Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: warmax12 on July 22, 2008, 02:00:30 PM
-
im realy curious because when ever i use it i cant kill anything with it and when i see other people use it its a monster i mean it doesnt even have any cannon rounds any advice?
-
Well I'm fairly new to this game so i wouldn't take my opinion too seriously. What I think and is the reason why I still use it is because of usage in general.
I have stayed in that plane pretty the whole time mainly because of nostalgic reasons and I have learned to make it work. I am seeing my kill rate increase everyday I use it. I am even starting to land kills.
So basically I think if you fly any plane long enough you'll eventually learn to make it work.
-
Keep it fast. It's great for BnZ attacks. I have the convergence set at 300 yds.
-
Well, the 6 .50 is really a pretty nice gun package as far as ballistics go. Lethality wise it's average but plenty adequate. What's your convergence set at? Are you hitting at all or just not getting kill shots? Have you spent time in other planes?
The 51 is not a great plane to start in for a couple of reasons.
One important reason, IMHO, is that many new people tend to rely on the 51's fairly fast speed and they don't get proficient in ACM. This prevents them from getting the most out of the game. YMMV.
Answer the above questions and it will help folks steer you in the right direction
-
The reason i dont think the P51's .50 are really very good is because when some people think p51 they think "uber". its not, and for me when i fly it i think "Uber" so the .50's dont seem as powerful as say an F4u or P40E.
-
im realy curious because when ever i use it i cant kill anything with it and when i see other people use it its a monster i mean it doesnt even have any cannon rounds any advice?
If you are new, I agree with Steve. Not the greatest plane to start out in. Everyone has their own opinion but I usually recommend the Spit IX for the first few tours. Its fast enough, turns well, decent guns and wont create as many bad habits as the later spits, La7 or Niki.
That said, and since Im momentarily uninterested in reading the report in front of me, Ill tell you what I think. :)
Im pretty far from an expert virtual 51 driver (paging Demon) but I think its advantages in energy retention due to 'just right' weight and low drag make it more suited to the E-fighter role than the BnZ role, which limits options and doesnt fully utilize the advantages of the air frame.
Its rate of climb is above average, the gun package is good and the flaps are useful at high speeds. It can scrub off speed relatively well and it can dive very well. The only thing the 51 is not really suited for is low speed stall fighting or low speed sustained turns which, if youre new to the game, is probably how youre trying to use it. The wing design doesnt like it and acceleration is somewhat sub-par. If youre caught low and slow, youre pretty much cooked.
Try fighting in the vertical (as opposed to flat turns parallel to the ground). Diving creates speed quickly and the zoom climb after is assisted by that 'just right' weight. You can keep this up for sustained periods, with very little energy loss when compared to most other A/C, so long as you rely on inertia, instead of engine power, on the upswing.
Its a great A/C with a generally annoying reputation because its misused by greenhorns, not to get into a fight, but to avoid one.
-
One factor people tend to ignore, but I find as a shootist, of tantamount importance, is nose-low deflection view. As SkatSr showed me the other night, great nose-low deflection view can turn an otherwise rather average LW plane like the P51D into a shootist's wet dream.
For those who don't know, nose-low deflection view is the distance between the bore-sight and the visual obstruction of the engine cowling. The greater the distance between the two the higher the deflection shot you can hit without them being "blind". In real life the P51D became a pilot favorite for this very reason, its visibility dramatically increased over earlier versions with the addition of the bubble or teardrop canopy.
-
Saurdaukar and Steve are spot on.
-
The reason i dont think the P51's .50 are really very good is because when some people think p51 they think "uber". its not, and for me when i fly it i think "Uber" so the .50's dont seem as powerful as say an F4u or P40E.
Any plane that is equipped with M2 .50 cals, in Aces High, uses the exact same M2 .50 cal gun ... you may think that one is more powerful than another, but they really aren't.
-
im realy curious because when ever i use it i cant kill anything with it and when i see other people use it its a monster i mean it doesnt even have any cannon rounds any advice?
Yep, and what others have told you explains why the P-51 is good, in the hands of some pilots, very good!
But what really makes it great is a combination of two other factors, the same factors that made it great in WWII.
The first is survivability! The P-51 is fast, and can extract you from situations that many other aircraft can't. For example, if you are in a fight and other enemy aircraft turn up, you can disengage, drag chasers away from the crowd and resume when it is 1v1 again. Or, if you are in a fight and begin to lose position, say the enemy aircraft is entering the control position, you can disengage, extend and re-engage from a neutral position. In that way you can even out maneuver Zekes by turning with them at high speed where your turn rate and radius will match theirs, and as soon as your speed drops, enter the "Disengage, extend, reverse, re-engage" cycle. It may sound boring, and if you are 1v1 with a better turning aircraft (and that includes most of them) it can become protracted, and that is where the second factor I mentioned comes in.
In real air combat it is very rare for anyone to fly as a single ship, that was a lesson learned very early in WWI. With a wingman, the strengths of the P-51 come into their own, and there is a synergy between that and the survivability factor I mentioned earlier. It is as if the qualities of the P-51 were designed with wingman tactics in mind. That also explains why most real fighters pilots in WWII on both sides wanted aircraft that had similar qualities to the P-51.
When the P-51 is flown in a two ship with a lead and wingman who know and understand wingman tactics and who have good communications and situational awareness the outcome can be stunning. Two P-51s can work enemy groups of up to 6 (that's 3-1 odds) superior aircraft and kill them all and if the situation becomes dangerous they can extend and use a rolling retreat. Again, if two P-51s are extending using the rolling retreat and being chased by LA7's, Spitfires, and other P-51s all acting as individuals, they can kill them all.
It is about team work and the synergy between wing tactics and the attributes and qualities of the P-51, each one on its own can make it good, when used together something almost magical happens... it becomes great!!
Unfortunately, if you don't take advantage of either factor, the P-51 can leave you wondering why it had the reputation it did. Now you know why.
Badboy
-
The reason i dont think the P51's .50 are really very good is because when some people think p51 they think "uber". its not, and for me when i fly it i think "Uber" so the .50's dont seem as powerful as say an F4u or P40E.
:confused:
-
im realy curious because when ever i use it i cant kill anything with it and when i see other people use it its a monster i mean it doesnt even have any cannon rounds any advice?
You don't need cannons. You just need to know how to use 50cals properly. With cannons, you can afford to spray em around a bit and you can rely more on single-hits doing critical damage. With 50cals, you get better ballistics and a higher rate of fire, but critically, you need to 'aim' them at and hold them on the target and get them to hit at or around convergence. Think of it as a fire hose - you have to aim it and hold it on a hot spot and soak each hot spot, rather than just spraying it all over the place. Get those 50cals to 'soak' a spot on your target even for 1/2 a second, and there will be no more target - I assure you.
The 51 IS a monster IF it is used correctly, and its a victim if not. Odds are the people you see making it a 'monster' are using it differently to the way you are.
Here's a write up i did a while back on getting the best from the mustang (as i see it):
http://www.my2cents.co.nz/AKUAG/TheVault_Files/P51Guide.aspx
-
I've found that there are very few good Pony pilots in this game, excluding the likes of SkatSr, Steve and others of course.
If you can avoid the BnZ attacks and get them low and slow you are golden. Ponies are notorious for their great BnZing but if you can get one Co-alt and turning, they are pretty much dead.
-
I've found that there are very few good Pony pilots in this game, excluding the likes of SkatSr, Steve and others of course.
If you can avoid the BnZ attacks and get them low and slow you are golden. Ponies are notorious for their great BnZing but if you can get one Co-alt and turning, they are pretty much dead.
As Badboy pointed out the P51 was perhaps the first fighter developed specifically with mutual support in mind. They were not designed to individually turnfight with a single opponent and certainly not the unrealistically vast array of fighters we have in AH, a lot of which have a large maneuverability and acceleration advantage. Some in AH have the familiarity and skill with them to pull that off in a lot of situations. But, it's fair to say that if you fly any aircraft completely out of context with its intended design concept you're going to struggle with success, the pony is no exception.
-
I've found that there are very few good Pony pilots in this game, excluding the likes of SkatSr, Steve and others of course.
If you can avoid the BnZ attacks and get them low and slow you are golden. Ponies are notorious for their great BnZing but if you can get one Co-alt and turning, they are pretty much dead.
I could list almost 150 that are MORE THAN ADEQUATE in the Pony. You named 2 so far.
-
I could list almost 150 that are MORE THAN ADEQUATE in the Pony. You named 2 so far.
What's your point?
All I'm saying is that there are very few GOOD Pony pilots in this game who can handle their own in a 1 v 1 and not pick.
-
I could list almost 150 that are MORE THAN ADEQUATE in the Pony. You named 2 so far.
Am i one? :)
-
What makes the P-51D so great at shooting down people
Actually, from a skeptic's perspective, the answer to that question is the fuel load.
Even on 75% fuel it flies a much longer duration than most of the planes in the game. So basically, one takes off with DTs, uses that fuel load to get to alt, and cruises around until a nice cherrypick target is found. Pick off a few targets, and since the P-51D is one of the fastest diving plane in the game, and not to mention one of the fastest at deck, they can simply dive towards the direction of friendlies when things become wary. Although a handful of planes are faster at deck, they aren't fast enough to catch a P-51 speeding out of a dive before it reaches safety of friendly pilots or home base.
