How Realistic Is The Simulation Mode?

[Jeevz]

Flight model feels like IL-2 4.x to me.

[Doktorwzzerd]

OK here's a historic question:

In a real Spit or P-51 would you even be able to turn the plane way beyond its threshold at 250 mph, given that the controls are purely mechanical? Would you have to be He-Man in order to do it? I've seen WW2 pilots talking about how in high G maneouvers it takes a huge amount of physical strength to work the stick.

My problem isn't so much with climbing stalls, that I totally get, its with turns. The Spit is a joy to fly, the P-51 on the other hand, uhh it seems like the plane itself was more of a threat than the Germans, but I've read that most pilots really loved the P-51.

I can't wait to see how the other planes fly though, esp the 109 and the Fw-190 D-9, thats my baby!

[Rufus_the_Rat]

Originally Posted by Anton Yudintsev

And common sense.
Probably, there will be more (other) glitches found in a full version, and publisher can make only one one patch (for MS) without additional approvements, agreements, etc.

Right now, we are gathering feedback.

When Resident Evil 5 came out it downloaded a patch on the first day, and the second day, and the third... there must have been like 8 mini patches for that game. And it never had to deal with the problem of flight.

[butterfield]

Originally Posted by Doktorwzzerd

OK here's a historic question:

In a real Spit or P-51 would you even be able to turn the plane way beyond its threshold at 250 mph, given that the controls are purely mechanical? Would you have to be He-Man in order to do it? I've seen WW2 pilots talking about how in high G maneouvers it takes a huge amount of physical strength to work the stick.

The only time high G's come into effect is at higher speeds. Like trying to pull out of a dive at 650kph. I've heard a story of I believe a P-38 pilot literally breaking his leg pulling on the stick under a load. The elevators become harder to operate the more wind resistance they have... it's like sticking you hand out the car window at 65mph versus say 200mph.

Originally Posted by Doktorwzzerd

My problem isn't so much with climbing stalls, that I totally get, its with turns. The Spit is a joy to fly, the P-51 on the other hand, uhh it seems like the plane itself was more of a threat than the Germans, but I've read that most pilots really loved the P-51.

That's becuase the Spitfire is a plane designed for turning fights. The P-51 is not. Most if not almost all american planes were "hotrods"... big powerful engines, fast with poor low speed manueverability. forget what you see in the movies. Pilots of say a p-51 / cosair/ p-47 / f4f /etc would use tactics involving speed and superior position. dive in fire off a burst then climb to a higher positioni. If there was no energy and they were caught at low speed with a bandit on their tail they were already dead.

Originally Posted by Doktorwzzerd

Fw-190 D-9, thats my baby!

Another Boom and Zoom hotrod...but it's small with powerful cannons, quick roll rate, and good high speed turning. Which means its actually good at the scissors at speed. It can hold its own with the turn and burn planes...just got to keep the energy high. If you drop airspeed with no way to recover you are a sitting target.

[David603]

Originally Posted by butterfield

That's becuase the Spitfire is a plane designed for turning fights. The P-51 is not. Most if not almost all american planes were "hotrods"... big powerful engines, fast with poor low speed manueverability. forget what you see in the movies. Pilots of say a p-51 / cosair. f44 /etc would use tactics involving speed and superior position. if there was no energy with a bandit on their tail they were already dead.

Yeah, which is why my favourite WWII fighter is the Spitfire XIV. It might be heavier than the beautiful to fly Merlin Spitfires, but it is faster and quicker climbing/diving than a P51D or Fw190D, and it can still turn inside the majority of late war fighters with ease. Its combination of speed and manoeuvrability means it is one of the few planes that can be used well at both Turn-and-Burn and Boom-and-Zoom tactics.

[butterfield]

Originally Posted by David603

Yeah, which is why my favourite WWII fighter is the Spitfire XIV. It might be heavier than the beautiful to fly Merlin Spitfires, but it is faster and quicker climbing/diving than a P51D or Fw190D, and it can still turn inside the majority of late war fighters with ease. Its combination of speed and manoeuvrability means it is one of the few planes that can be used well at both Turn-and-Burn and Boom-and-Zoom tactics.

Yes an awesome plane! Well..I'm really better with just a BnZ fighter... I'l take the F6F Hellcat for that. I really like that plane.

[Jazzy Jase]

Originally Posted by butterfield

That's becuase the Spitfire is a plane designed for turning fights. The P-51 is not. Most if not almost all american planes were "hotrods"... big powerful engines, fast with poor low speed manueverability.

Except the P-51 was designed for the British and the P-51D even used a version of the Merlin engine that powered the Spitfire!

[David603]

Originally Posted by butterfield

Yes an awesome plane! Well..I'm really better with just a BnZ fighter... I'l take the F6F Hellcat for that. I really like that plane.

I like the F6F for that role too. It is very good against early-mid war Japanese fighters, and I love its ability to absorb damage and keep on fighting.

[David603]

Originally Posted by Jazzy Jase

Except the P-51 was designed for the British and the P-51D even used a version of the Merlin engine that powered the Spitfire!

True, but the P51D is still heavier than a Spitfire, even the Griffon powered Mk XIV, and it gains its high speed through good aerodynamics and a laminar flow wing, not a high power-to-weight ratio.

Higher weight and a smaller wing area means the P51 cannot turn with a Spitfire, but its turning circle is marginally better than the German Bf109G and the Fw190, and its high speed roll rate and instantaneous turn are much better than the Bf109. This means the P51s manoeuvrability, while not outstanding, is sufficiently good to take on German fighters, unlike the P38 and P47 which were built around American air force specifications calling for heavy long range fighters.

[FireFly]

Also you have to think of the fuel load, in il-2 1946 the p-51-5NT and 20NA fly the same way. In multiplayer if you fly the P-51D in 1946 it will help to go in battle with less fuel. I hope it works the same way in birds of prey. So torque fuel-load and payload will play a big roll in simulation. And try to keep the the axis blind by the sun.