PDA

View Full Version : P51B/C/D Roll Rate Observation and request



VF-10_Snacky
04-02-2004, 01:05 PM
I spent all morning researching the P51 and came up with a couple of discrepencies between real world info and what I can see in AEP.

First is the roll rate of the P51 in AEP. It appears to be a little too slow according to a training video on the P51B.
Appearently starting with the P51B there is a seal mechanism on the ailerons to prevent air flow from leaking in front of the aileron down to the bottom of the wing and causing drag. By sealing the ailerons this prevents air from leaking through and causing drag. Sealing allowed for higher roll rates (according to the video put out by the USAAF) more so than any other fighter.

It also appears that the P51 might be a little too slow on the top end, but in AEP it doesn't seem to be that bad.

The biggest issue I think is the roll rate and here is the USAAF training video.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-51.html

You will need realplayer to view.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

VF-10_Snacky
04-02-2004, 01:05 PM
I spent all morning researching the P51 and came up with a couple of discrepencies between real world info and what I can see in AEP.

First is the roll rate of the P51 in AEP. It appears to be a little too slow according to a training video on the P51B.
Appearently starting with the P51B there is a seal mechanism on the ailerons to prevent air flow from leaking in front of the aileron down to the bottom of the wing and causing drag. By sealing the ailerons this prevents air from leaking through and causing drag. Sealing allowed for higher roll rates (according to the video put out by the USAAF) more so than any other fighter.

It also appears that the P51 might be a little too slow on the top end, but in AEP it doesn't seem to be that bad.

The biggest issue I think is the roll rate and here is the USAAF training video.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-51.html

You will need realplayer to view.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

Cardinal25
04-02-2004, 02:09 PM
They mention lack of prop-pitch. WTF? 51's didn't have prp-pitch control?

CWoS. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)
92nd Fighter Group (http://www.92ndfg.com)
7./JG77 (http://www.7jg77.com)

BigKahuna_GS
04-02-2004, 02:30 PM
S!

Seawolf if you have anything substansial send it directly to Oleg for evaluation. The roll rate seems slow to me too.

Hopefully the video can prove your point!


___________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

PzKpfw
04-02-2004, 03:48 PM
For what its worth. Below is the roll rate on the P-51B-1 *:

P-51B-1 50lb stick force:

@ 150 mph IAS = 50 deg/sec
@ 200 mph IAS = 70 deg/sec
@ 250 mph IAS = 87 deg/sec
@ 300 mph IAS = 95 deg/sec
@ 350 mph IAS = 91 deg/sec
@ 400 mph IAS = 77 deg/sec


*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand. p.602. Comparison of Fighter Roll Rates NACA TR868.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

VW-IceFire
04-02-2004, 09:15 PM
BTW: At 25% fuel the P-51 B/C/D all have much higher roll rates. Its fairly well known at that at full fuel capacity all three were fairly well unflyable and actually dangerous to dogfight with. Most of that danger isn't present but they are sure heavy at 100%.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

VF-10_Snacky
04-03-2004, 06:25 PM
Part of the Danger was due to the 85gal aux tank behind the pilot which changed the COG further back. Pilots would need to burn this aux tank off first before attempting aerobatics in the P51B/C/D. My question pertains to the Sealed ailerons and whether or not this is modelled in the P51?
Also when I select %50 fuel for example is that fuel set in this aux tank?? if so how can I transfer fuel or set up the aircraft to use wing tanks only??
Are multiple tanks modelled??

I will admit that the P51 rolls much faster at higher altitudes than other aircraft which coincides with what has been written about the P51 so I cant complain too much, but I was just curious about the sealed aileron deal and if that is something considered when putting together the P51 for AEP.
I have also noticed the turning ability of the B/C to be better than that of the D model. Why?? All three variants had almost identical weight, power, dimensions, wing area, etc yet the B/C seem to out turn the D model at lower altitudes. Can someone explain why if all three variants are for the most part identical??
I'm just a curious guy who really likes the Pony and wants to learn all I can.
Thanks for the input guys

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

VW-IceFire
04-03-2004, 07:38 PM
Not sure what the sealed aileron deal is...not even sure what it means (please do elaborate) and I can't specifically answer the question of the B/C to D turn comparison but I have read that the P-51D, for whatever reason, was slightly less agile than the earlier models. I'm not sure what the difference was or what caused it...

FB doesn't really model the fuel tanks as specifically as that...but in terms of an overall approach the 25% fuel gives much better acceleration, turn ability (without stall), and roll rate.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Aaron_GT
04-04-2004, 08:11 AM
"All three variants had almost identical weight, power, dimensions, wing area, etc yet the B/C seem to out turn the D model at lower altitudes. Can someone explain why if all three variants are for the most part identical??
I'm just a curious guy who really likes the Pony and wants to learn all I can.
Thanks for the input guys"

I am guessing it has something to do with the
loss of the razorback, which also had a hand
is slightly reducing top speeds for the D
model at some altitudes, apparently.