The catch is, a lot of planes can do that, but only the Pony has enough fuel to get back to altitude, and do it over and over and over and over and over again, and still have enough fuel left to fly half-way across the map. You can't do that with a La-7, or a Typhoon, or a 109K-4 or a Fw190D, or the F4Us. They can be the altmonkey, and they can do the cherry pick, but they don't have enough fuel to do it so many times. Planes like the Zero or the N1K, or the Ta152 have excellent flight time, but aren't fast enough to run away in time.
There, another one of life's mysteries solved.
-
As Badboy pointed out the P51 was perhaps the first fighter developed specifically with mutual support in mind. They were not designed to individually turnfight with a single opponent
Uhhh.... This is so weird in all aspects...
Planes are designed for combat. Pilots are taught tactics. Airplanes were flying in groups, mutually supporting each other already in WW1. Pilots were mutually supporting each other in Spain, in China, in Mongolia, in many wars before WW2.
Many WW1 planes were already being designed for speed and climb, not turnfighting invidually.
Face it: no combat airplanes were designed for "mutual support" - that was what the pilots were taught to do. Even the Triplane/Tridecker, Ki-27, Zero, Gamecock and Gladiator were to be used mutually supporting each other, not invidually.
-
If you want to get good with your P51, you should try the whole planeset against other P51's.
Once you are familiar with the planeset, your encyclopedia of enemy weakness has been established ;)
-
Kweassa,
I beg to differ about the F4U-1 and 1A. They have a much larger internal fuel load than the other three Hogs and have quite an impressive range, especially on cruise. Not quite that of the P-51, but on a full load can still do that.
-
Face it: no combat airplanes were designed for "mutual support" - that was what the pilots were taught to do. Even the Triplane/Tridecker, Ki-27, Zero, Gamecock and Gladiator were to be used mutually supporting each other, not invidually.
That is patently false. The Japanese are a perfect example. Japanese fighters were specifically designed to excel 1 vs 1 against their counter-parts. They were kept light by sacrificing armor in order to preserve their ability to outmaneuver a single opponent. This made them extremely vulnerable to fire, especially from behind as the pilot was not protected by an armor plate. The Bushido code was literally infused into the aircraft design whereby, ideally, each fighter pilot would face off in a samurai-esque duel with a single opponent. That is not to say they did not patrol in groups, but the nature of engagement sought individually was more along the lines of each pilot selecting an enemy and engaging that single foe to conclusion.
A lot of fighter combat tactics evolved and developed during WWII to accentuate the attributes of the newer planes like the P51 which were becoming faster specifically to create a more mutually supportive environment, in tandem, in a progressive fashion. Both the tactics and the equipment were evolving at a rapid pace toward the shared goal of enhanced mutual support.
-
I beg to differ about the F4U-1 and 1A. They have a much larger internal fuel load than the other three Hogs and have quite an impressive range, especially on cruise. Not quite that of the P-51, but on a full load can still do that.
Yeah, but the frustratingly low rate of climb..!
:D
-
Fire only at convergence
Yesterday i had a 4 gun 51D and got a spixteen at convergence, gone go the wings with 26 shots from both slots (13 per gun)
-
That is patently false. The Japanese are a perfect example. Japanese fighters were specifically designed to excel 1 vs 1 against their counter-parts.
The Bushido code was literally infused into the aircraft design whereby, ideally, each fighter pilot would face off in a samurai-esque duel with a single opponent. That is not to say they did not patrol in groups, but the nature of engagement sought individually was more along the lines of each pilot selecting an enemy and engaging that single foe to conclusion.
Urban myths, both claims. Yes, the Ki-27/A6M were light and very capable in traditional dogfight. With Ki-27 for the purpose and because the engines available were so poor, that the plane had to be as light as possible. Ki-43 is a true dogfighhter, though, designed to excel in close combat, but it was the last of its kind...
With A6M the purpose was not to create a dogfighter but an offensive fighter with great range. To achieve that range, everything else was sacrificied.
Claiming "Japanese fighters were specifically designed to excel 1 vs 1" puts all Japanese fighters into same basket and ignores/refuses to understand the differences between various designs and their purposes. Equalling for example Ki-44 to Ki-27/A6M is plain ignorance.
The Bushido code was there with the pilots, too, but they were taught to fight as units, supportive to each other. Mutual support. Westerners often just repeat the much hyped, though false, claims but in real life the Japanese pilots were not lone wolves in combat, but fought with their wingmen, with their units.
Naturally, the trouble is that the truth is far harder to believe than the myths that were invented in west during the wartime as propaganda, having been copied from article to article since then.
-
im realy curious because when ever i use it i cant kill anything with it and when i see other people use it its a monster i mean it doesnt even have any cannon rounds any advice?
Hook up with some guys from Death From Above. Great guys, and some VERY VERY good pony drivers.
-
The Bushido code was there with the pilots, too, but they were taught to fight as units, supportive to each other. Mutual support. Westerners often just repeat the much hyped, though false, claims but in real life the Japanese pilots were not lone wolves in combat, but fought with their wingmen, with their units.
Ive seen more than one interview where old Jap sticks actually discuss this issue.
In the words of one Zeke pilot, in particular (I forget the exact question but it followed a discussion of the relative performance difference between the F4F and the A6M), he responded that the primary difficulty when fighting American's were the wingman tactics. He went on to explain that Japanese pilots were never really taught this to the extent that American's were and that it proved to be a problem because it was difficult to get a shot at one without the wingman smoking you and that, but contrast, the Americans were always able to separate Japanese formations relatively easily and engage individuals on a 2v1 basis.
The kicker is that he attributed this phenomenon to "the values taught by American football." :D
On the other issue - its always been my understanding that American fighters (with the single exception being the F15) have always been designed with speed, speed, speed and, to a lesser extent, range in mind.
Whether the tactics shaped the planes or the planes shaped the tactics is a chicken/egg argument, IMO.
-
In the words of one Zeke pilot, in particular (I forget the exact question but it followed a discussion of the relative performance difference between the F4F and the A6M), he responded that the primary difficulty when fighting American's were the wingman tactics. He went on to explain that Japanese pilots were never really taught this to the extent that American's were and that it proved to be a problem because it was difficult to get a shot at one without the wingman smoking you and that, but contrast, the Americans were always able to separate Japanese formations relatively easily and engage individuals on a 2v1 basis.
Great anecdotal example.
-
Yeah, but the frustratingly low rate of climb..!
:D
I'm so bad in a 51 I'll live with F4U rate of climb. :(
-
Try the humble P51B, take 25% fuel and dop tanks.
Then have fun. A Spixteen will have some job in the turns if you go slow, and if you choose zoom, you'll have a nice time as well. And the slower ...well they are slower than you.
109's and lalas may be a trouble, but if it gets to the dirt, you can probably outturn them. The P51D is heavier.
-
It aint called a runstang for nothing. KEEP speed or you dead pony.
-
It aint called a runstang for nothing. KEEP speed or you dead pony.
Bleh, this person has bought into the myth, disregard.
-
He responded that the primary difficulty when fighting American's were the wingman tactics. He went on to explain that Japanese pilots were never really taught this to the extent that American's were and that it proved to be a problem
On the other issue - its always been my understanding that American fighters (with the single exception being the F15) have always been designed with speed, speed, speed and, to a lesser extent, range in mind.
Whether the tactics shaped the planes or the planes shaped the tactics is a chicken/egg argument, IMO.
American pilots were taught *different*wingman tactics... Japanese tactics were rigid, as their military overall as well, and changes came slowly. Too slow for the pilots. Rigid vic formations, poor communications between pilots, poor radios or often no radios at all... While Japanese pilots dominated early on, the quick adaptation of new combat tactics by Americans were hard to overcome for the Japanese system. Again, this goes to back to how Japanese planes were designed and what technologies they had: for example the Zero was light, yet very sound and well built plane, but the Japanese engines just didn't have the power as Americans had. So the planes were built according this, yet also the pilots removed "extra" equipment like radios... So this had effect on their capability to support each other.
They were trained to fight together, but... What they were taught didn't work that well, when Allied pilots learned how to counter them, then Allieds got so overwhelming powerful that nothing worked anyway....
As US plane design, yup, speed was important, range not so with land planes until P51, P38 and latter P47s came along. P39, P40, P36 didnt have that much legs. Navy planes were naturally better on that regard.
But... Plane design came from purpose. Tactics were already in place - and further developed as the own plane's capability and enemy's capability could be compared.
-
AFAIK the radios were dumped for a benefit.
They were heavy, and mostly useless anyway.
-
Bleh, this person has bought into the myth, disregard.
Oh I'd doubt if its a "myth".
For all the colorful claims on just what the P-51 can do and cannot do, all I've seen so far is basically seasoned veterans smacking around average or below-average level of pilots and then basing the entire argument on how they can outmaneuver any plane with their own favored plane, upon it.
