MSFS Reno Air Races P-51A and P-51D Issues/Observations

[JohnnyT5000]

Here are some of my observations of items I’ve spotted that are currently not right among the Mustangs included in the Reno Air Races package. I’ve been deeply involved with P-51’s, both real world and in flight simulation form, for about 20 years. Overall, I have been really enjoying these new MSFS models, and being that they are so well done to this point, it would be great to see at least some of these little items (a few not so little) be fixed in a future update or two.

MSFS Reno Air Races P-51A and P-51D Issues:

P-51A ‘Mrs. Virginia’:

• The wing airfoil, at present, is incorrectly portrayed as a standard airfoil rather than the correct laminar flow airfoil it should be. The wing airfoil and thickness should be identical to the P-51D (which is very accurate on those models). The only significant three-dimensional difference between the A and D wing is the leading edge (not considering the difference in landing gear doors and wheel well shape).
• The upper and lower portions of the inboard wing sections are distorted when viewed from the front and back, with a ‘kink’ where they start out at one angle from the fuselage, and then stops and starts a new angle out toward the wing tip. With the wings, when viewed front and back, it should be a straight line across the top and bottom of the wing, with a constant taper from the fuselage to the wing tip joint.
• Right now there is a prop issue with the P-51A, where the still prop, slow spinning prop, and fast spinning prop models/graphics all show at shared times, rather than individually at the right times (reported to be updated soon).
• The landing gear clam shell door animation is currently faulty (reported to be updated soon).
• There is a little model artifact that shows up just outside the left side of the cockpit in external view, when viewed from certain zoom/distance (an LOD-related issue I believe).
• The rudder trim placard is wrong. It should be no different than the aileron trim placard and just like the P-51D rudder trim placard. ‘0’ should be dead center, with 5 and 10 degree positions both left and right.
• The max manifold pressure setting for a stock Allison engine, running today’s fuel, is 52"-MP - that’s the takeoff setting red line. Unfortunately, right now it maxes out at only 38-inches manifold pressure. However, the performance has been over boosted to compensate, so the performance of the aircraft doesn’t match the manifold pressure settings - thus, for normal climb and cruise performance, you also must use lower manifold pressure settings than what it is in reality.
• The engine manifold pressure to RPM ratio is well off the mark right now too. The RPM gets up to 3,000 too early, when only powering up to 27-28-inches of manifold pressure. In reality, with the prop lever full forward/high RPM, the following Manifold Pressure to RPM should be seen (noted from real Allison V-1710 operation):
  2000 RPM reached at about 22-in MP
  2300 RPM reached at about 26-in MP
  2500 RPM reached at about 30-in MP
  3000 RPM reached by about 40-in MP

All P-51D Models:

• The main landing gear legs on all of the P-51D models are currently bowed outward when viewed head-on. They should however, when viewed head-on, be straight up and down, forming a 90-degree angle with the ground (not with the wing dihedral, as is at present).
• The tail wheel strut/arm is reversed 180-degrees from how it should be.
• The pitot tube is not modeled accurately/correctly.

‘Base/Stock’ P-51D

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle animation is reversed/opposite to the function.
• The “button” tip of the flap handle is missing.
• It would be nice to have the stock/original antenna mast on the rear fuselage spine.

‘Goldfinger’

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle animation is reversed/opposite to the function.

‘Voodoo’

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle animation is reversed/opposite to the function.

‘Wee Willy II’

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle animation is reversed/opposite to the function.
• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The landing light doesn’t extend.
• Diameter of the main wheels is too large.

‘Bunny’

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle is not select-able.
• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The textures are not displaying correctly for several of the gauges.
• The landing light doesn’t extend.
• There is a leftover/partial section of a modern VHF antenna, behind the left main wheel well, that shouldn’t be present.

‘Lady B’

• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The landing light position and animation is faulty - it’s not displaying correctly, and sticks through the left landing gear doors when gear is up.

‘Man O’ War’

• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The parking brake handle does not animate.
• There are two doubled-up VHF antennas displaying at the same time, behind the main landing gear wheel wells.
• The landing light doesn’t extend.
• Diameter of the main wheels is too large.

‘Miss America’

• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The “button” tip of the flap handle is missing.
• The angle of the landing light is wrong (facing toward the nose, where as it should be facing out to the left).

