How Realistic Is The Simulation Mode?

[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.