Unfortunately, I've yet to see a <insert plane name> enthusiast really square off against an enemy plane also flown by another pilot of at least equal skill, and then willingly engage in a fight that should be inherently disadvantageous according to the specs of his own plane. For example, I see bunch of guys claiming they can maneuver well in the (let's say) the 190s for example... but for some reason their adversary is never someone like Leviathan in his famed Spitfire series. Or, in the opposite case, when they actually do meet such a pilot of equal skill level, or perhaps even better, for some reason they never seem to feel ashamed to resort to tactics which they so vocally ridicule and make fun of - running, "extending", BnZing, "long-term energy fighting", alt monkeying, etc etc.. you name it.
I see hundreds of ahf film files depicting how a "bad turny plane" can really engage in a fight against the more lighter, nimbler planes, and usually most of them feature a clueless n00b, or an average guy like me, as the enemy.
...
In simpler terms, people usually shoot fish in a barrel and then go so far as to claim fishing with rifles are easy, and they have no problems whatsoever catching more fish than someone who uses a reel and a rod. Ofcourse, this sentiment isn't personally directed at you, Steve. It's directed against the general "vet" crowd, who have a very strong tendency to flatter themselves by casually leaving out some of the more crucial, and not-so-pretty facts about how one succeeds in certain planes.
-
Oh I'd doubt if its a "myth".
KEEP speed or you dead pony.
I don't think you read it. I know you to be a reasonable and thoughful person. A pony in the vert is not particularly fast. Speed is not the pony's only trick, contrary to what he stated in the above. Those who think like this guy don't know how to get themost out of a plane.
I use the misconceptions of people like him to my advantage every day. He'll bounce my pony, with his throttle wide open because all he knows is "runstang". Then he'll quickly find himself in fron of my guns because he didn't react quickly enough to my displacing maneuvers/chopped throttle/flaps or whatever method I choose to make him overshoot.
Buy into the myth if you must, just means more kills for me. :aok
-
Its the pilot, not the plane. A new player isn't going to be any good without practice no matter what they up.
-
Normally I stay out of these threads because I dont think I have much to say but recently several people in the arena have had me thinking about things and I have to make a few comments. I rate myself as average in the P51 and yet I seldom see a P51 I cant kill. Patience can make that happen for you.
No matter which plane you fly you must (absolutely must) learn patience and always always always work on SA. If you ever fixate on one target while fighting a mass of cons you are setting the table for deep fried pony.
The P51 is a great plane but unfortunately in the servers you dont normally have a veteran to take you into action and show you the ropes and look after you. There have been a few people I have tried this with (all of them in my squad) and when you suggest certain rules you can take them into combat and teach them (slowly) how to fly the P51. It is not and it never will be a stallfighter. That being said there are times you can stall fight the plane. It takes experience to recognize those times and you have to know when its a good idea to do so (actually its never a good idea but there you are). Mostly if I am stall fighting its because I know the guy in front of my guns doesnt have a clue. Sometimes (not very often) that gets me into trouble.
My favorite use for the P51 is bomber killing. I have an approach to killing bombers that (when I can make use of it) allows me to shoot them while they are unable to return fire. They think they can but they cant. Im still waiting on the patent.
The best use of the P51 is in groups in my opinion. BNZ is great but it wont last forever. In groups you can cover each other. The rolling defense someone posted above is one of my favorite ways to egress as a group. Not everyone in my squad has caught onto it yet but they are slowly seeing the light. In groups you can slowly eat away at a larger mass of cons without anyone really being at risk.
If you fly the pony you will be called timid a runstang pilot a picker and afraid to engage. These are the calls of people unable to employ their choice of plane in such a way as to be able to defeat you. As I said before about fixating on a single con? A fixated pilot will get 'picked' every time. He has allowed his SA to drop and the price is death. A runstang is a pilot flying a P51 that has chosen to disengage. Someone 'afraid to engage' is waiting for the situation to turn advantageous to him so he can 'chose to engage.' A timid pilot sees something the other guy doesnt or isnt comfortable in the situation. The guy calling you timid has the advantage if he can just get you into 'his' fight. If you hear someone rant this on 200 at me (or any 51) just join in on laughing at them.
If I kill you in one pass your a noob. If it takes two you can throw a plane around pretty good. If it takes more than that I must be ill.
Thats my story and Im sticking to it.
-
Couple weeks ago I dug up some aerial gunnery related material from the PRO and among them was a report from the Central Fighter Establishment which compared some WWII RAF fighters as an aiming platform. The compared planes were:
Spitfire IX, XIV and XVI
Spitfire 21 (contrarotating prop)
Mustang III
Tempest V and II
Meteor
The comparison was made by fitting the camera to the plane and measuring the aim wander at various flight conditions during attacks against a target plane. The tested flight conditions were:
Straight level flight at max cruise and 90% max speed
Circling flight at about 2g in max cruise and 90% max speed
Dive at about 80% of limit speed
The results were that the Meteor was the worst due to some poblems with rudder control and the prop fighters were near equal. However, the Mustang got the best results in every test so this indicates that one of the reasons for it's success was good aiming characters.
-
Oh I'd doubt if its a "myth".
For all the colorful claims on just what the P-51 can do and cannot do, all I've seen so far is basically seasoned veterans smacking around average or below-average level of pilots and then basing the entire argument on how they can outmaneuver any plane with their own favored plane, upon it.
Unfortunately, I've yet to see a <insert plane name> enthusiast really square off against an enemy plane also flown by another pilot of at least equal skill, and then willingly engage in a fight that should be inherently disadvantageous according to the specs of his own plane. For example, I see bunch of guys claiming they can maneuver well in the (let's say) the 190s for example... but for some reason their adversary is never someone like Leviathan in his famed Spitfire series. Or, in the opposite case, when they actually do meet such a pilot of equal skill level, or perhaps even better, for some reason they never seem to feel ashamed to resort to tactics which they so vocally ridicule and make fun of - running, "extending", BnZing, "long-term energy fighting", alt monkeying, etc etc.. you name it.
I see hundreds of ahf film files depicting how a "bad turny plane" can really engage in a fight against the more lighter, nimbler planes, and usually most of them feature a clueless n00b, or an average guy like me, as the enemy.
...
In simpler terms, people usually shoot fish in a barrel and then go so far as to claim fishing with rifles are easy, and they have no problems whatsoever catching more fish than someone who uses a reel and a rod. Ofcourse, this sentiment isn't personally directed at you, Steve. It's directed against the general "vet" crowd, who have a very strong tendency to flatter themselves by casually leaving out some of the more crucial, and not-so-pretty facts about how one succeeds in certain planes.
I think AKAK summed this up best not long ago when he said something to the effect, "If I outmaneuver a Zeke in tight with my P38, I don't assume the P38 is a more maneuverable plane, I assume the Zeke pilot had no clue what he was doing"
-
You see so many people landing mucho kills in the P-51D because people love the thing, and love bridges alot of gaps.
An F4U-1A or a Jug could do as well or better, but you've got to love something to fly it until you know every rivet like P-51 flyers in AHII do. You'll notice, there is a cadre of them who hardly ever jump into anything else. I don't know if any other plane in AHII inspires that kind of loyalty.
-
I think AKAK summed this up best not long ago when he said something to the effect, "If I outmaneuver a Zeke in tight with my P38, I don't assume the P38 is a more maneuverable plane, I assume the Zeke pilot had no clue what he was doing"
Yep, Zazen.
My point is this;
When usually an average pilot, or a n00b guy asks a question on how he can use a certain plane wisely, someone tells them to use it to its strengths. For example, like the case mentioned in this very post, DEAR98 answered,
It aint called a runstang for nothing. KEEP speed or you dead pony.
...now, this kind of advice may not be to a vet's liking, but in basic principle it is a sound advice. P-51s aren't the best of maneuvering planes, and its strengths primarily come from its capability to choose the fights it wants, and engage at one's own will when things go bad. But then Steve refutes,
Bleh, this person has bought into the myth, disregard.
Now, the implications are clear. Steve wants to say that the P-51s aren't just "runstang" planes, and there are lots more ways to use it to the full. In these sort of postings there's always a "vet" like Steve showing up, and (even if it was unintentional) makes people who give out basic principles and sound advices seem like fools... and mislead n00bs into thinking that you can do anything with a given plane.
However, the reality is, like AkAk's quote you've mentioned, that the fancy style of flying a certain plane into the types of fights it normally shouldn't be fighting, basically presupposes the enemy pilot is clueless and lacking in skill, and therefore, doesn't know how to use his own plane to its maximum strength, and thus will be losing a fight which he should have no problem winning were he not a clueless pilot.
In other words, those kinds of "vet advices" inherently hold a premise that the enemy one would be facing, will always be lesser in skill than oneself. Thus, P-47s guys show up and brag they can kill any Spitfire in a close tangle. P-38 guys show up they can beat any N1k2 without having to run away or extend. Fw190 guys show up and advise n00bs to 'utilize the roll rate and make the guy overshoot'.... despite the fact the simplest, and most effective course of action to the objective of defending oneself, would simply be to use the speed advantage and run away.
It's not as if the vets never run away or 'extend' infinitely in face of the enemy. Like said, when the enemy pilot is really a clueless n00b, they'd do all sorts of fancy maneuvering to slap him in the face at their own plane's game. However, when things do go bad, when one faces someone at least skilled as himself - they don't hesitate to run. They do it all the time. However, many of those vets propagate their own "myth" by making n00bs think that running away is a bad answer, and they should stay in the fight and intentionally engage in a type of combat which they can't win.