‘Dolly’

• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The “Landing” decal/stencil on the emergency hydraulic release t-handle is not connected to the animated handle.
• The wheels only display as spinning, even when sitting still.
• The landing light doesn’t extend.

‘Strega’

• The angle of the landing light is wrong (facing toward the nose, where as it should be facing out to the left).

P-51D Flight Models

• The greatest issue I have with the flight models is that none of these Mustangs should be performing all that much differently between each other when using the exact same power settings (Manifold Pressure and RPM). Unfortunately, the flight models for some of these aircraft, like ‘Strega’ and ‘Voodoo’, have been significantly boosted performance-wise without any actual tie-in to manifold pressure/power settings. On those aircraft, the only way they can reach the 450-500+ mph speeds is when running highly modified Merlin engines, pushing up to 120-inches manifold pressure, running the extremely high octane fuel available at Reno. By contrast, 55-inches of manifold pressure is the most that can be achieved with a stock Merlin, running the standard 100-octane low-lead as found at most airports. The flight dynamics for these MSFS models doesn’t replicate that, so that when flying examples like ‘Strega’ and ‘Voodoo’, you’re reaching incredible performance/airspeed all while using unrealistically-low manifold pressure to do so. The reality is that all of these P-51D’s, modified or not, should all be performing very closely to one another in performance, when using the same manifold pressure settings. (This same issue also applies to the AT-6 flight dynamics, of stock vs. racers - the extra performance needs to come from higher manifold pressure, not imaginary boosted acceleration, as is depicted right now).

If you need any reference material, what-so-ever, I have thousands of detail photos, the whole library of original P-51 blueprint drawings, and all of the original technical and pilot manuals at hand (covering most all variants of the P-51).

[N6722C]

An amazing collection of facts & suggested corrections… Thank you…
Hopefully Asobo will consider your suggestions…

[ContrivedTea675]

that is the investigation

[Underbird9276]

So much for the unique flight models for every aircraft - that’s false advertising, Microsoft & Asobo!
Even as a teenager I could modify aircraft to be faster by editing one or two lines in the aircraft.cfg.

May I add that the rudder trim on the stock P-51 is way off by default? And setting it via keys is too slow compared to other aircraft?

In any case, thank you for posting this topic. Asobo should fix these glaring issues as soon as possible - after all, we are paying customers.

[SkipTalbot]

Is there another fuel selector on Miss America, or is this it?

The engine dies if you change it to what’s labeled Left, and what the tooltip says is Right. The engine runs if you set it to what’s labeled as Off and what the tooltip says is Off, and it feeds off the Right tank.

I’m assuming this is just a bad bug that didn’t make it past the nonexistent QC.

[akfouronesix]

@BlueMesh3192 hope you don’t mind me tagging you here but thought you might appreciate an in-depth analysis of your model.

Great work both to BlueMesh for the wonderful model and John for the analysis, I always enjoy reading these sorts of topics.

[BlueMesh3192]

Thank you, yes i’ve see it 2 days ago ^^

[topcat1952]

I bought Mrs. Virgina this morning and discovered that the radio/ATC does not work. Sometimes I wonder if Asobo has Bredok or VirtualCol developing their aircraft.
I am also still getting the All Assists setting in the Assistance Menu despite setting it to “True to Life” each time.

[BlueMesh3192]

The Radio/ATC is working fine. Come from your side probably.

[topcat1952]

You are correct. I tried it again using the avionics button on my HOTAS and it is now working. Thanks!

[Giopen52]

I bought P-51D Bunny alone, no way to read manifold pressure or temperatures with these instruments, as already traced by JohnnyT5000

[FlyingsCool5650]

Wow… False Advertising?

He didn’t say they don’t have unique flight models. He said the only way, in the real world, that the higher speeds are attained is because the engines are modified to handle higher manifold pressure without exploding. Here, rather than changing the engine parameters, it sounds like they attained the differences in flight model by changing the flight model, but didn’t include the higher power engine parameters.

Let’s also remember that, in race mode, all the planes have the same performance. It’s only in free flight mode that the various unique flight model characteristics come to light.

