What makes the P-51D so great at shooting down people

[DEAR98]

It aint called a runstang for nothing. KEEP speed or you dead pony.

[Steve]

It aint called a runstang for nothing. KEEP speed or you dead pony.

Bleh, this person has bought into the myth, disregard.

[Grendel]

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.

[Angus]

AFAIK the radios were dumped for a benefit.
They were heavy, and mostly useless anyway.

[Kweassa]

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.

 



 

[Steve]

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.   

[Squire]

Its the pilot, not the plane. A new player isn't going to be any good without practice no matter what they up.

[Chalenge]

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.

[gripen]

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.

[Zazen13]

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"

[BnZ]

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.

[Kweassa]

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.





 

[BnZ]

  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." 

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! 

[Steve]

 ...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.

[Zazen13]

 
 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.