So how DO the P-51 vets rack up so many kills?
They fly in packs. They fly wingmans with a pilot they know well enough to trust. They use the alt advantage. They fly high. They "sweep" the skies starting from the highest alt advantage, knocking down enemy planes lower than themselves one by one. They help their friendlies grab the local air superiority. And then, when they figure that they have enough time and safety to engage an enemy plane that seems to be piloted by a lesser skilled pilot, then they engage it one to one. When they misjudged the enemy pilot's skill, they simply run and extend, grab alt, and repeat the process. If running away seems difficult, his wingman shows up to clear his tail.
But no vet ever explains the above details. He simply chimes in and says, "you should learn better ACM (and fight a nimbler, better maneuvring enemy plane in his own game, and win)".
That, is where my cynicism is directed at.
We wouldn't be calling someone a n00b, if he could do that kind of thing, make that kind of judgements in the first place. Those kind advices aren't advices at all - its self-flattery. They leave out the more subtler details of their success, and simply emphasize the skill factor, which doesn't help a n00b at all.
-
And then, when they figure that they have enough time and safety to engage an enemy plane that seems to be piloted by a lesser skilled pilot, then they engage it one to one. When they misjudged the enemy pilot's skill, they simply run and extend, grab alt, and repeat the process.
Good point.
When you see planes being outmaneuvered by much lesser turners, the opposition, either on offense or defense, has usually allowed the fight stay at a high enough speed that the Pony (or the Fw-190, or the Jug, whatever plane with good high speed handling,) can maneuver as well or better than the t'n'b plane in question.
If you are in a P-51D, see a Spitfire coming in on your tail with E, you 0 G over into a 400mph dive, he keeps a-coming, and you force him to overshoot with superior high-speed handling and throttle management, and you get the kill on the snapshot as he overshoots, you are "great and a Sierra Hotel stick".
If however, he absolutely refuses to follow you in your dive or pulls back the throttle in a timely manner, you have just successfully executed the "Runstang" maneuver and you are apparently a "runtard dweeb." :huh
But it was the opponent's mistakes or lack thereof that dictated how the fight was going to go down all along. Ah, the irony! :D
-
...now, this kind of advice may not be to a vet's liking, but in basic principle it is a sound advice. P-51s aren't the best of maneuvering planes, and its strengths primarily come from its capability to choose the fights it wants, and engage at one's own will when things go bad. But then Steve refutes,
I retract the thoughtful and reasonable text I typed about you. You seem to be a pontificating blowhard who enjoys talking down to people.
A guy said: KEEP speed or you dead pony.
and I essentially replied that the pony has option besides going fast.. that's it.
I didn't refute what you claim I refuted:. P-51s aren't the best of maneuvering planes,......
Spoken plainly, you're a liar who is obviously more interested in attempting to condescend in an effort to appear more enlightened thatn the next guy rather than actually discuss what is occurring in the exchange. You can change my words to try to make yourself look sage to the unwashed masses but I won't allow it.
-
So how DO the P-51 vets rack up so many kills?
They fly in packs. They fly wingmans with a pilot they know well enough to trust. They use the alt advantage. They fly high. They "sweep" the skies starting from the highest alt advantage, knocking down enemy planes lower than themselves one by one. They help their friendlies grab the local air superiority. And then, when they figure that they have enough time and safety to engage an enemy plane that seems to be piloted by a lesser skilled pilot, then they engage it one to one. When they misjudged the enemy pilot's skill, they simply run and extend, grab alt, and repeat the process. If running away seems difficult, his wingman shows up to clear his tail.
But no vet ever explains the above details. He simply chimes in and says, "you should learn better ACM (and fight a nimbler, better maneuvring enemy plane in his own game, and win)".
That, is where my cynicism is directed at.
I like this particular debate a lot. I mentioned these general concepts in the cherry-picking topic thread last week. I am really toying with the idea of writing some sort of "guide" about this.
Let's look at this issue from a new player's perspective. This game has an incredibly enormous learning curve. I think the vets have been playing for so long they don't remember or realize this. My definition of a new player is someone who has less than 500 air combat fighter hrs of experience. It is all we can reasonably ask of a new player to find a plane or two they enjoy or want to fly because they read about it or watch "Dogfights" on the history channel. To then tell them to attempt to fly it completely out of its historical and modelled context is an unreasonable request. All you are going to do with that is cause half of the people HTC has successfully brought to AH with their marketing/advertising campaign to cancel their accounts in total frustration.
That being said. There comes a time, after the "new" period, we can call it the "intermediate" period of variable length, when the pilot starts to get more adventurous with the flight envelopes of their planes. Everyone finds a comfort level with each plane eventually and learns how far to push the envelope and when to do it. Rushing players through that phase actually does them a disservice. A few really fast learners or those endowed with uncanny, innate ability may prosper, but the majority will not. They will get frustrated and cancel their accounts.
To fault a person for flying whatever ride he enjoys in the manner it was intended is like chastising a bird for flying, a fish for swimming or a monkey for climbing trees. Some people "get-off" on flying to the extreme edge of the envelope and beyond then beating the odd plane in "duck out of water" fashion. Some "get-off" on flying a plane in perfect harmony with its design concept and becoming extremely proficient at doing so. I think both types are great. I know many great sticks in both of those categories. I respect them all equally, both methodologies are very challenging in their own way. But, superimposing expectations on newer players that are reflective of playstyles that are the culmination of years upon years of experience is unrealistic and potentially harmful to the game financially. It's much healthier for the long-term viability of the community to let people grow into it at their own comfortable rate.
-
I don't always agree with you Kweassa, but you've hit the nail on the head with your posts in this thread.
For example, the currently modeled P51s have many fewer options than they did a couple of years ago (since HTC crippled them by changing the drag model per Widewing in threads such as this one http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,212801.45.html or this one http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,199758.0.html).
Steve, chill out. :-)
-
Steve, chill out. :-)
Uhhh. I am chilled, I simply won't allow Kweassa to change what I've siad so he can perpetuate an argument. Going fast isn't the pony's only option. Do you disagree?
-
Hi guys :) :
Thanks to real life my mustang has been the virtual hangar for the last month and I haven't been venturing on the boards lately. Thought I would add my $.02 to this thread.
My Three Laws of Air Combat:
1) There are no absolutes in air combat; it's all relative
2) You can't defy aerodynamics
3) The way we fly reflects the way we think
When someone asks a question like "what are the best ways" of using a particular aircraft you get a lot of advice like what's been mentioned. The trouble is the advice is really all relative. It's relative to energy states. It's relative to aircraft capability. It's relative to airspeeds. It's relative to weight. It's relative to separation distances. The list goes on.
The problem is when we take this advice as absolutes. You see it all the time in different ways in statements like:
"the Mustang is a B&Z fighter",
"it's an energy fighter, not a stall fighter",
"keep your speed or you a dead pony".... etc.
So when is a fighter an energy fighter vs. an angles fighter? Actually the whole categorization that an airplane is an energy fighter vs. an angles fighter is off to begin with. It's really when should you use energy tactics vs. angles tactics? The answer to that question is all relative to a given situation.
This leads to Law #3. The way we fly reflects the way we think. If we think in absolute terms then we fly our aircraft in absolute terms. If we think in relative terms then we fly our aircraft in relative terms. I know, quite esoteric. It has big implications though. So if we take the advice on aircraft as absolute then we fly it in a way that absolutely paints ourselves into a box for flying that airplane . Free your mind! Remember the 1st law, it's all relative!
This is what Steve is saying about how to fly the Mustang. Don't fly it so that you've painted yourself into a box. This is also what's insightful about what Badboy says as well. Don't forget about the dimension of teamwork and how that changes the relativity of air combat.
Cheers!
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Aces High is like PacMan. You see little bits of chewies flying in space and you rush to gobble them down before someone beats you to it...
There is no such thing as picking cherry picking or kill stealing... just LUNCH!
-
Going fast isn't the pony's only option. Do you disagree?
I,m sure going fast isn't the only option for the runstang.
BUT, the larger majority of guys who use them in the MA use it very one dimensionaly. When you are co-alt with them, they run,period.
During my last sortie tonight, I chased a pony from 10k to 23k in a freaking circle!
Happens all the time. Run Run Run.
And no, he didn't shoot me down.
Widewing did though! Nice shot from a ship of some sort as I desended to find someone who would fight.
Just a collosal waste of time.
If anything near them gets remotely close to being co-alt,Zoooom off they go.
I think they are a Pox on the game and should be perked.
I know its not the plane, its the pilot, but geeez louise!!
The P-51 needs to be perked!!!
Whine over and out,
Boner :cry
-
use the force and shoot down enemys you will :D :lol
-
Steve,
My thought is that, given the way P51 performance is currently modeled, 1-1 against an opponent of equal skill its speed is really its only remaining asset. This speed lets you chose to engage when you have a transient advantage, and disengage when you don't. If you shoot well enough you may be able to cash in on that transient advantage. The preceding tends to lead to a certain pattern of engagement in such 1-1, equal-skill-level engagements, which will often force the P51 to break off the fight (ie "run").
