P-51 Flight Modeling

F

freakngroovn

Guest
I've only been playing CFS3 for a few weeks now, and obviously have no stick time in warbirds, but I do watch/read quite a bit about WWII aircraft and have only heard what an outstanding plane the Mustang is in all aspects - often receiving "best fighter of the war" accolades. In CFS3 it seems to me that the Mustang's handling is much more sluggish than most other fighters/fighter-bombers in the game. I've noticed this across the entire airspeed envelope and have used different flap settings to try to increase lift/turning. Anything more than modest stick deflection gives a Warning Near Stall or Danger Stall message and loss of turning ability. The Spit and Typhoon/Tempest usually let you heave the stick around until you black out, rarely resulting in Danger Stall messages.

Is there a "fix" for this? Does anyone feel this is an accurate representation of the Mustang's handling?
 
Well, there are a handful of versions of P-51 FMs available. To each their own, on if they consider the FM their using is accurate. You can always pick up a copy of Mudpond's FM version, for a fair start, and try it.

Working a a/c FM/Aircraft.cfg is fairly involved, so unless your familar with 'em, probably best to pick one that's already made.

Sure (on the Mustang)...one heck of an airplane...a full blown racehorse.
But...not known by most, the P-51 is not the easiest airplane to master. It's a pilot's airplane, but you had to be a pilot to fly it. The P-51 had quirks, and didn't exactly fly itself, like some others.

Quicky story...20-30 years ago, I met and chatted with an 'ol boy who made his living selling warbirds. He also taught how to drive 'em, giving flying lessons on many types.
He had some guy fly in once...in a P-51d the guy had just bought, wanting some flying lessons.
So, a few lessons were given. After a handful of hours flying, the 'ol boy informed the P-51 owner...that was all he was willing to do. He also told the owner that he had no business flying a Mustang, mainly because the 'ol boy's opinion was the owner was simply not a good enough pilot to drive a Mustang!
Of course, the owner got mad, took his airplane, and left. The 'pilot' flew off the 'ol boy's airstrip, and less than a 100 miles from the strip...crashed, killing himself, and destroying the airplane!

Maybe the 'ol boy was right.
 
:kilroy:Freakngroovn, you can go here for an loser, yet still viable solution: http://www.mudpond.org/

Scroll down near the bottom of the page and click on "CFS3 Flight Dynamics Downloads".

About half-way down the page, you will see this:
New! "New! Mudpond CFS3 Flight Dynamics Replacement Package".

Scroll down a tiny bit further, and you will see this:
"Mudpond CFS3 Flight Dynamics Replacement Package(Updated 30 March 2005) Download It!" Just click on the "Download It!" part.

Mudpond also has a P-51H that is decent. You may want to check that out, as well.

As has been said above the AvHistory planes are a dramatic improvement over the stock CFS3 planes.

Note: For online play, all guests must have whatever the host has selected in his/her install. If not, there will be mismatch errors.:d
 
Flight models as supplied with CFS3 are not terribly realistic at all - the Spitfire for example can out-roll the Fw190, which is the reverse of the historical facts! The best flight models are generally from AvHistory imo.

Following on from crossram's point, you will get better results from CFS3 once you've flown it for a good bit longer, but those who know will tell you that the AI (artificial intelligence?) aircraft - the opponents the game puts up against you - do not have exactly the same flight models as your 'own' aircraft. To give yourself some help here, don't fly with a full fuel load unless you're flying a mission that needs it; 50% fuel is plenty for a full-on dogfight.

One last thing - courtesy of 'Johnnie' Johnson, top-scoring British ace of WW2 - is the difference between a Mustang and a Spitfire. He reckoned the Mustang the best offensive fighter of WW2, the Spitfire the best defensive fighter. Horses for courses!
 