VMF513_Sandman
04-04-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Not sure what the sealed aileron deal is...not even sure what it means (please do elaborate) and I can't specifically answer the question of the B/C to D turn comparison but I have read that the P-51D, for whatever reason, was slightly less agile than the earlier models. I'm not sure what the difference was or what caused it...

FB doesn't really model the fuel tanks as specifically as that...but in terms of an overall approach the 25% fuel gives much better acceleration, turn ability (without stall), and roll rate.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in aircraft other than p-51's, when the aileron was moved to bank, climb, or dive, a slot would appear between the aileron and the wing slat. this caused turbulence and drag; slowing down the roll.
design of the 51's aileron's was such that, when it moved, this slot was blocked off by a section that was inside the wing. smooth airflow was maintained, so in a bank, the wing stayed as clean airflow wise as it was before putting it into a bank.
p-51's also didnt need quite as much stick force to bank like the p-47's.

the p-51's were extremely fast and had a climb rate that compared to aep, it would rival the la-7...but oleg wont allow american plane's to have its true speed, roll rate, or climb rate; this is extremely obvious...it's never been fixed or adjusted since version 1.0. every time an american bird is even close to spec's in a beta patch that got leaked, the russian and jerri driver's claim its 'overmodeled'...and in the final, it gets turned into a mediocre plane.

a member of the BSS squadron got a chance to take a ride in an actual p-51. the speed, climb rate, and roll rate of that bird he said was surprizing. fb does not do it justice. it was also very sensitive in the trim settings; it had to be constantly trimmed level as speed went up or down. a difference of 5 knts would require re-trimming. so if the pony was modeled according to spec's, u'd have to constantly readjust trim to keep it level.

another thing i've noticed on the pony's...without cem on, the prop rpm never goes above 3000, and the manifold pressure never goes above 50". with cem on, manifold pressure will go way beyond 50", and the rpm's will go above 3000. seems u get alot better performance keeping the rpm's no higher than 3000. u wont overheat if u do...in the air, i have the radiator open fully and i can get quite a bit of speed out of it.
on takeoff i have fully closed radiator, rpm's at 100%(pony's have a constant speed prop), throttle at 88%. by the time u get to the end of the strip, u'll be doing over 210 true airspeed. after i get to about 1500 meters, i open the radiator to full open, and adjust to 70-75% throttle. prop rpm's will be reduced in dives to keep it at or slightly below 3000. and i dont overheat.

fb get's it a bit close, but its still off in the roll and climb rate areas...a bit of tweekin on the speed and top end, and we'll finally get a bird that's competitive.

VF-10_Snacky
04-04-2004, 11:19 AM
Sandman pretty much explains the sealed aileron mechanism, but I will try to find a diagram of it like what is seen in the training video. Actually if you take 15 minutes or so and watch the video I posted it explains it in detail. It also explains the climb rate, max operating speed, and max dive (before compressability).
I realize that these old USAAF training videos may be some propaganda mixed in with facts because the USAAF isn't going to tell its pilots that thier plane has difficiancies (spelling?lol) but it does give good numbers which I know Oleg likes when talking about making changes.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

Aaron_GT
04-04-2004, 11:44 AM
"the p-51's were extremely fast and had a climb rate that compared to aep, it would rival the la-7...but oleg wont allow american plane's to have its true speed, roll rate, or climb rate"

I find the constant sniping
about anti-US bias tedious.
Is Oleg anti-British because
of errors in the Spit or
Hurri? Anti German due to
some elements of German
aircraft being under
modelled, or even anti
Russian? Claiming this
probably just pisses Oleg
off. Respectfully pointing
out errors is the way to do
it, backed up by evidence.
Given the size of the sim it
might take Oleg a while to
fix it.

As it is, the P51 is
generally one of the planes
modelled more closely to
specs than most.

Also bear in mind that at
various points in various
patches some US aircraft
have also been over modelled
in some aspects. The FMs
seem to be rather unstable
(in a mathematical sense) to
change. Also bugs and errors
crop up - with so many
things to check it takes
time.

PzKpfw
04-04-2004, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:

the p-51's were extremely fast and had a climb rate that compared to aep, it would rival the la-7...but oleg wont allow american plane's to have its true speed, roll rate, or climb rate; this is extremely obvious...it's never been fixed or adjusted since version 1.0. every time an american bird is even close to spec's in a beta patch that got leaked, the russian and jerri driver's claim its 'overmodeled'...and in the final, it gets turned into a mediocre plane.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Concerning the P-51 ROC It was not as pronounced as its speed was compared to other fighters.

