F-51D

[[I.B.]-=ViRUS=-]

Даная тема предназначена для сбора ошибок, связанных с F-51D.

[[I.B.]-=ViRUS=-]

Please post any issues connected to F-51D here.

[Dash,Polder]

The fore and aft movement is incredibly tight when there's plenty of real estate all the way back to the seat back plate.  There's many times more side to side leeway.  Realize it may be due to the pilot body match up, but is it necessary when the pilot is off?   I personally can't stand pilots in the pit, so its really restrictive in that rather big pit, the VR boundary is chronically hitting the fore and aft just looking around in normal flight.  

Put some lean into that pilot or free it up when operating without one. 

[YoYo]

Any tips for taking off from an (unpaved) runway? It bounces a lot while gaining speed on an unpaved airfield.

[OreoBird_147]

7 hours ago, YoYo said:

It bounces a lot while gaining speed on an unpaved airfield.

I find that the F-51D is indeed a little on the bouncy side. I'm no real Mustang pilot and this is purely speculation on my end, but I find that no matter what I do, the Mustang just wants to bounce all the way back into the air when I land using real-life approaches, airspeeds and techniques. A two-point landing is basically impossible to perform. The only thing that works is doing a full-stall three-point landing, stalling it out mere inches above the runway. 

Again, this is just my ''feeling'', but compared to some Mustang videos online, the F-51 in IL-2 just seems way too bouncy and it'd be nice if this could be addressed by the devs as to whether or not this is realistic. 

Here's a (painful) video of a real-life Mustang landing, the pilot landed short and hard here, the airplane is launched back into the air because of a bump in the terrain, but right after the two touchdowns the Mustang is nowhere near as bouncy as the IL-2 one, despite the very harsh landing: https://youtu.be/Aj220G8Qucc?si=j1gqKkQvxEuId-KX&t=220 (watch at 03:40). 

 

[YoYo]

For testing, please use this K-49 airfield (near Seoul, runway start), to the east. The Mustang's shock absorbers seem too stiff. During the takeoff roll (even compared to the P-51D IL-2 Battles of...), the F-51D has poor ground grip, as if rolling over bumps. While takeoff and landing are fine on a smooth surface (concrete), on unpaved surfaces, the aircraft behaves as if rolling over rocks and jumps upwards. It's quite difficult to keep it in check, and it doesn't look like that in reality (by the way, the team has denied their IL-2 BoX model). Please fix this.

Edited June 27 by YoYo

[Chungmu]

In game states that UP 3000RPM and 61 MP is combat power. 

F-51 in game is treated at emergency power at these settings. 

In fact, its treated at emergency as low as 2700 rpm at 47MP

Edited June 28 by Chungmu

[B34k]

15 hours ago, Chungmu said:

In game states that UP 3000RPM and 61 MP is combat power. 

F-51 in game is treated at emergency power at these settings. 

In fact, its treated at emergency as low as 2700 rpm at 47MP

Actually it's worse than that.  

3000 RPM 61 MP is considered Emergency power

2700 RPM 61 MP is considered Combat power.

This makes no sense as 2700 RPM would be more stressful on the engine than 3000 RPM, not less. Something seems off between how they're defining the relationship between RPM, MP, and Engine Failure Probability...

[Civilprotection]

I just wanted to add that any rpm above 2700 for the F-51 is considered emergency power and reduces the engine life dramatically.

[Civilprotection]

I was also wondering if anyone has had any luck with 150-grade fuel to work. It doesn't seem to have any effect. I take it as a mod, and the most power I can get is 67". is anyone else experiencing this?

[86thFG_theRedPanda]

Just now, Civilprotection said:

I was also wondering if anyone has had any luck with 150-grade fuel to work. It doesn't seem to have any effect. I take it as a mod, and the most power I can get is 67". is anyone else experiencing this?

Yes it doesn't appear to be working, stays at 67" and there doesn't seem to be any speed gain

[iflyflightsims]

4 hours ago, Civilprotection said:

I was also wondering if anyone has had any luck with 150-grade fuel to work. It doesn't seem to have any effect. I take it as a mod, and the most power I can get is 67". is anyone else experiencing this?

Yes, I am having this issue as well. The manual says we should be able to get up to 75", but at sea level I cannot get above 67" with the 150-grade fuel mod.

On 6/28/2026 at 5:21 PM, Civilprotection said:

I just wanted to add that any rpm above 2700 for the F-51 is considered emergency power and reduces the engine life dramatically.

I noticed this as well. The manual says that combat power is at 61", 3000 RPM. 

[Mark_Krieger]

Flight model on the Mustang. I thing the dampers should be improved (they are clearly too stiff) and perhaps this happens in most planes of the game, although it's true that the runways in Korea have bumps, I feel all planes that I've tried at the moment (the 4 props) bump too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnW01_1v-eA

Edit: It seems that the F-51 couldn't do snap rolls. In the manual it say it is a forbidden maneuver. So not all in the video of ComandT is correct, but it can be helpful.