Of course, against an opponent of lesser skill you have increased options, leading to more variation in how the fight plays out, but that's generally true of any plane.
-
The P-51 needs to be perked!!!
:huh
-
Steve,
My thought is that, given the way P51 performance is currently modeled, 1-1 against an opponent of equal skill its speed is really its only remaining asset. This speed lets you chose to engage when you have a transient advantage, and disengage when you don't. If you shoot well enough you may be able to cash in on that transient advantage. The preceding tends to lead to a certain pattern of engagement in such 1-1, equal-skill-level engagements, which will often force the P51 to break off the fight (ie "run").
Of course, against an opponent of lesser skill you have increased options, leading to more variation in how the fight plays out, but that's generally true of any plane.
Nice post...
The P51 is one of a pretty short list of pure "initiative" fighters. The ability to engage and disengage at will is a tool, just like a Hurricane turning on a dime and giving you change is a tool. Of course someone who flies the same plane for 10+ years will be so familiar with it that he can likely fly it out of context, like a "duck out of water" and enjoy some success if he so chooses, especially against a weak opponent not so familiar with his plane. More power to him, but in my personal opinion, a great Pony driver who flies it in perfect synergistic union with its design concept and modelling is a thing of pure beauty. Any plane flown in this way is a joy to observe, much like a perfectly pitched baseball game resulting in a no-hitter.
We wouldn't say to the pitcher of a no-hitter in the after-game interview, "Bob Sloan, that's your 2nd career no-hitter and we realize you are a fastball and sinker ball pitcher. But, the game would have been much better if you didn't use your two best pitches but threw curveballs and sliders instead...".
I'm not taking anything away from players that choose to apply their tools in a ways divergent from their intended purpose. Watching someone who can do that consistently, especially against skilled opponents, is no less impressive. But, a player choosing not to fly planes in "duck out of water" fashion doesn't take anything away from my opinion of him. Cursing a P51 pilot because he chooses to not fight your fight, then following him around for 30 minutes is not only irrational, but a complete waste of time.
I don't know about anyone else but I feel much more satisfied when I kill someone who was flying his plane in perfect harmony with it's strengths than I do when I kill someone who was flying his plane to its weaknesses. Sure, it's a little exciting to see a Pony driver go a couple of turns with a SpitV in tight, right up until the part where the SpitV gets inside him and sends him to the tower. Once in a while the Pony driver may get the Spit, especially if he sucks, but that's not that inspiring to me.To me the perfect engagement is every plane flying to their strength's while at the same time trying to exploit the other's weaknesses. It's just like watching a gorgeous sunset or your kids opening their Christmas presents. It's what makes life awe inspiring.
-
Steve,
My thought is that, given the way P51 performance is currently modeled, 1-1 against an opponent of equal skill its speed is really its only remaining asset.
Well, I'll post my thoughts on another asset and then kweassa can come on and talk down his nose to me some more in order to validate his existence.
Certainly speed is the pony's primary asset. I don't know that you can consider its' views an asset in the same vein you would consider speed one. For the sake of this discussion, let's say it is more of a passive asset and we are talking about active assets, agreed?
Speed is one thing that opens up the door for another weapon; one that is not in many 51' pilot's repertoire. It's not that they couldn't use it, no doubt many could but I don't see many do it. In fact, very very few.
I'm talking about deceleration. Often, a guy bouncing a pony is balls to the wall because he hasn't given consideration to the fact that the pony may try something other than just running. With it's ability to drop flaps early, and a decent sized rudder surface, the pony decelerates pretty well. Yes, there are a couple of other planes that slow down faster but in my mind, this is an asset to the pony. Not only does it decelerate decently, but like I said, many opponents catch on to the deceleration late. I am convinced that this is, at least in part, due to the 51's reputation/ability to run.
I'm not going to convince the experts of this, I mean, what do I know? But there is no way for anyone to convince me I'm wrong either. I've used this tool in the MA to my advantage many times and against experienced opponents. From my own experience, it works much more often that it fails. YMMV.
I have my flame suit on now so you guys can go ahead and tell me what an idiot I am. :aok
Steve
-
Steve, what do you do after you decelerate them? Go for the overshoot? Scissors?
-
Steve, what do you do after you decelerate them? Go for the overshoot? Scissors?
overshoot.
-
Everyone that keeps focusing on the P-51's speed, you realize that it's max performance turn is not anywhere near it's top speed right? It's corner velocity is well below that. If you want to maximize angles then you're wasting your time trying to do so when you're flying at airspeeds greater than corner because the faster above corner you are the worse your turn performance is.
Let's take this concept a little further. You realize that if a Spit 16 engages the P-51 at the Mustang's corner speed has no turn performance advantage vs. the P-51 until it's turning below the Mustang's corner speed because the Spit 16's corner speed is well below that of the P-51's. A savvy Mustang pilot will use this to their advantage. Advantage in air combat is determined by the relative differences for particular situations.
Zazen - to me this is the epitome of flying to the strengths of a particular airplane when a pilot understands stuff like this about their airplane. This is why I'm always troubled by the advice on flying an aircraft a certain way because air combat is all relative. When people say keep the Mustang fast, well what does that mean? Firstly it ignores any relativity in terms of altitude, speed, weight, separation etc. between the combatants. 2ndly it's so non-specific to given situations that it's a misleading generalization.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Zazen - to me this is the epitome of flying to the strengths of a particular airplane when a pilot understands stuff like this about their airplane. This is why I'm always troubled by the advice on flying an aircraft a certain way because air combat is all relative. When people say keep the Mustang fast, well what does that mean? Firstly it ignores any relativity in terms of altitude, speed, weight, separation etc. between the combatants. 2ndly it's so non-specific to given situations that it's a misleading generalization.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
I couldn't agree with you more. The strengths of a plane are always relative to the weaknesses of the opponent as I stated at the conclusion of my last post. That's what makes air combat really interesting, it's a constant balancing act. We could say in general that a Niki out-turns a P51D. But, it sure as hell doesn't out-turn it at 375 mph. So, it would likely be the correct play for the P51D to turn with the Niki for lead and a guns solution at that speed. But, it would not likely be a good play to do so at 175 mph. That is just one example, but certainly, as players become more familiar with a particular aircraft they will learn when it is the correct play to fly a plane a bit out of context vs. other aircraft types in certain situations to exploit their weaknesses. That's pretty much the definition of a "good" pilot in my opinion. I distinguish that from the same P51D that still tries to turn with the Niki at 175 mph. Even if he was somehow ultimately successful I would consider that a weak play because he flew to his enemy's strengths and his own weaknesses.
Sometimes not compromising the strengths of your aircraft are out-weighed by the opportunity to exploit the weaknesses of the other aircraft, sometimes not. A "veteran" fighter pilot is one that knows this and maintains that delicate equilibrium of tactical discretion for maximum effect.
-
Well, if your prey is making a low speed bat turn and you're faster, you take a high turn, hehehe :D
-
Well, if your prey is making a low speed bat turn and you're faster, you take a high turn, hehehe :D
Yup, but when you refer to both of those actions as a "turn" it can be misconstrued by those not well versed in the vernacular of air combat maneuvers. If a slower plane does a "bat" turn, as you describe it, then you go up for a high yo-yo in a fast plane, which I assume is what you mean, you are essentially E fighting him, not turn-fighting him. You're exploiting your energy advantage to create an angle you could not likely achieve by the raw relative turn-rate of your aircraft alone. That would be completely different than chopping throttle, dropping a notch or three of flaps and trying to "bat" turn with him in the direct sense, that would truly be turn-fighting. A high Yo-Yo, in that example, is an indirect way to fight him and is therefore, in essence, E fighting not turn-fighting.
-
Steve,
I would agree that cockpit view and decelleration are minor P51 assets. However, against an equally experienced (whatever that means) opponent in a Spit or 109, these are relatively less important for sustained close-in fights than turn rate/radius, accelleration, and climb. Thus against this hypothetical equally experienced opponent, you engage with transient advantage, try to maintain this advantage as long as you can while you take whatever shot(s) you have, and then once the advantage against the Spit or 109 inevitably expires, if it is still undestroyed, you dive away and use your speed advantage to disengage. During the above process the P51 could decellerate down to stall speed, so I'm not advocating "keeping your speed up". Just advocating retaining enough energy (possibly in the form of altitude-related potential energy) to allow escape should you not destroy the opponent.
For example, I rarely overshoot a decellerating opponent (being a moderately experienced player). Instead I try to remain aware of the possibility of overshoot and if necessary counter with something like a high yo-yo.
-
And no, he didn't shoot me down.
Widewing did though! Nice shot from a ship of some sort as I desended to find someone who would fight.
Last evening I was flying P-38s the whole time, except for a few minutes in a Wirby. I did collect an unexpected kill though.. Probably was puffy ack that got you and I wasn't far away, getting the proximity kill. I was flying top cover over the CV in a P-38L and had just whacked a P-51D when a second kill popped into the text buffer.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Steve,
I would agree that cockpit view and decelleration are minor P51 assets.
So you agree with me, cool.
-
A good shot in a mustang such as the guys who have posted in this thread, tango steve widewing to mention a few dont need to go more than 1 or 2 turns at corner speed to kill most anything in the sky.