Granted, it sounds like they attained the various differences in how each of the planes fly likely through adjusting drag, or maybe higher powered engines at the normal manifold pressure, and other parameters in the flight model. Technically, this is incorrect, true, it would be better if they modeled the actual differences in the engines appropriately. In the end, though, how they set the game up is their choice.

False advertising, however, no, not in any way shape or form. The planes do have different flight characteristics. They never said the engines would be modeled down to their exact specifications. Why be so inflammatory?

Great post @JohnnyT5000 … I love all the detail, very interesting. Posts like yours are what makes this forum fun!

[N6722C]

Can anyone running the Current Beta confirm or deny that this has been fixed in the Beta ??

[VicinalPuppy422]

For Man O’ War, it looks like “P51D_MANOWAR_COCKPIT_GAUGE1.PNG.DDS” is not being used for manifold pressure gauge and tachometer. Instead, “P51D_COCKPIT_GAUGES_ALBD.PNG.DDS” is being used. The biggest issue is with the manifold pressure gauge. This image is how the Man O’ War panel actually looks:

Here is the panel in MSFS:

Here is an alternative view of the actual Man O’ War panel:

This is the manifold pressure gauge being used:

This is the manifold pressure gauge that should be used:

There is a similar issue with the tachometer, as already mentioned. It does appear that "P51D_MANOWAR_COCKPIT_GAUGE1.PNG.DDS” is correctly being used for the engine gauge (oil temperature/oil pressure/fuel pressure gauge combination).

I added this to Bugs & Issues under the Instruments category: Instruments for Man O' War P-51D from MSFS Reno Air Races

Update: The MSFS trailer from last October for Reno Air Races shows the correct manifold pressure and tachometer gauges for Man O’ War

Microsoft Flight Simulator – Reno Air Races – Full Collection - YouTube

This also matches the Man O’ War cockpit image in the Marketplace.

[FlyingsCool5650]

Are you being serious here that this is a problem?

While the gauges are represented a little bit differently (100 inHg max on gauge instead of 75 inHg max), the limits on the manifold gauges that a pilot actually uses are exactly the same, so, using the gauge is exactly the same between the two.

The difference the OP discussed was apparently for other planes, unless Man’0’War is also limited to 38 inHg and should actually go higher.

I just realized, however, I wonder if @JohnnyT5000 was comparing the planes in the Reno Air Race configuration or in Free Flight mode. As I noted above, in Reno Air Race config, all the planes have the same performance. Asobo is hoping to also create a mode for Racing mode that allows users to use the actual plane performance figures eventually, which, currently, can only be seen in Free Flight mode.

[JohnnyT5000]

The flight dynamics issue that I speak of, regarding performance versus engine settings, with both the P-51’s and AT-6’s, is in free flight mode.

The base/“stock” P-51D’s (generic paint schemes) and base/“stock” AT-6’s (generic paint schemes) have quite accurate to real life performance vs. engine settings. You set 50-55" Manifold Pressure/3000 RPM for takeoff power in the “stock”/generic P-51D’s (standard takeoff power in today’s world), and the level of acceleration and top end speed is very accurate. The same goes for the “stock”/generic AT-6’s, running 32" MP/2250 RPM for takeoff power (standard takeoff power in today’s world), and the level of acceleration and top end speed is very accurate. You can fly these aircraft, using the right true-to-life power settings, and they perform quite accurately in free flight mode.

