Could you share your thoughts on the Mustang vs. the Zero? They seem very similar to me and I am wondering how they differ in the game.

Both would not have the same behavior in flight.Basically, the zero will be more maneuverable but the p51 will be faster.(correct me if I am wrong)

Both would not have the same behavior in flight.Basically, the zero will be more maneuverable but the p51 will be faster.(correct me if I am wrong)

Oh, I thought you owned both planes, my misunderstanding there :)

You should go back to school and try to actually learn some historical facts:

Perhaps we can take it down a notch or two?

Could you share your thoughts on the Mustang vs. the Zero? They seem very similar to me and I am wondering how they differ in the game.

The P-51 Mustang was good at high altitude. It had an water cooled engine, so it could take less battle damage to the engine than some aircraft because of the vulnerability of the liquid cooling system, but it was fast and had long range because it had a very advanced wing which was very thin by the standards of the day. The flaps could be used in combat to make it maneuverable at low altitude as well as up high, but its best attribute, was its sheer speed and excellent cockpit visibility, which was so good, the F-16's similarly good canopy meant that the F-16 Fighting Falcon was originally going to be called the F-16 Mustang II (ironically enough where Flight is concerned, since it has no cockpit). The armament was closely grouped in the wings, which meant it could put a lot of lead on a target in a concentrated group, making it a deadly fighting aeroplane in the hands of even an average pilot.The Mitsubishi A6M 'Zero' was initially thought to be a 'wonder aircraft' by US pilots, since it had carved a path through China with ease, although this was largely against inferior aircraft types, only running into trouble against the American pilots of AVG who flew P-40s against it as mercenaries in the service of China. What was soon learned however, when a virtually intact A6M was found on a deserted airstrip having made an emergency landing in which the aircraft nosed over and broke the pilot's neck, was that the Zero was fast and maneueverable simply because it was both lightly armed and lightly armored, and although this made it maneuverable, it lacked features such as self sealing fuel tanks and armor plate, which made it vulnerable to blazing fuel fires from only a few hits in spite of having a rugged air-cooled engine, and its maneuverability meant that although it could turn, it could not control the fight against faster US aircraft, since they could use dive and zoom tactics against it and disengage at will thanks to superior dive speeds. When this became known, the tide turned against the Zero, and US aircraft gained massive superiority over it.Much of this will be a moot point where Flight is concerned since it is not a combat sim, nor one which really goes for it on the minutia of realism, however the basic differences will probably mean that the P-51 is good for fast stuff, and the A6M will probably be better for tasks which require lower speeds and tight turns.Al

Perhaps we can take it down a notch or two?

Indeed I pushed it a little bit to far.I'm sorry.

LOL ok so now there is four planes with cockpits and 2 without. and those are the two I wont buy. MS is going to do wateva they want and so will I and not buy any of the planes they offer unless it has a cockpit.... I think MS would be able to fill the coffers more if they offer vc in the planes because even with a vc you can still fly it externally and that would make the external fliers happy. It almost seems like MS does not care........????

LOL ok so now there is four planes with cockpits and 2 without. and those are the two I wont buy. MS is going to do wateva they want and so will Iand not buy any of the planes they offer unless it has a cockpit.... I think MS would be able to fill the coffers more if they offer vc in the planes because even with a vc you can still fly it externally and that would make the external fliers happy. It almost seems like MS does not care........????

First of all, I should say that I've never actually modeled an aircraft or cockpit for a game/sim. The follow is just based on what I've heard...From what I know, a detailed and clickable VC is by far the most time consuming and expensive part of modeling an aircraft for a flight sim. So, the reality may be (and I said MAY be...) that a Zero w/o a cockpit is far more profitable for Microsoft. Perhaps forecasted sales of a Zero w/ cockpit won't offer enough of a return to justify the cost of building a cockpit, while maybe the forecasted returns on the Zero w/o cockpit are much better given the lower development cost. Or at least maybe that's the therory that they're trying to test out... Who knows...

Whether or not someone is offended, or has the right to be offended, is of little importance and isn't really a debatable subject.What is interesting is that MS chose to ignore those that would be offended, and for what? Did they think the zero was going to sell better, and was more relevant, than any other aircraft they could have chosen? Many people were upset and even protested when the Enola Gay and a Predator (not even a bomber model) were placed in the Smithsonian. Who was the idiot that signed off on this thing?This would be no different than if the NYC scenery area came with American Airlines jetliners and a hoops course through the buildings and over the 911 memorial. It's just a really bad idea, which is becoming consistent with MS's Flight.

This would be no different than if the NYC scenery area came with American Airlines jetliners and a hoops course through the buildings and over the 911 memorial. It's just a really bad idea, which is becoming consistent with MS's Flight.

Again I do not see the point, in RL river approach for rwy 13 is available for use, Im sure many AA aircrafts flown there after 9/11, and that is as close as you are allowed to come close to Manhattan with an airliner.In FS9 and FSX you have nice NY city sceneries with all that buildings placed just fine, I do not see nothing wrong there.

I kind of agree with La Cucaracha...The whole Zero and Pearl Harbor thing is to me, a red herring... And for those genuinely offended, I apologize.The real issue is, until now, each plane we've been given has had it's own unique niche and properties... and the cockpitless Zero is, in that sense, a duplication of the P-51...

I understand MS' standpoint by giving more priority to the arcade market having the biggest slice to their business but please give some depth to the DLC aircrafts by having cockpits. Please support those who are supporting Flight despite it's imperfections by considering this simple request. If they are going to add the VC later, then great. I hope there will be light at the end of the tunnel.

Again I do not see the point, in RL river approach for rwy 13 is available for use, Im sure many AA aircrafts flown there after 9/11, and that is as close as you are allowed to come close to Manhattan with an airliner.In FS9 and FSX you have nice NY city sceneries with all that buildings placed just fine, I do not see nothing wrong there.

Your example is way off base. There is no other reason for a zero to be released along with the only scenery available being Hawaii, than it to be a reference to the military attack that occurred there. Flying hoops courses over the arizona memorial is especially dumb.I'm not saying you should change your mind and you should be offended (it likely ocurred way before your time, so I understand you don't care). What I am saying is that you and MS should recognize that there are others who are sensitive to this, and MS blew it by ignoring them. They are trying to sell a product, why would they choose to be insensitive, and for what payback? Is this really the best, and only, plane they could have launched with Hawaii?It's just dumb.

Well I find it very odd, that so far today there is no Zero available from the website, or the GFWL Marketplace application - at least the one time I managed to actually be able to log in to it - apparently they are having server problems.Who knows what is going on...

Frank, is that a Culver Cadet?

Yes it is. 1941 LCA, serial number 215. The virtual cockpit includes the hardware for the famous two-handed gear retraction process! (fly the plane with your knees while retracting/extending gear)

The P-51 Mustang was good at high altitude. It had an air cooled engine (snip)

Sorry, but I got to call you on this: no version of the P-51 ever had an air cooled engine. BTW, the Packard Merlin was the BEAST!!!!Edit: The P-47 was air cooled, and a great high alt flier too. Maybe that was what you were thinking.