Just one word, TJ. Indebted.

Ummm...A2A P-51 without question or doubt period....nuff said.

Glad I could help :smile:   There is a boatload of paint schemes out for this P-51.  The paint schemes work on both military and civil models, just some minor differences in aircraft.cfg entry.  If there is a scheme you want that doesn't exist yet, just request it, chances are someone will do it.

 

Here is a list of all paints done so far.

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=32543

 

Cheers

TJ

As a comprehensive systems simulation, the A2A bird is the choice if that is a priority, it's amazing in that respect.   If you just want to jump in and go, with something that is peerless in dimensional accuracy, including small 3d and textural details, then get the latest "Postwar" Warbirdsim set, and use it with Accufeel, IMO.

 

Jumping back and forth between the latest Warbirdsim and A2A Mustangs, the Wardirdsim displays a more realistic presence, with it's slightly more accurate exterior shape, and better overall interior detailing; the entire product evidently built to a blueprint level of precision.   The overall effect of that accuracy is very noticeable in the cockpit.  Larger exterior textures like surface skin and rivets vary a bit within each competitor's stable of variants and add-on skins, though some of the latest A2A skins appear to be noticeably better with respect to real looking panel lines and rivets.

 

Flight behavior is very similar, although personally I prefer the latest WB sim effort, as it seems to better represent the exceptional normal flight stability that made the Mustang an excellent gun platform.   I've had most of the WB sim Mustangs, and own both the Mil and Civ A2A Mustangs, and enjoy them all about equally.   The late model Mustangs are fairly automated by 40's standards, so you really may not be missing out on a whole lot is you skip Accusim for this particular airplane - my personal opinion is that an Accusim level of systems detail is much more important on older, more labor intensive cockpits like those of the Spit and P40.

 

Just my opinion; it's only with the latest improvements in flight modelling and detail of the WB sim Mustangs, that I prefer to fly that, with Accufeel enabled.    Appearance, FM accuracy, and seamless, realistic flight 'feel' is much more important to me than systems detail.   Accusim really shines in the older planes, especially the A2A 377, whose effects, handling, and systems combine to beat the pants off of every other heavy, in terms of believeability and sheer fun....

Yeah John does very nice work over at WarbirdSim, I am really looking foward to his P-39. He is like Mathias over at Classics Hangars, extreme details, some of the best VCs in the business. Their systems and FDE's are quite good, considering the limitations within FSX programming   Accusim is programmed outside of the FSX framework, so you can really get add in a lot more aerodynamics details.  Like when you drop the landing gear in the P-40, the right main drops first, causing the nose to kick to the right.

I think 'feel' of an airplane is highly subjective in FSX. What ever feels good and makes you happy is what is important. I am beta testing the CH FW190D/TA152 project. I have no flight time in a real one so I just have to go with my best guess based on my training, understanding of aerodynamics, and pilot reports.. With that, I think collectively we will be able to hammer out a pretty good FDE for it.

With the P-51s, I've don't have any real flight time in those either, but I do know that they behave differently depending on loadouts, fuel load, wear and tear, etc. A P-51 with a full aft tank will behave quite differently than P-51 with an empty aft tank, also different behavior than P-51 with no aft tank at all.. Also the Civil P-51 is somewhat lighter than the Military version, so it will behave as such. The wear and tear aspect brings out the beauty of accusim I think. No two P-51s are exactly alike. It is like going to a big flight school that has a flightline full of 172s, there will be sublte differences in handling between all of them, based on their wear and tear.

It is all good, we are blessed as flight sim geeks to have such great developers llike WBS, CH, A2A, PMDG...etc creating these machines for our enjoyment.

Cheers
TJ

I have the Flight 1 P-51D, I don't really like it and the flight modeling seems a bit simplistic to me.  I think the A2A Mustangs are better overall, add the AccuSim package if you want incredibly realistic engine and systems management.

 

 

Appearance, FM accuracy, and seamless, realistic flight 'feel' is much more important to me than systems detail. Accusim really shines in the older planes, especially the A2A 377, whose effects, handling, and systems combine to beat the pants off of every other heavy, in terms of believeability and sheer fun....

 

The A2A P51 I think beats all others in realistic flight feel too, the Civ P51 is actually the first GA plane that made me "feel" that I whas actually flying a real plane as far it is possible in a simulation. Im not a real pilot but this plane is the first one I actually struggled to take off with and can imagine that it would be hard in real life too, it has also killed my virtual pilot many times because i've gotten into nasty spins wich I could not get out of. I have never expirinced any such difficulties handling any other GA/warbirds addon planes in FSX.

And you also get this other cool things like landing gear get damaged if landing to hard, worn tires, flaps that can fail, engine wear and tear etc,, wish more devs would go this way and not just make things look pretty without any deept...