The inaccuracies arise with some of the racer P-51D’s and all of the racer AT-6’s. Unlike what is portrayed currently in free flight mode, these should all have essentially the exact same level of acceleration and very, very close to the same top end speed as the stock examples, when running the exact same engine settings (within 5-20 mph of each other, depending on airframe modifications). The inherent problem with the flight/engine dynamics of the racing Mustangs (namely “Voodoo” and “Strega”) and the racing AT-6’s (all but the generic/“stock” examples) in free flight mode, is that they are accelerating way too fast and the top end speed is way too high, while using normal power settings (Manifold Pressure and RPM). In reality, the only reason why the racing Mustangs and racing AT-6’s are going at those much higher airspeeds is because the engines have been modified to allow much higher Manifold Pressures and RPM’s. That, however, is not depicted in the flight/engine dynamics of these aircraft. For instance, flying the P-51D “Voodoo”, using the normal top-end power setting of 55" Manifold Pressure and 3000 RPM on takeoff shouldn’t result in much of any difference at all in acceleration or top end speed than what you get in a stock P-51D using that same power setting (the top end speed would be expected to be only slightly faster, due to the airframe modifications) - however, it rockets away, unrealistically, because it has been magically boosted to reach much higher airspeeds, even though this is not reflected in any difference in engine settings. There is some “magical”/unnatural performance boost added to the MSFS flight dynamics for the racer Mustangs and AT-6’s, so that they have a crazy high level of acceleration and top end speed, even though the engine parameters/settings remain no different than the stock P-51D and AT-6. The major downside of this is that, in order to operate these aircraft in free flight mode just for a normal flight, you have to use much lower power settings than is accurate/what you would be using in reality, just so as to keep the acceleration and top end speed realistic/accurate. With the racer Mustangs and AT-6’s, there needs to be changes in the engine parameters so that the speeds we’re getting are only reachable by using much higher engine power settings, as per reality - and, when using stock power settings, they should be performing with very near the same level of acceleration and top end speed as the stock examples. No matter if the aircraft is fully stock or modified in some way for racing, the P-51D’s should all use 50-55" MP and 3000 RPM on takeoff (today’s power settings), and this should result in all of them accelerating and getting up to near the same top end speed, no matter which P-51D it is, and then using 34-36" MP and 2300-2400 RPM for cruise, all getting fairly close to the same cruise speed (with marginal differences based on airframe modifications/differences). Where one P-51 would be capable of being much faster than an another is when the Manifold Pressure and RPM, on a racing-tuned Merlin, is capable of being pushed far higher than stock (up to 145" MP, rather than 55" MP, and up to 3500 RPM, rather than 3000) - this is not replicated in the sim at this time.

The same problem applies to the racer AT-6’s. Because the performance on those has been over boosted, while the engine parameters/settings have not, you have to use much lower power settings than you would in reality just in order to operate them with realistic acceleration and top end speed in free flight mode. In reality, with any AT-6, modified or not, you takeoff using 32" Manifold Pressure (36" MP, if you don’t care about the length of engine life), and 2250 RPM, and no matter what airframe it is, it is going to accelerate and get up to speed essentially the same as any other, stock or otherwise modified. Unfortunately, though, since all of the racing AT-6’s have greatly boosted “magical” performance, without any tie-in to greater/higher engine power settings, you have to use much lower engine power settings with the racer AT-6’s in free flight mode to maintain realistic/accurate acceleration and speeds on takeoff and cruise. For instance, I’ve found that with the racer AT-6’s, to maintain realistic and accurate acceleration on takeoff, the power has to be kept down to 20-22" MP, and then even lower in cruise, and that shouldn’t be the case. No matter if the aircraft is fully stock or modified in some way for racing, they should all use 32" MP and 2250 RPM on takeoff (today’s power settings), with all of them accelerating the same and getting up to near the same top end speed, no matter which AT-6 it is, and then using 24-26" MP and 1850-1900 RPM for cruise, all getting pretty much the same cruise speed no matter which AT-6 it is. Unfortunately, this is not true of the flight/engine dynamics as currently portrayed with the racer AT-6’s and Mustangs. Where one AT-6 would be much faster than an another is when the Manifold Pressure and RPM, on a racing-tuned R-1340, is capable of being pushed higher than stock.

[Gromit1065]

The biggest issue I have with ‘Man O War’ is that full flap seems to give too little drag and more lift than I would expect making touchdown a long float-in-ground-effect experience. I made an R/C P51D (the same MOW) in the 80s and it was a delight to fly. Just like the real thing it needed only comparitively small surface movements for big results and was a beautiful design - very fast and ‘slippery’ but able to slow properly for easy landings. since then I have flown MOW in several other sims.
I wonder if tweaking the cfg files will trigger the dreaded Asobo full reinstall next update. I say that because the P51 is located in their file - not ‘community’

[HenriquedJC]

Two months in a row.

I’ve bought a plane that instruments simply don’t work. Misaligned textures completely screw the flying experience. I cannit control my RPM.

P-51D Mustang “Bunny” is useless at this point. Very frustrated with those stupid bugs.