to fully replicate an aircraft perfectly due to the issues that are unique to sims. For example I was using a VKB gunfighter and vkb rudder pedals and while the gunfighter stick is very similar and realistic to an actual fligth stick, the issue comes in that the force it takes to move the stick is constnat and doesn't change based off of speed. The rudder pedals as well are for the most part always way too loose until you get into things like the redbird rudder pedals which go for around 600 bucks.
That being said they are about as close as you can get in a sim since the thing that really messes things up is the lack of feeling on the hardware side of things.
My recomendation to you is to be very easy on the stick. The P-51 is a very capable aircraft and arguabley one of the best in the game. however you need to fly it smoothly and without pulling too hard. you basicly should never use more than 25% of the total movement for the stick.
Hope this answers your question.
I generally agree that IL-2: Great Battle's flight models are simplistic when compared to something like DCS but at the same time, the Mustang is not the super-plane that you might have been led to believe it is by simplistic/hyperbolic military documentaries on television/Youtube. The big appeal of the Mustang (at least when it finally got the Merlin, bubble canopy, and capacity for extra fuel) was that it was a good, fast high altitude escort fighter that could do really well in "boom and zoom" style fights. Due to the basic physical properties of the wing design, it was HIGHLY prone to accelerated stalls with little warning. In real life, this risk was offset by pilots who actually went through pilot training and were required to learn and understand how to properly fly. In the sim, no such requirements exist so romanticized notions of how good one plane is versus another might not pan out very well.
If you learn how to handle the plane properly and use it properly, it won't give you problems. Real pilots had to learn and that is why there are not a ton of recorded mishaps.
Have you used trimm?
AFAIK propelled single engine planes tend to pull to the propeller direction, P-effect.
Trim "function" compensates that effect, not only P-effect but changes on the balance of the plane like dropping a bomb from one wing or firing a missile.
I don't know if the planes from WWII era had that.