1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2013, 05:54 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default I realize that the P-51 CoG was moved but,

There was a fanboy group that sent documents to Oleg to get elevator stick force lowered and as a result the balance point got moved because that's how it works, that's how it's done. Since then there's been tons of discussion about fuselage tank level where I can't recall seeing anyone mention that the super-sized fuselage tank didn't get introduced until the D models.

Could maybe just maybe have the P-51B and C models CoG moved up even if it means higher elevator stick force?

Also are the sealed ailerons modeled? I expect so, the roll rate is very good.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-17-2013, 07:38 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

of course if nobody agrees or comments on changes then there should be no reason for DT to make any such change.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-17-2013, 06:13 PM
horseback horseback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 190
Default

Nothing I've read indicates that the fuselage tank installed in the B/C models was smaller or different in any practical way from the one placed in the D/K models. The problem starts and ends with the assumption that the fuselage tank should always be filled, when it was intended to be an overload tank used only when filling the wing tanks and carrying drop tanks would not provide the range needed for the planned mission.

All Mustangs provided with the overload tanks were marked with a white (or black, in the natural metal aircraft) cross above the data stencil on the left side of the fuselage, just ahead & below the cockpit sill as a reminder. Of course, that information didn't always get to the units (or sometimes individual ground crewmen) in the field and they had to figure it out for themselves, but that is a natural fallout when your shortest supply lines are over 4,000 miles (Dallas to Liverpool) and your quickest means of duplicating documents is the mimeograph machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimeograph). It was definitely well known and understood by the time veteran units started converting to the P-51 while still in combat operations, and issues or problems due to it being full in combat were most often due to individual error, not common practice.

In any case, when filled, the fuel in the overload tank was supposed to be used over friendly/neutral territory on the way to disputed air space and be more than half empty by the time contact with the enemy was probable. Since Il-2 Sturmovik's game engine does not allow for a CG shifting due to fuel or ammo consumption, the CG should be shifted to one consistent with a nearly-empty overload tank, and 100% fuel should mean that the overload tank will not be filled (and who needs it on any maps in this game anyway?). Overload fuel should be an option for the Mustang, just like 'extra ammo' is an option for the P-47.

No doubt there will be some further issues with handling (there always is), but the Mustang used to have a pretty good reputation for good handling and responsiveness before the Il-2 Sturmovik sim series trashed it.

cheers

horseback
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-17-2013, 10:36 PM
pandacat pandacat is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horseback View Post
Since Il-2 Sturmovik's game engine does not allow for a CG shifting due to fuel or ammo consumption, the CG should be shifted to one consistent with a nearly-empty overload tank,
100% agree to this. If your can't model CG shifting in game engine, it's only fair to model the correct CG. P51 going into combat with full tanks and messed up CG is extremely rare.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-17-2013, 11:09 PM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

You know I do remember the first few patches the Mustang was a pleasantly interesting aircraft to fly before everyone started to complain and it became fairly difficult to fly.

I'd like to see it represented in a configuration that it would typically do battle in. So, I agree... if the CoG is setup in a position that represents a full rear tank then I'd like to see it altered. This would be an acceptable compromise on realism for the sake of dealing with an engine issue.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-18-2013, 12:06 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

I thought the D's were the longer range model and there might be a way to get a P-51 closer to combat condition in game. Is it just the bubble top that's different?

Zeno's has loaded some videos up on Youtube including an intro to the P-51 on handling and characteristics. It is supposed to keep alt without trim change for some range of speed changes which is a wing and tail balancing act. And before that tidbit came up there was mention of the Merlin making the plane a bit nose-heavy compared to the original Mustang. So just -maybe- a version with empty fuse tank will be less trim intensive.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-18-2013, 12:11 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandacat View Post
100% agree to this. If your can't model CG shifting in game engine, it's only fair to model the correct CG. P51 going into combat with full tanks and messed up CG is extremely rare.
It was done because some fanboys had a document that said the stick force should be light, with numbers and perhaps conditions. So we got what it took to make the elevators as light as was demanded.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-18-2013, 01:07 AM
horseback horseback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxGunz View Post
I thought the D's were the longer range model and there might be a way to get a P-51 closer to combat condition in game. Is it just the bubble top that's different?

Zeno's has loaded some videos up on Youtube including an intro to the P-51 on handling and characteristics. It is supposed to keep alt without trim change for some range of speed changes which is a wing and tail balancing act. And before that tidbit came up there was mention of the Merlin making the plane a bit nose-heavy compared to the original Mustang. So just -maybe- a version with empty fuse tank will be less trim intensive.
All Mustangs were considered long range fighters in very close to the the same class as the P-38 on internal fuel; a couple of RAF Mustang Is flew the first fighter sorties over German territory in late '42 or early '43 (possibly with drop tanks, I'm not sure--AFAIK, the Mustang I & Ia lacked that capability, but the RAF was always experimenting, often without consulting the manufacturer).

The Merlin Mustangs were similarly inherently long legged, particularly with the introduction of the droptank capability, but they were just short of an escort to Berlin capability (assuming at least 15 minutes of combat), and some clever fellow noted that since the newer radios didn't take up as much space as before, there was room for an extra tank behind the pilot with another 40% of the original capacity, which would easily put the Pony over the top for that requirement.

The first P-51Bs were reaching Britain in September of 1943, but not in sufficient numbers to equip a full group, satisfy the 8th Air Force's in-house experts that the things were safe to fly those kinds of distances at those altitudes, and familiarize the new group(s) slated to fly them right away. Combat operations with the P-51B didn't begin in earnest until early December of '43, and the 352nd FG started ops without the fuselage tanks (as did the RAF squadrons receiving the Mustang III at about the same time).

While all that was happening, North American was installing the fuselage tanks and flying a test batch of 'improved' aircraft to determine if it could be done without screwing up the airplane's combat capability. Once that was done, they had to satisfy the USAAF that they had done so while at the same time trying to figure out the best way to install them both on the production lines and create retrofit kits that could be practically applied to aircraft already deployed in England. As I recall, the second or third production blocks of the razorback Merlin Mustangs came 'stock' with the fuselage tanks and were starting to arrive by January '44 (although they still only had the original eight track tape players).

The first retrofit kits probably were reaching depots in Britain by December of '43, but the first couple of groups were already committed to operations, so the retrofits to their aircraft were likely done one flight or squadron at a time and in part by replacement of combat damaged or aircraft lost to all causes. 8th AF Mustangs were apparently fully converted to the fuselage tanks by March 1944, since the first daylight bombing attacks on the Berlin area took place in the first week of that month--about eight weeks before the first bubbletop models were issued.

cheers

horseback
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-18-2013, 11:45 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

Was F-15 or F-16 the first US fighter with cup holder(s)? (in response to the 8-track note)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-18-2013, 05:58 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxGunz View Post
Was F-15 or F-16 the first US fighter with cup holder(s)? (in response to the 8-track note)
I don't know. But due to its enclosed cockpit the P-35 was the first U.S. fighter that allowed you to hang fuzzy dice from the rearview mirror.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.