Ie, the P-51B/C useing Combat power had an Rate of Climb of 3400fpm @ medium altitude, ROC dropped steadily, as the P-51 gained altituide by 25,000ft ROC had fallen to 2500fpm. The P-51D useing Combat power, had a ROC of 3200-3300fpm @ medium altitude, which dropped steadily to 2000fpm @ 25000ft.


The P-51B/C/D/K ROC was not its strongpoint, in fact it was outclimbed by many of its adversaries, as well as other US fighters, Ie, the top 3 climbing US fighters in order, were:

1. P-63A.
2. F4U-4.
3. P-38J/L.

Later P-47s also outclimbed the P-51D/K. Since the P-63A never served in USAAF operationaly, & the F4U-4 showed up at wars end, the P-38J/L was in essence the fastest climbing, US fighter in operational service.

Concerning roll:

P-51B-1 50lb stick force:

@ 150 mph IAS = 50 deg/sec
@ 200 mph IAS = 70 deg/sec
@ 250 mph IAS = 87 deg/sec
@ 300 mph IAS = 95 deg/sec
@ 350 mph IAS = 91 deg/sec
@ 400 mph IAS = 77 deg/sec


As we can see the P-51B had a good rol rate @ higher speeds. The best rolling US fighters were the P-51B, P-40F & P-63A, the P-40F, outrolled all US fighters upto 300mph IAS, then the P-51B took over. So if you want to check the P-51B roll rate use the above data to compare vs ACE model.

Now lets look ar turn rate, as its an essentisl part of manouverability Ie, US fighters with the best turn radius, in an clean configureation; flaps retracted, no external stores etc, were:.


1. FM2
2. P-63A
3. P-61
4. F6F
5. P-51D/K
6. P-38L
7. P-47D30
8. F4U-1


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sun April 04 2004 at 01:47 PM.]

VF-10_Snacky
04-04-2004, 07:22 PM
ok, good info but roll rate in AEP still seems off.lol
I know I'm beating a dead horse and nothing said about any plane will ever change how its implimented in FB, but we have to try. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think the ultimate goal should be for historical accuracy on all aircraft no matter whether its Axis or Allied and then let the sim pilots learn thier planes. The P51 is not that far off IMO, the P38 for example I feel needs much more attention than the P51, but if we could get some of the American planes properly represented then I think everyone would be happy. What do I know I'm just an Ameriwhiner anyway.lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

VMF513_Sandman
04-04-2004, 07:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf_195th:
ok, good info but roll rate in AEP still seems off.lol
I know I'm beating a dead horse and nothing said about any plane will ever change how its implimented in FB, but we have to try. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think the ultimate goal should be for historical accuracy on all aircraft no matter whether its Axis or Allied and then let the sim pilots learn thier planes. The P51 is not that far off IMO, the P38 for example I feel needs much more attention than the P51, but if we could get some of the American planes properly represented then I think everyone would be happy. What do I know I'm just an Ameriwhiner anyway.lol http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

when will we have fairly modeled planes? dont hold yer breath. practically nothing has been done to the p-47 series since 1.0...all they have added is that now the planes explode in dives. today i watched a bunch of zekes (a6m5's) catch up to p-47's, 38's and 51's in both level flight and in dives. every1 that knows anything about zekes knows that tojo couldnt catch our planes in dives much less level flight....but i'm just an 'ameri-whiner'. lets see how the jerri's and ruski's like havin tojo outrun and outclimb them like they do us.

Korolov
04-04-2004, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
when will we have fairly modeled planes? dont hold yer breath. practically nothing has been done to the p-47 series since 1.0...all they have added is that now the planes explode in dives. today i watched a bunch of zekes (a6m5's) catch up to p-47's, 38's and 51's in both level flight and in dives. every1 that knows anything about zekes knows that tojo couldnt catch our planes in dives much less level flight....but i'm just an 'ameri-whiner'. lets see how the jerri's and ruski's like havin tojo outrun and outclimb them like they do us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wish I saw that many Zekes whenever I fly. I could really pad my kill count then!

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Aaron_GT
04-05-2004, 01:05 AM
"I know I'm beating a dead horse and nothing said about any plane will ever change how its implimented in FB, but we have to try"

They get changed all the time!

And Sandman, since 1.0 the
roll rate of the p47d10 and
22 was addressed and the 27
is a bug Oleg says will be
fixed next. If you are going
to claim anti-US bias at
least get your facts right!

VF-10_Snacky
04-05-2004, 02:39 AM
It would be interesting to hear what Oleg or anyone else on the Dev team thinks about the P38 and P51 performance. Do they think its ok or do they agree these planes can be tweaked some more? Most of what I read here is hearsay and not straight from the Devs so its hard to judge where they stand on these issues/complaints.

