Toad id agree it seems weight in the tanks seems to counter the drag but would you say the same for the 6 rockets on the wings?
when you consider they are on racks with exposed stablising fins and their weight isnt that great. The bombs , in the case of the P51 are in the same place as the drop tanks and most likely weigh even more(?) so i can see they shouldnt make a huge difference.So we have the case that the P51 (imo) ,after reading the DT thing, without the rockets should be able to dive pretty well but my guess would be the rockets if added would cause problems, be they structural (would the wings possibly break?)or in causing turbulance and drag with resulting reduction in speed.
Of course I could be completely wrong, perhaps the bombs would counteract the drag from the rockets?, perhaps the rockets were designed in such a way that they could be taken up to very high speeds but for me it just doesnt sound right.
As for my approach from 4oc, I was 'in-line' with the P51 already up to speed(as in my nose was pointing the same way his was). I was also close enough for the pilot to panic dive(as in i was almost within a reasonable distance for a shot) If i remember corretly some 600 yards maybe 700 max. Like i said i was closing but i was also closing the distance 'laterally'. I can accept ive missed something, that maybe i havent taken something into account but please remember i have been playing for 3 years. Its not an inconsiderable amount of experience of playing and observing behaviour. This 'felt' so wrong I actually got annoyed which is rare in the D9 as i consider it a superb plane to fly. Generally you feel pretty safe flying it. This was a typical attack really. One ive done a hundred times and one where ive had many different results. Like i stated I didnt at first think it that unusual. I thought the pilot was clever enough to realise if he pushed the speeds up high enough (400+) the P51 starts to enter a area where it has advantage in manouverablility and control. I was expecting him to level off and extend. IF he had done this I think i would have thought nothing of it, but instead this guy continued to dive at this speed (possibly still accelerating long after I had to pull out)and proceeded to drop bombs and fire rockets!!. This was when i suddenly thought hold on a minute! , Im in a CLEAN 190-D9 (generally regarded as an equal to the P51C), 60% or so of fuel so i had some weight too and im locking up and almost shaking to peices and this guy in a P51 is having no trouble outpacing me and even had time to aim and fire rockets off accurately!! Now surely you like me would question whether this is right? I know there are many variables, I know i 'could' have missed something but i really dont think i did. The simple fact of the matter is a P51D with rockets and bombs performed better than a 190-D9 in a high speed dive. This isnt the BMW 801D mentioned in that test of the P51B with DT's, its a faster engine, and isnt it a better aerodynamic shape?
I dont know what else im supposed to do when i notice something like this. Am i really expected to learn how to calculate flight models run hours of tests, research endless piles of books and prove its right or wrong? surely this is what the developers are supposed to do. After all they have far more information than we do, we are PAYING them to play and they would have much more material to work with concerning charts etc.
we are not all professors nor do we always have the time to spend hours researching and testing.Im open to explanations to show the behaviour is correct, I havent as HT says made my mind up and refuse to see otherwise, but i am however of the opinion that this doesnt sound right. In my estimation a clean 190-D9 should be able to catch a P51D in a dive if that P51 is loaded with rockets and bombs, especially in the light that i was imo approaching him at a much higher speed before he initiated that dive. Am i completely wrong for thinking this? was the 190-D9 really so poor compared to even fully loaded P51s? I just cant see it myself. Why would the 190-D9 have had such a name for itself if it was so much worse? very odd.