-
A good shot in a mustang such as the guys who have posted in this thread, tango steve widewing to mention a few dont need to go more than 1 or 2 turns at corner speed to kill most anything in the sky.
No arguments there. I will be the first to tell anyone, great gunnery can make up for almost anything..Bad plane match-up, bad situation, bad position, bad angle, bad flying, bad plane, etc...The list is almost endless. But, not a lot of people have the calibre of gunnery that is going to bail them out of unrestrained "duck out of water" flying...
Heck, I remember in a historical AW scenario. I was alone, low n' slow in a JU88 against 15+ low enemy fighters and got 8 fighter kills before they finally got me. I had never even flown the JU88 before...It was just pure gunnery...I didn't film it, but I am sure if I had and reviewed the film I would conclude it had almost nothing to do with my plane or how I flew it...
-
Well, if your prey is making a low speed bat turn and you're faster, you take a high turn, hehehe :D
Yes, a high yo-yo may be effective :). But the rate at which you can trade altitude for energy is constrained by the relationship of the specific excess power of the particular aircraft, therefore by implication so are the angles. For instance try using a high yo-yo in a Mustang when you're at 400 mph IAS against a Spit IX in a horizontal max turn at 225 mph. Very hard to be able to convert the Mustang's energy into a positional advantage for a shot using a hi yo-yo when the relative differences in speed are that great in this situation.
....
And freez, you're much too kind :).
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
No arguments there. I will be the first to tell anyone, great gunnery can make up for almost anything..Bad plane match-up, bad situation, bad position, bad angle, bad flying, bad plane, etc...The list is almost endless. But, not a lot of people have the calibre of gunnery that is going to bail them out of unrestrained "duck out of water" flying...
Heck, I remember in a historical AW scenario. I was alone, low n' slow in a JU88 against 15+ low enemy fighters and got 8 fighter kills before they finally got me. I had never even flown the JU88 before...It was just pure gunnery...I didn't film it, but I am sure if I had and reviewed the film I would conclude it had almost nothing to do with my plane or how I flew it...
Agreed zaz, but thats whats nice about the 51d, the 6 .50 cals have such a range of firing angles that they are more flexible in certain gunnery situations. Its scarey that I know your story is true ;)
Tango credit goes where it is due.
-
Agreed zaz, but thats whats nice about the 51d, the 6 .50 cals have such a range of firing angles that they are more flexible in certain gunnery situations. Its scarey that I know your story is true ;)
Tango credit goes where it is due.
Yup, I don't like to fly any plane that doesn't have a great nose-low deflection view for that very reason. It opens up a huge repertoire of shots that you just don't have in planes that have poor nose-low deflection views. If you're a crack-shot sniper, you want as many opportunities to use that gift as possible no matter how high the deflection is. If you're a poor-mediocre shot it wouldn't really matter that much because you're going to usually want to keep the deflection as low as possible by maneuvering into the saddle anyway which is almost never "blind", even in planes with poor nose-low deflection views.
-
Steve:
I know this is quite true, and seen your films of it working, but it still strikes me as something that works because many opponents are a just a little too relaxed while flying, too complacent and maneuvering on some preconceived notion of "what ponies do" instead of what the pony on the screen in front of them is doing. This in turn is a purely artificial product of the P-51D's popularity and the attendant number of noobs flying it.
I remember something a WWII pilot said..."Always fly like its the Red Baron in the other plane", or something to that effect, and I think that might be the single greatest piece of advise any AHII pilot can hear. Afterall, the guy in front of you might be a veteran of 0 combats or tens of thousands...assume the latter, and you'll always be pleasantly surprised if they make a mistake, instead of very unpleasantly surprised when they kill you.
I'm talking about deceleration. Often, a guy bouncing a pony is balls to the wall because he hasn't given consideration to the fact that the pony may try something other than just running. With it's ability to drop flaps early, and a decent sized rudder surface, the pony decelerates pretty well. Yes, there are a couple of other planes that slow down faster but in my mind, this is an asset to the pony. Not only does it decelerate decently, but like I said, many opponents catch on to the deceleration late. I am convinced that this is, at least in part, due to the 51's reputation/ability to run.
Steve
-
Afterall, the guy in front of you might be a veteran of 0 combats or tens of thousands...assume the latter, and you'll always be pleasantly surprised if they make a mistake, instead of very unpleasantly surprised when they kill you.
That is probably the biggest reason we get addicted to this game and keep playing it. So many games out there can be completed or finished or ended. AH is unique and there is always someone out there that will beat you at one time or another. It is never ending. Enjoy the fights, enjoy the banter.
-
Spoken plainly, you're a liar who is obviously more interested in attempting to condescend in an effort to appear more enlightened thatn the next guy rather than actually discuss what is occurring in the exchange. You can change my words to try to make yourself look sage to the unwashed masses but I won't allow it.
No Steve.
I'm a guy endowed with a gift of cynicism, who usually tend to pick on the "veterans" and their way of belittling and ridiculing what the "not-so-gifted" bunch of pilots have to do to survive in the MA, for the sake of the many n00bs and average pilots who go searching on these boards for an answer. I've been on these boards almost as long as anyone else, and in time I've seen what usually them "vets" chest thump on the boards, and actually do out in the field, can be many different things.
Oh I've seen how you fly too, Steve, and I have great respect for what you can do in the field. Many people would give anything to be able to fly like you, and envy you for how you can make them P-51s truly shine. But Steve, sometimes, guys like you don't really see how the reality of the world goes around you, much less really know what makes them so successful themselves. Those guys come to the boards talking in half-truths and a lot of wishful thinking which usually revolves around on supposing everyone in the MA should be at their level of skill, and any other way to fly is n00bish, unexciting, unnecessary.
It is those type of arguments which I usually come along with a pitchfork and tend to screw around with, and I couldn't care less what you think about me. This was never about you in the first place.
-
No Steve.
I'm a guy endowed with a gift of cynicism, who usually tend to pick on the "veterans" and their way of belittling and ridiculing what the "not-so-gifted" bunch of pilots have to do to survive in the MA, for the sake of the many n00bs and average pilots who go searching on these boards for an answer. I've been on these boards almost as long as anyone else, and in time I've seen what usually them "vets" chest thump on the boards, and actually do out in the field, can be many different things.
Oh I've seen how you fly too, Steve, and I have great respect for what you can do in the field. Many people would give anything to be able to fly like you, and envy you for how you can make them P-51s truly shine. But Steve, sometimes, guys like you don't really see how the reality of the world goes around you, much less really know what makes them so successful themselves. Those guys come to the boards talking in half-truths and a lot of wishful thinking which usually revolves around on supposing everyone in the MA should be at their level of skill, and any other way to fly is n00bish, unexciting, unnecessary.
It is those type of arguments which I usually come along with a pitchfork and tend to screw around with, and I couldn't care less what you think about me. This was never about you in the first place.
Spoken plainly, Kweassa, I overreacted. I offer my apology, unencumbered by any "buts".
I didn't mean to belittle anyone when I disputed that speed is the pony's only weapon. Did it come off that way? I really didn't mean it to. I just would like to see anyone new person who is considering spending any time in a pony use it for purposes other than gun and run. As I mentioned, with many opponents expecting a pony to do just that, it does have a couple of tricks up its' sleeve, if not many.
-
Spoken plainly, Kweassa, I overreacted. I offer my apology, unencumbered by any "buts".
Don't worry Steve. I'm quite adept in being a sore thorn in someone else's butt, so I'm really used to being flamed at. :D
But let me try to explain my POV on this matter;
Certainly speed is the pony's primary asset. I don't know that you can consider its' views an asset in the same vein you would consider speed one. For the sake of this discussion, let's say it is more of a passive asset and we are talking about active assets, agreed?
The way you think how "speed" is a "passive" asset sort of proves my point.
For you, a very experienced and skilled player, SA comes almost mandatory, near levels of instinct, that your choice of engagements are never bothered by the actual possibility of being shot-down from the sky. But like I said, guys like you forget that the rest 70~80% of the MA population, the average guys of the world, cannot all be like you. For them, gaining victories and having fun in the air comes with a premise that THEY HAVE TO SURVIVE THAT LONG TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ANY KIND OF FUN in the first place.
To them, speed (or rather, the ability to choose the engagements of their liking, and be able to disengage at will, that can be provided by being in speedy plane) is not a passive factor. It is THE primary factor, and an absolutely most important factor that keeps them in the air.
Speed is one thing that opens up the door for another weapon; one that is not in many 51' pilot's repertoire. It's not that they couldn't use it, no doubt many could but I don't see many do it. In fact, very very few.
Many 51 pilots, huh? So who are they? I'll bet you can name a lot of them, those pilots who you can consider a '51 pilot'.
But how about the 'other' P-51 pilots? The UNNAMED guys of the MA who you'd rarely ever remember or recognize, since none of them are ever really in a league where you'd be able to remember them for their exceptional performance in the MA. Are you aware of the fact that many, many such anonymous pilots in the MA, are also P-51 fans, and fly P-51s a lot? Are you aware they fly in a very different manner than you, or those who you consider to be P-51 pilots?
How about me?