I think the p51b flys the best, the c and d models don't seem to fly as well for me, or just don't like my hands, the P51H is another story completely:) reducing the fuel your carrying will help quite a bit as the Mustangs where long rang fighters thus carrying a lot more fuel than you need for a 20 minute dogfight, with some of the people I fly with your doing good to last one minute:)
 
FG I will send you my FM for the P-51, however I won't be home until this weekend. My FM is better than most in my opinion and handles more true to life than most of the P-51 FM's. When you make a statement like this some people ask, have you flown a P-51? No I have not and neither have they. I am however a real pilot and would quickly admit that a Beech Bonanza is the most high performance airframe I have flown (no warbirds on my resume). I have flown 7-8 other type airframes (light aircraft) and there are just some characteristics of the CFS3 FM,s that are unrealistic to actual flight. I think you would like my FM. PM me with your email and I will hook you up this weekend. Crossram I don't believe that story about the wise old owl, who warned the willful P-51 pilot just before his death. It sounds like one of those all too ironic wives tales created for effect. I'm sure you are only repeating what you heard, but if you researched your story, you will probably turn up nothing.
 
his rocks ,did have a copy then lost it in crash , then brought new computer and he re send me the bird , then i forgot to back it up and you know .....but when i had it its a sweet bird wish LEWIS" would go public with it ..many will enjoy .

anyway , and yes , i need another copy -lol when and if he will or can ...


lb/joshua
 
lewis11777 said:
Crossram I don't believe that story about the wise old owl, who warned the willful P-51 pilot just before his death. It sounds like one of those all too ironic wives tales created for effect. I'm sure you are only repeating what you heard, but if you researched your story, you will probably turn up nothing.
Click to expand...

That's your choice. Doesn't matter to me, one way or the other. I'll give the fact that your a flyboy, and I'm not. (I'm a retired round motor mechanic.)

The circle of folks I was around, and knew fairly well, were all warbird types. Though it's been close to 35 years ago, I recall Preacher (the 'ol boy) showing me a local newspaper article on the crash, that he hung on his office wall (for other persective warbird pilots). So, yeah, I tended to believe his story.
His point was flat. Simply because you have the money to buy a warbird, doesn't mean you have the ability to fly it. End of deal.
 
Crossram, no disrespect intended, if you saw an actual article on it, then it probably occured. There are however similiar stories floating around that turned out to be myth, so skepticism is my first response. Don't take it personal because it can be hard to separate fact from fiction in these forums. I do believe however that a real P-51 would be easier to fly than some of these FM's make it out to fly. The stock P-51D is one example of a very poor flight model, and I know it would not fly like that.
 
Ahh yes, finally a thread about FMs. I got 7 hours in a 152 Aerobat before our club crashed it and the first gulf war killed gas prices. I've been a simmer ever since. #$%& the bankers for screwing it up again. Anyway...as Grizz can tell you, I am a stickler for FMs. The stock ones were cra%. Mudpond was a little better. Nothing is really even close until it starts to simulate momentum, compressibility, and other fluid dynamics. You can tell when an fm locks into an attitude after a contol movement and doesn't sway, or bounce, or sag, or "dutch roll," stuff like that. Especially when at maneuvering or cruising speeds. This plagued the stock fms. AvH nailed them the best by committing to this level of realism. Everything else meant that the turners would be the best and the AI "oops we forgot" bugs would trump the user. Believe me, you will know when you have a good fm on your hands. Energy fighting with a Mustang and Dora. Yank and bank with a Spit and Emil. Edge of the envelope, who stalls first. It's all glorious when you really see it and feel it.
:engel016:
 
No prob, Lewis11777.

I'm kinda known to be a hard case, anyway. Hehe. And like it! Just the way I am.

Yes! I fully agree with you on the FM(s). A little overdone on aspects. Of course, it is IMPOSSIBLE to acturately model a FM, even with it's limits, without 'been there, done that'. Or a vast knowledge of that particular a/c.

But, even with alot of data, pilot's notes, blah, blah, blah...it's also a great matter of interpetation of those written down words. You being a flyboy, it also matters alot on simple common sense, don't it. Hell's bells, that's what flying is about.

That's where some of the faults lay. Interpetation, which is widely open, and common sense, with a degree of flying experiance or knowledge.

