F-51D

[Whittle]

On 9/30/2026 at 2:47 AM, LukeFF said:

For those using the manual fuel controls implemented in version 1.004, this is the recommended usage of the fuel tank controls per the January 1954 version of the USAF F-51D manual:

From my testing of a previous version, fuel was returned to the rear tank at a rate of around 150-180 gallons per hour... (ie. 10 gallons in 3-5 minutes). I never found what the expected rate was, but suspected that it was too high.

[Whittle]

I just tested the latest version. I tested with imperial units last time (150+ gallons per hour), but it's still magnitudes to high - a litre every few seconds.

One gallon per hour (as in your document) makes much more sense for vapour return line. It looks like a placeholder flow rate has been used and forgotten about.

[YoYo]

Even after patch 1.004, the F-51D's landing gear struts (shock-absorbers) still haven't been fixed.

They remain too stiff, making a proper takeoff run impossible. It’s not as bad as it was initially, but it doesn't seem to be quite right either, unlike how it was after patch 1.002. The aircraft behaves very erratically during takeoff on unpaved surfaces; essentially, you have to take off in a three - point attitude, which makes no sense (especially with a heavy load).  Any attempt at a two-point takeoff, the standard procedure for the Mustang, results in bouncing like a trampoline and damaging the propeller. This is not only a simulation issue but also a substantive one and it is historically inaccurate including with respect to the Mustang manual.

Please, finally fix this. ⚠️

Such a takeoff is completely impossible or nearly so (requiring immense luck) in Korea; furthermore, you have essentially contradicted the release of the P-51D in IL-2 GB, which behaves correctly during takeoff and landing even with a heavy underslung load.

Thank you.

Edited Sunday at 08:00 AM by YoYo

[SonicGBOMB]

I was just trying this last night and wondered what was wrong with the F51! I'm lucky enough to fly a big heavy (ish) warbird in the real world and its quite easy to get the tail up on the takeoff roll and maintain direction, the F51 in the game however was just a mess, starts bouncing madly and comes close to striking the prop if you try to stop it.... just about doable with 50% fuel and no weapons load however with napalm and rockets its virtually impossible. Landing is ok, not having too much trouble there other than its a bit "bouncy"!

[BlitzPig_EL]

If I may ask, what do you fly in real life?

[YoYo]

4 hours ago, SonicGBOMB said:

I was just trying this last night and wondered what was wrong with the F51! I'm lucky enough to fly a big heavy (ish) warbird in the real world and its quite easy to get the tail up on the takeoff roll and maintain direction, the F51 in the game however was just a mess, starts bouncing madly and comes close to striking the prop if you try to stop it.... just about doable with 50% fuel and no weapons load however with napalm and rockets its virtually impossible. Landing is ok, not having too much trouble there other than its a bit "bouncy"!

Exactly, that’s precisely what I’m talking about. Landing isn't really a major issue, since we touch down in a three-point attitude with the flaps fully extended, resulting in a different angle of attack. Consequently, the "impact" with the runway surface isn't as jarring as the takeoff. However, in the takeoff configuration, the F-51D model behaves simply poorly and unrealistically. There was a time when it was fine, I even posted a video of it here, but something got broken with patch 1.003. It’s fun on a paved airfield, but try it on an unpaved one (e.g., K-49) 😉.

[67thFBS_Heiden]

27 minutes ago, YoYo said:

Exactly, that’s precisely what I’m talking about. Landing isn't really a major issue, since we touch down in a three-point attitude with the flaps fully extended, resulting in a different angle of attack. Consequently, the "impact" with the runway surface isn't as jarring as the takeoff. However, in the takeoff configuration, the F-51D model behaves simply poorly and unrealistically. There was a time when it was fine, I even posted a video of it here, but something got broken with patch 1.003. It’s fun on a paved airfield, but try it on an unpaved one (e.g., K-49) 😉.

And here I was thinking it must be my poor pilot technique!  Taking off with a full load of bombs and rockets is quite precarious right now!!

[GiftGruen]

Is it F51 only? Or rather the bumpiness of some airfields?

I shredded my Yak‘s Prop twice in a row this weekend, and thought that it‘s just me. Beeing somewhat careful the third start was okay, but also in an ugly/strange 3Point way to do it.

Since I am not a RL pilot I can just wonder if it‘s really that difficult. Especially since landings are easier which I supposed to be more critical.

[Valis]

17 minutes ago, GiftGruen said:

Is it F51 only? Or rather the bumpiness of some airfields?

Combination.

Bumpiness can exacerbate things - being launched into the air before you're at a safe speed isn't great, especially when carrying a load. But there's also the tendency during landing to ricochet off the tarmac no matter how gently you touched down, just because your speed was a fraction too high.

The Yak and La don't seem as affected as the F-51, but we might be comparing apples and oranges. Because they carry no ordnance, take offs are generally less 'exciting'.

[Valis]

Was there a reason why using both wing tanks simultaneously wasn't an option with the Mustang?

Seems an obvious oversight to me, which makes me suspect there was a good reason behind the decision.

[67thFBS_Heiden]

Now that I know it's not my piloting technique causing the issues when carrying heavy loads, I'll try using Flaps 30 for takeoff to see if that helps.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Valis said:

Was there a reason why using both wing tanks simultaneously wasn't an option with the Mustang?

Seems an obvious oversight to me, which makes me suspect there was a good reason behind the decision.

It's a bad idea to enable both wing tanks on any plane configured like this, because it can cause major fuel imbalance during maneuvering and/or when an engine tries to pull fuel from an empty tank.

[Valis]

The automatic water radiator is broken/mis-calibrated.

Above 35k ft the auto radiator shuts almost completely leading to overheating. Manually opening the radiator brings the temperature down.

The video begins with the radiator in manual mode. Then I switch to auto and the temperature sky-rockets. I then switch back to manual and open the shutters, bringing the temps under control. The final part shows the shutter closing fully under automatic management.

 

[Kilo_0601]

On 9/4/2026 at 4:48 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Right side of the cockpit, BC-473-B Radio Control Panel. It's all inside the Cockpit Layout pages 🙂

Hearing the volume to navigation is really hard. Is it possible to implement AN/ARA-8 homing in the future?   It can provide lasting voice when in the right direction.

[Valis]

2 hours ago, Kilo_0601 said:

earing the volume to navigation is really hard. Is it possible to implement AN/ARA-8 homing in the future? 

Would make a great in-game modification.

[Kilo_0601]

8 hours ago, Valis said:

Would make a great in-game modification.

I don't extravagent hope have Bendix instrument. AI response me that most F-51Ds don't have Bendix in Korea. But they should have AN/ARA-8.

[Motoadve]

Has this been fixed?, I am having no issues at all, took off full fuel  and drop tanks from K49 airfield and landed with no problems at all.

IRL I also fly bush planes and land on rocky river beds, and fly the warbird and have landed on grass.

Warbird on grass felt way worse than any gravel bar I have landed, of course tire pressure makes a difference

[Valis]

The F-51's engine sound has been adjusted, and it is better than it was, but it's still 'wub-wub-wub' - except the 'wubbing' wubs at a much higher frequency than before.

Why the change from the version in Great Battles? The GB P-51 engines sound great, and to my ears seem much closer to reality, if all those onboard Youtube videos are to believed.