I bet you may have seen me a few times in the MA, but never really remember how I fly the P-51s. Ofcourse, I'm not a big P-51 fan, so my experience in the plane, and the skills needed to fly it are quite minimal. It remains at a basic level BFM principles where all I can comfortably muster, is how I may be able to fly it to a certain principle. Should I throw away what I understand as the "speed" asset of the P-51, and try flying like you? It just won't work.
Most people don't really grow out of this phase. Average guys like us, have a different rule, a different set of necessities that keep us alive and faring well in the skies - and vets tend to forget that.
I'm talking about deceleration. Often, a guy bouncing a pony is balls to the wall because he hasn't given consideration to the fact that the pony may try something other than just running. With it's ability to drop flaps early, and a decent sized rudder surface, the pony decelerates pretty well.
What if there's another bogey around? Oh wait, is it one of those presuppositions that you are already in a situation where you have all the time in the world to try this stuff and that? Wow geez, how does one gain that sort of luxury? Most usually we fly in the skies and would meet more than one or two enemy planes around. What do you do in that situation, Steve? Engage all of them at that spot with flaps popping out, slowing in the presence of other enemies and intentionally make yourself vulnerable against enemy fire?
Come to think of it, how does one land in that kind of 1vs1 situation in the first place?
Speed!
You fly around high and fast, look for opportunities, see multiple targets heading in your direction, and turn back. Fly a few miles, most of them bugger away and go elsewhere. Oh look, there's one guy left. Nobody else in the area. I now have time to fight him 1vs1. Would you have been able to do that if you were in a plane considerably slower than the P-51? Well may you would have, but I know for certain most average guys wouldn't be.
Yes, there are a couple of other planes that slow down faster but in my mind, this is an asset to the pony. Not only does it decelerate decently, but like I said, many opponents catch on to the deceleration late. I am convinced that this is, at least in part, due to the 51's reputation/ability to run.
What if that someone behind you already presupposes that you will try decceleration and overshoots, and makes enough preparations for it?
See, both are assumptions on what the enemy pilot might be thinking, and yet, your assumptions can lead to death, while my assumptions leave room for caution, and emergency run-away when things go bad. Like mentioned above, vets hardly ever do meet someone more skilled or sharp and tactful in the area of maneuvering that you guys just forget that for all the rest of the guys in the sky, every engagement comes at a considerable death risk they have to be carfeful about. Yes, everyone has to risk something if they are going to fight, but vets like you can put all the eggs in one basket and still emerge unscathed.
However, the "vet" POV is a quite narrow POV. The lesser, unnamed, unfamous, and not-so-skilled pilots around have a very different POV. You'll see where I'm getting at. There are a lot of people in the MA who need more than just one baskets to put their eggs in. Some of them may be able to grow out of that phase, but many of them, will not.
I'm not going to convince the experts of this, I mean, what do I know? But there is no way for anyone to convince me I'm wrong either. I've used this tool in the MA to my advantage many times and against experienced opponents. From my own experience, it works much more often that it fails. YMMV.
That's why people say you are skilled, and praise for you what you can do in the P-51. That is also why your line of advice, is like giving amateuer pitchers advice that they should be throwing the ball like Greg Maddox. Right and wrong is a relative term.
I admit your advice does rings true for people on your own league, Steve.
Unfortunately, most of the people aren't in your league. They are in MY league.[/i] :D
-
The way you think how "speed" is a "passive" asset sort of proves my point.
For you, a very experienced and skilled player, SA comes almost mandatory, near levels of instinct, that your choice of engagements are never bothered by the actual possibility of being shot-down from the sky. But like I said, guys like you forget that the rest 70~80% of the MA population, the average guys of the world, cannot all be like you. For them, gaining victories and having fun in the air comes with a premise that THEY HAVE TO SURVIVE THAT LONG TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ANY KIND OF FUN in the first place.
To them, speed (or rather, the ability to choose the engagements of their liking, and be able to disengage at will, that can be provided by being in speedy plane) is not a passive factor. It is THE primary factor, and an absolutely most important factor that keeps them in the air.
This is so incredibly important to understand when discussing practically anything on these boards. It just amazes me that so few people understand this. I did ALOT of training back in the day, when Moses was in diapers, and I've seen literally thousands of players grow from complete N00bs to highly experienced players. I can categorically promise you the following is as true as gravity holds your arse to the planet...
Not Everyone...
1) Learns at the same rate.
2) Begins with the same innate conception of gunnery and flying respectively.
3) Has the same maximum potential gunnery and flying skill respectively.
4) Interprets air combat experiences or adapts to them the same way over time.
I know hundreds of people who have been flying amny years and really try their butts off, but are still poor to mediocre at gunnery and/or flying. Conversely, I know hundreds of people who had never touched a joystick in their lives until playing, but within a year were "Air Gods" at gunnery and/or flying with very little effort.
Stang, is a great example, he was still a teenager when he started, but I noticed him right away, he stuck out like a virgin in a brothel. I told Soup (4510), "That kid is going to be way better than me one day, you just watch". Well, it didn't take long for that "one day" to happen. Within a year Stang could fly circles around me, he was already better than I ever thought about being and I had 8-9'ish years (about a million air combat fighter hours) of flying experience on him. It all just made perfect sense to him right from the beginning.
I'm an example of another common type. By the 3rd day of playing AW I was making shots that made people shake their heads in awe. I was popping people from insane angles, never really having to outfly them to kill them. Deflection gunnery to me was like wiping your butt. In my mind, if you could hit your bunghole with a piece of toilet paper you could hit someone at 30 degrees deflection while inverted and doing the dishes. Shooting was so easy for me I never really had to do any fancy flying to kill with great efficiency. As a result I rarely landed kills in the beginning because I'd eventually get backed into a corner and outflown even though I flew mostly Spits and 109s at the time. However, I became a decent flyer eventually, but never truly great and in almost 20 years, with much effort, I've only grown from decent to merely above average in the flying department. But, I'm still one of the more gifted shotmakers in the game even though I'm much older and half-blind now.
The point is we are all unique, we simply can't say anything vaguely close to.."Well, Steve can do X,Y,Z in a Pony so should RandomGuy13, if not now, eventually". The whole is greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to the plane/pilot dynamic in an air combat game. You have the plane, which is a hardcoded bit of imaginary data portrayed as a cartoon to us and you have the individual pilot which is an incredibly unique blend of innate talent, acquired skills, experience and perspective. Combine the two and you have an almost infinite variety of potential styles, approaches and skill levels, even when comparing people who fly just one type of aircraft like the P51.
In the final analysis there's only two measures that can be compared between pilots...Effectiveness and Fun...You are either effective at killing people within a reasonable period of time, however you choose to do it (except vulching), or you're not, it's pretty simple and quantifiable. The same goes for fun, you're either having fun or not. If you're not having fun flying a certain way, fly another way. If you find dying un-fun, fly accordingly. If you find flying by the seat of your pants fun, even if it means getting horrendously defiled by a pack of ganging lamers from time to time, do that until the sun falls from the sky. Balancing fun and effectiveness, which are sometimes mutually enhancing or can be mutually exclusive, is the real goal of everyone who truly loves cartoon air combat. But, it almost never equates to the same exact thing for any two people, it's almost like your fingerprint in that respect...
-
The way you think how "speed" is a "passive" asset sort of proves my point.
I was referring to cockpit view as a passive asset, not speed. Sorry if I was vague.
What if that someone behind you already presupposes that you will try decceleration and overshoots, and makes enough preparations for it?
Well that's when the fun really starts, isn't it? Twisting, turning, scissorring, rolling, standin-on-the-rudder come on plane slow down!, flaps in then out maybe out some more, snap-shotting thrills.
Come to think of it, how does one land in that kind of 1vs1 situation in the first place?
This can be pretty easy. I fly around at typically 8-10k. Find a higher bogie and let him "chase" me until we are all alone. Then I let him catch me. It doesn't always work out this way, but happens with some regularity.
-
I just hope we can find a conclusion to this Mustang flap nonsense because I know Mustang fans are begging to fly the plane to its full potential.
And my friends don't have to always run away.
-
I thought of something:
Everyone knows it is fast, but not the fastest. But most non-perked planes that out-run the P-51, do it in a narrow range of altitude. Furthermore, alot of them are only as fast/faster with WEP. The P-51 is a top-speed contender against most from the deck to 25K. The P-51 eeks out most of its speed without WEP...and a 75% fuel load lets you fly 35 minutes at millitary without drop tanks slowing it down. A clean P-51 that has been cruising straight and level for awhile, meeting most other planes co-alt, will usually have an E advantage.
If we look outside the MA tendency to run full-throttle all the time, the P-51's speed at normal cruise settings vrs. that of other aircraft makes for an even better advantage.
-
I thought of something:
Everyone knows it is fast, but not the fastest. But most non-perked planes that out-run the P-51, do it in a narrow range of altitude. Furthermore, alot of them are only as fast/faster with WEP. The P-51 is a top-speed contender against most from the deck to 25K. The P-51 eeks out most of its speed without WEP...and a 75% fuel load lets you fly 35 minutes at millitary without drop tanks slowing it down. A clean P-51 that has been cruising straight and level for awhile, meeting most other planes co-alt, will usually have an E advantage.