Bottom line...cheers to ya! (for bringing up the subject)
 
There are a few tendancies in some of the FM's that detract from the realism factor. Some of the aircraft will pull out of a dive no matter how high your airspeed is, and some will do that very abruptly. Centrifugal force is too great at high air speeds to do such things. In a dive at very high speeds either the aircraft will tuck or the aircraft simply will not pull out of a dive (compressability). Some FM's have improper spin characteristics, for instance the plane rolls hard over to the left whenever you aggressively pull the stick back, regardless of airspeed and altitude. A spin starts out this way but typically only when you are nose high with very low airspeed. With that excessive instability you can not fly the aircraft as aggressively as you should be able to. My FM would probably come up short in the realism of spin characteristics. It would be harder to spin a plane with my FM and more difficult to recover from a spin. However I would say that it is much more realistic and the cruise speed top speed, and stall speed are very close.
 
Groovn...sorry to side-swipe your question. Just know that there is probably (within limits) the best chance of deriving the most accurate P-51 FM, within these sims.

Agreed, Lewis11777, with all you say!

First fact is...all those birds were along time ago. Not something you could simply 'go check out'.

And I'll be the first to admit I'm not the world's best on FM's. I know, though (within limits) that these FM's bear the best chances of dialing in the accuracy of flight characteristics of any given a/c.
But, even with the many great tools out there available, it takes alot of research on the particular a/c, double checking all of it, and probably quite a bit of 'adjusting' certain aspects of the FM, before there is the slightest chance of having ANY degree of accuracy for that FM.

But, these airfiles do have quite a bit of accuracy in them. They simply need to be written correctly.

:173go1:
 
And the airfiles have been improved upon, dramatically. I was a little surprised that the ETO pack ended up installing great new skins on these old horrible FMs. I suppose we couldnt' get permission to install the best AvH FMs for all the stock aircraft, or stand alones. Really, if we had done that, I woudl have been into online play from the very get go. Even the new FMs for the MAW Hurricanes and later the BOB Hurris were alittle odd. I'm not sure but I would think the wood prop would give less torque roll on throttle movement than the later three bladed types. It was awefully easy to snap roll or spin that crate. Then the Corkscrew "underfined" physics woulld kick in and you would red out forever, or the AI would screw around undead and shot at you with no chance of hitting the ground. A similar torque effect plagued the 190s for a long time too. It was a Spit killer for a while and shouldn't have been worse than the Emil.
 
loverboy1 said:
his rocks , i forgot to back it up and you know .....but when i had it its a sweet bird wish LEWIS" would go public with it ..many will enjoy .
anyway , and yes , i need another copy -lol when and if he will or can ...
lb/joshua
Click to expand...

Josh I just uploaded the FM only, so it will be up as soon as administrators see it.
 
Are there any tutorials on FM's? There are a few a/c I have a problem with but don't want to start editing without knowing what all the various parameters do!

I was a little surprised that the ETO pack ended up installing great new skins on these old horrible FMs
Click to expand...

Yes that was a disappointment, the stock 190 is just awful, no wonder cfs3 got maligned so much when released.
 
Pat Pattle said:
Are there any tutorials on FM's? There are a few a/c I have a problem with but don't want to start editing without knowing what all the various parameters do!
Click to expand...

Hiya, Clive.

To answer your question, unfortunately, no.

None that would give you all your answers. There are(were) a few papers floating around that talked about various aspects of the FMs, usually just on one 'section'.
But taking into account the differences (of entries) from one sim to another, only complicates the whole mess. Good example is CFS2 - CFS3, where the CFS2 FMs were complicated enough, but in sorts basic, CFS3 FMs have some CFS2 entries omitted, with newer, even more complicated entries replacing them.

Without knowing what kind of 'problems' your talking about, also hard to answer. Even now, some of the FM entries are somewhat 'unknowns', un-able to figure out what they do.

I know this isn't much help.

There are really great editing programs available though, to use on the airfiles, that also create backup copies.

Hate to say it, but sometimes it's easier to just start new. For accuracy, the FMs need good numbers in 'em to begin with.

Cheers.
 
Pat Pattle said:
Are there any tutorials on FM's? There are a few a/c I have a problem with but don't want to start editing without knowing what all the various parameters do!



Clive let me know what planes you have issues with and I will send you the FM's if I modified or improved them (if you want them). As mentioned above I can't claim it performs 100% accurately but some of mine are definitely more realistic than the originals.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top