Edited July 2 by Mark_Krieger

[YoYo]

Carburetor at 22k ft? 

Why isn't the automatic heating working?

[funwolfe190]

I think the shock absorbers should be softer. Someone installed racing springs in this Mustang and it doesn't handle the bumpy runways well

[Husar]

The suspension could be adjusted, bounced take off is not a great experience and make hard to take off nicely.

[Stonehouse]

Just an FYI the USAF wasn't using 150 octane fuel by Korea. All the references I've seen, including a 1954 set of pilot notes for the F-51, say 100/130 MIL-5-5572 fuel was used and therefore 61 in Hg was full power and 67 in Hg was full emergency power after you moved the throttle through the gate. Not sure why the 150-octane fuel is available and even if it is left in as a bit of a "what if" option it may not be implemented properly yet. It definitely should not be available in a career as it historically was not used.

Edited July 1 by Stonehouse

[KillerBee]

The flexible and more compliant suspension of the Mustang was the precise reason the 35th, 18th and 8th FBG were rapidly refitted with F-51s in Jun 1950.  The F-80s and F-84s could not handle the repeated landings at the forward provisional airfields required to support the sprawling ground war.  There were 1170 +/- P/F-51s in storage in the FEAF readily available.  So, having more compliant springs/shocks on the Mustang are a must.  DCS has these modeled correctly.

Ironically, CommandT just released a video that points out this issue perfectly.  

 

Edited July 1 by KillerBee

[Stonehouse]

12 hours ago, KillerBee said:

The flexible and more compliant suspension of the Mustang was the precise reason the 35th, 18th and 8th FBG were rapidly refitted with F-51s in Jun 1950.  The F-80s and F-84s could not handle the repeated landings at the forward provisional airfields required to support the sprawling ground war.  There were 1170 +/- P/F-51s in storage in the FEAF readily available.  So, having more compliant springs/shocks on the Mustang are a must.  DCS has these modeled correctly.

Ironically, CommandT just released a video that points out this issue perfectly.  

 

Interesting especially the spin comparison and snap rolls. As an FYI in this regard some snippets from the 1954 pilot notes

[Aapje]

Those docs suggest that DCS does not in fact model the plane very well, and that the DCS version is more like a modern high performance prop, and less like the actual P-51. 

The irony is that these errors probably makes it feel more realistic to modern pilots like CommandT.

[Stonehouse]

2 hours ago, Aapje said:

The irony is that these errors probably makes it feel more realistic to modern pilots like CommandT.

It'd be interesting to see CommandT do another review in light of some of the restrictions mentioned in the pilot notes. 

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

Those docs suggest that DCS does not in fact model the plane very well, and that the DCS version is more like a modern high performance prop, and less like the actual P-51. 

The irony is that these errors probably makes it feel more realistic to modern pilots like CommandT.

Honestly, as he mentioned - the comparison might not be fair. The Christen Eagle is a biplane that weighs one seventh the weight of a P-51D, and was designed specifically for aerobatics - with its first flight being around the same time as the F/A-18.

So the mass, mass distribution, absence of laminar flow wings etc. It isn't really going to be that comparable - and the P-51D was optimised for a lot of performance goals other than aerobatics (e.g. top speed, range)... so it would be unsurprising if the comparison wasn't a little misleading in some areas. Still, though, as someone who missed his chance to do glider training to engage in a fossil hunting expedition... I've definitely got less stick time!

When the intuitions disagree with the manual though - I'd suspect the manual to be correct.

[Stonehouse]

14 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

It'd be interesting to see CommandT do another review in light of some of the restrictions mentioned in the pilot notes. 

Tried to comment on CommandT's youtube video above to basically say FYI here are some snippets from the pilot notes on snap rolls and spins and that it would be really interesting to have him revisit the IL2 Korea F-51 FM in conjunction with the pilot notes from a professional pilot's viewpoint but for some reason my comments don't appear once saved. Guessing perhaps they are delayed while they undergo moderation?

Anyway, I'm happy to provide a copy of the pilot notes if someone can get him interested in the idea.

[YoYo]

Hi. Now, check out the F-51D during takeoffs and landings on an unpaved airfield. I have the impression that this has been improved, and the plane no longer feels like it's hanging on a rubber band; it absorbs all bumps quite nicely. Did the 002b fix the shock absorbers?

[OreoBird_147]

24 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Hi. Now, check out the F-51D during takeoffs and landings on an unpaved airfield. I have the impression that this has been improved, and the plane no longer feels like it's hanging on a rubber band; it absorbs all bumps quite nicely. Did the 002b fix the shock absorbers?

I still find the Mustang bouncing all over the place after updating to the latest version. Even smooth three-point touchdowns at slow speeds result in at least two or three bounces before fully settling onto the runway. This also happens at smoother, paved runways. Your piloting skills must be improving quickly 😄 , but I still find the 'Stang to be the same, unfortunately.