If we look outside the MA tendency to run full-throttle all the time, the P-51's speed at normal cruise settings vrs. that of other aircraft makes for an even better advantage.
Yea, the MA environment's short distances, even with the burn multiplier, render one of the P51s biggest real world assets meaningless. "Time over target" was a huge consideration in all theaters of air conflict in WWII. It's of very small importance in AH. It's really only even meaningful to those at the "short end of the stick" as they are the only ones that have the real possibility of running out of gas before ammunition.
-
Some great aspects of the Pony that often get overlooked and why I consider it one of the best if not the best overall fighter in the game bar perk rides.
- All round visibility is second to none. With a nice view over the nose.
- Range, stay on station longer spend less time climbing to and rtb from sectors.
- Gun package, everyones knows that AH is American so American fighters always get a small edge to anything else hence .50cals are lasers. :P
Speed,handling,flaps,pretty cockpit etc... Add it all together it's suprising they ever get shot down at all. Unless of course a Yak shows up.. :D
<S>...-Gixer
-
Some great aspects of the Pony that often get overlooked and why I consider it one of the best if not the best overall fighter in the game bar perk rides.
- All round visibility is second to none. With a nice view over the nose.
<S>...-Gixer
It always amazes me how little people consider this. If you have decent+ aim great nose-low deflection view has the potential to exponentially increase effectiveness. More so than any other single plane attribute...
-
It always amazes me how little people consider this. If you have decent+ aim great nose-low deflection view has the potential to exponentially increase effectiveness. More so than any other single plane attribute...
I'm not a particularly great shot (around 12% in AHII) but it seems like views get mentioned in just about every thread.
I agree that it the views are pretty much unparallelled though. :aok
-
I'm not a particularly great shot (around 12% in AHII)
Understatment. 12% achieved mostly fighting vs other fighters (and not vs buffs like I do) is WAY above the AH2 average. Only a very minor fraction can get consistent hit %s over 10.
/hijack off
-
Understatment. 12% achieved mostly fighting vs other fighters (and not vs buffs like I do) is WAY above the AH2 average. Only a very minor fraction can get consistent hit %s over 10.
/hijack off
I did some extensive sampling once, 3-4% is average, 10%+ is great (top 5%). Of course people who strafe stuff in fighter mode mess up the low end and people who vulch and buff hunt in disproportion mess up the high end. But, the distorting factors probably about wash in the end.
-
Unfortunately, I've yet to see a <insert plane name> enthusiast really square off against an enemy plane also flown by another pilot of at least equal skill, and then willingly engage in a fight that should be inherently disadvantageous according to the specs of his own plane.
Just one example off the top of my head. WZ's N1K vs me in 152. I go for it everytime.. GTR in Spit16.. XtrmeJ in Spit9... Frenchy's Spit14 or even his jug with my 262... AKAK and Stang in 38s.. I could probably go on enough to get flamed for bragging.
And this is wrong too!: Oh I've seen how you fly too, Steve, and I have great respect for what you can do in the field. Many people would give anything to be able to fly like you, and envy you for how you can make them P-51s truly shine. But Steve, sometimes, guys like you don't really see how the reality of the world goes around you, much less really know what makes them so successful themselves. Those guys come to the boards talking in half-truths and a lot of wishful thinking which usually revolves around on supposing everyone in the MA should be at their level of skill, and any other way to fly is n00bish, unexciting, unnecessary.
The following is true not just in the game, but in a number of disciplines, of which the one I know best is academics.. The guys who look at the top performers will always look at the top guys as aliens, or somehow wonder how the heck they do what they do.. And very often it's not just well honed natural talent, but discipline, focus, motivation, and self-confidence. Just self-confidence on its own can completely FUBAR performance if it's out of tune.
A lot of the things the top sticks in AH do aren't out of reach of any noob.. Ignoring the help of habits seasoned to the point of thoughtless automation that only a lot of time/practice allows.
-
who look at the top performers will always look at the top guys as aliens, or somehow wonder how the heck they do what they do..
Zazen said a similar thing and I think this has merit, IMHO.
Whether I'm a top perform or not is for others to decide but when I have people ride in my pony it's almost always the same: " I don't understand what you are doing. You don't fly very high. You dogfight better turners and win. You never get caught even though there are always higer planes above you.
You rack up kills even though you don't never seem to be doing many agressive ACM's or stressing the aircraft. I don't understand how you know exactly how much to rope an enemy plane with so many variables in the equation. You're not doing anything special but nobody gets a shot at you."
I try to explain to these ride alongs that the furball is a big 3D chess match to me. Position, plane type, E-states, flying style. This is where I make hay.
There are plenty of ACM wizards out there who could fly circles around me no doubt.
Mtnman and I had a fight the other night. His hog vs. my pony. E states started about equal. It was a fun and quite long fight but, in the end, he whupped me. :aok
Edit: 3-4% is average, 10%+ is great (top 5%).
Lusche, Zaz, I apologize. Certainly you guys are more knowledgeable than I in the area of stats. I've always felt to be a mediocre shot at best.
-
Understatment. 12% achieved mostly fighting vs other fighters (and not vs buffs like I do) is WAY above the AH2 average. Only a very minor fraction can get consistent hit %s over 10.
/hijack off
Then a 37mm tater puts you into freak status :D
<S>...-Gixer
-
If one wants a good view over the nose take a 109.
-
Then a 37mm tater puts you into freak status :D
<S>...-Gixer
Well.. one could argue that it's easier to shoot with 37mm than with 30mm cannon because of it's vastly superior ballistics
Yak 37mm = dweeb's taters :D
-
Well.. one could argue that it's easier to shoot with 37mm than with 30mm cannon because of it's vastly superior ballistics
Yak 37mm = dweeb's taters :D
:rofl you have be kidding.
<S>...-Gixer
-
The pony doesn't need to be perked. You see it alot because of the guys who think it's the best plane and the easiest to fly because it was the best plane in WWII. I have to disagree on both. Just because it 'won' the war, per say, doesn't mean it was the best. Each plane in WWII had it's turning point in WWII where it dominated, and then was replaced by newer and better aircraft. I see pony pilots in this game, and I usually aim for a head-on, without firing, and if they fire I know I should have a pretty good chance at this fight. If they don't fire I know that I may have some troubles because they are, oh 'honest' enough per say, telling me that they want a fair fight. The pony is one of the most dangerous planes in the game, but it's only dangerous if it's in the hands of a skilled pilot.
-
Ive flown with moot enough to know what he said to be true, one of the more epic fights ive had in ah was with him in 109g2s, and that time i pwned him in 152s :noid. Same goes for steve.
-
Ive flown with moot enough to know what he said to be true, one of the more epic fights ive had in ah was with him in 109g2s, and that time i pwned him in 152s :noid. Same goes for steve.
You owned me in a 152? I don't remember. WTG
-
You owned me in a 152? I don't remember. WTG
no. I guess i failed writing with conatation :rolleyes:
-
The pony doesn't need to be perked. You see it alot because of the guys who think it's the best plane and the easiest to fly because it was the best plane in WWII. I have to disagree on both. Just because it 'won' the war, per say, doesn't mean it was the best.
Yea, it "won the war" because it had incredible range and was excellent at high altitude where the bombers were it was to escort, it was the right plane for the right job at the right time. None of those factors really play an important role in AH. The fights in AH are at relatively low alt and the distances are a tiny fraction of what they were in WWII. It's a "good" plane in AH for almost entirely different reasons than it was in WWII.
-
no. I guess i failed writing with conatation :rolleyes:
Sorry man I'm not trying to be difficult. I don't know to what you are referring.
-
Sorry man I'm not trying to be difficult. I don't know to what you are referring.
meant the whole fearless in your plane deal..
-
meant the whole fearless in your plane deal..
Oh hehhe thanks. Sorry if I was being obtuse.
-
Oh hehhe thanks. Sorry if I was being obtuse.
no biggy
-
Lot of people definetly responded to this so I think it was pretty much covered but I'll throw in my two cents here about how I feel about the pony, negative and positive things starting with the postive.
Good ammo load out, good speed so it can outrun pretty much all other prop planes with exception of yak, LAs and temps. Good flaps.
Negative: Can't turn as great as it can in real life (I flown in 51D in reality, turns alot better in person)
Doesn't have much acceration (some might beg to differ but just based on my experience)
Guns don't have knock down power unless you can get half second burst, but each small hit does in fact cause damage. Hard to make slower planes such as spit, to overshoot.
I been playing for while and can turn pretty good (off and on for two years) I even still have lot of problems and still learning ECMs, and will even ask people who have been playing less I am, for advice.
Once I get pedals, i'll get to learn once agian, woo hoo! lol
-
Yea, it "won the war" because it had incredible range and was excellent at high altitude where the bombers were it was to escort, it was the right plane for the right job at the right time. None of those factors really play an important role in AH. The fights in AH are at relatively low alt and the distances are a tiny fraction of what they were in WWII. It's a "good" plane in AH for almost entirely different reasons than it was in WWII.
I dont agree that it was 'only' good (which isnt really what you said) at high altitude. See Dogfights episode 'Death of the Luftwaffe' for details. Ponies were 'owning' 109s and 190s right after takeoff! I believe your next reply will be 'yeah but those were noobs.'