[This message was edited by Seawolf_195th on Mon April 05 2004 at 02:00 AM.]

Kurfurst__
04-05-2004, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Now lets look ar turn rate, as its an essentisl part of manouverability Ie, US fighters with the best turn radius, in an clean configureation; flaps retracted, no external stores etc, were:.


1. FM2
2. P-63A
3. P-61
4. F6F
5. P-51D/K
6. P-38L
7. P-47D30
8. F4U-1

Regards, John Waters
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have perhaps absolute numbers, i.e radius of turn/turn time at given altitude/G-load/speed etc ? I would be especially interested for 20 000 ft for a comparison.

The F4U-1 being so poor is a surprise to me - even if when I saw the plane in real life, it really had a HUGE turn radius on an airshow, even considering the pilot was probably not risking it..

Personally, I would very much like to see the P-51s elevator forces being corrected. In real life, elevator forces on the P-51 series were very high, compared to domestic or foreign competition. This limited pilots ability at high speed pitching manouvers - I can see no such thing in Il-2, however. The P-51 is modelled with ultra-light elevators, comparable to Fw 190 or Spitfire. This is I believe, most incorrect.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

lrrp22
04-05-2004, 10:22 AM
"In real life, elevator forces on the P-51 series were very high, compared to domestic or foreign competition. This limited pilots ability at high speed pitching manouvers"

Isegrim,

If elevator forces were so high, why did North American add a bob weight (also added to Spitfires) to the Merlin Mustang's elevator control cable to avoid pulling excessive G's at high speed?

Why were Mustang pilots so prone to hard blackouts during high speed pullouts?

Why did Mustang pilots state that nothing in the ETO could turn with a Mustang at 400 mph?

Every bit of evidence extant points to the Mustang having very effective elevators at high speed.

Having said that, it is possible that elevator effectiveness is too positive on those aircraft that traditionally had good high speed elevators i.e., the Mustang, Fw 190, Spitfire, and Thunderbolt but that is another issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Now lets look ar turn rate, as its an essentisl part of manouverability Ie, US fighters with the best turn radius, in an clean configureation; flaps retracted, no external stores etc, were:.


1. FM2
2. P-63A
3. P-61
4. F6F
5. P-51D/K
6. P-38L
7. P-47D30
8. F4U-1

Regards, John Waters
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have perhaps absolute numbers, i.e radius of turn/turn time at given altitude/G-load/speed etc ? I would be especially interested for 20 000 ft for a comparison.

The F4U-1 being so poor is a surprise to me - even if when I saw the plane in real life, it really had a HUGE turn radius on an airshow, even considering the pilot was probably not risking it..

Personally, I would very much like to see the P-51s elevator forces being corrected. In real life, elevator forces on the P-51 series were very high, compared to domestic or foreign competition. This limited pilots ability at high speed pitching manouvers - I can see no such thing in Il-2, however. The P-51 is modelled with ultra-light elevators, comparable to Fw 190 or Spitfire. This is I believe, most incorrect.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Mon April 05 2004 at 09:32 AM.]

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Mon April 05 2004 at 09:34 AM.]

kalo456
04-05-2004, 11:44 AM
Wow, F4u-4 having the worst horizontal turn radius?

Where did you get that data from Kurfurst__ ?
That doesn;t seem right to me at all. Also there has to be some not on speed at which the turn is made. I mean if you are talking tightest turn circle at any speed, the P-38 should win as it can turn at stall and not snap off into a spin. The 38' had a better turn radius than a P-51....


Kalo

Kurfurst__
04-05-2004, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Isegrim,

If elevator forces were so high, why did North American add a bob weight (also added to Spitfires) to the Merlin Mustang's elevator control cable to avoid pulling excessive G's at high speed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BoB weights were used to cure to some extent the Spitfire`s and Mustang`s tendency for tightening up the turn - as both of these planes had poor high AoA stall characteristics. In particular on the Mustang, bob weights were to give some safety vs. instability problems caused by the rear tank, which was the source of the frequent structural failures of the Merlin engined P-51.

To qoute AHT:

..."The manouvering qualities of the MERLIN powered P-51B/C amd D/K airplanes were more complex than those of the allison engined versions. In turning flight these Mustangs could be stable or unstable longitudinally depending on how much fuel in that tank was in the fuselage tank added on to increase range. Pulling high g in a quick turn with considerable fuel in that tank would mean stick reversal where pilot would have to brace himself to oppese backward travel of the stick. The actual motion of the stick was much less apparent than the reversal of force obtained. The pilot definately had to apply a push force to prevent a further tightening of the turn, which, if unopposed, could result in a high speed stall and possible wing structural failure. Turns at above 250 mph IAS and above four g were particularly dangerous."

..."MERLIN Mustangs accelerated stall behaviour is labeled anywhere between "sharp buffet warnings and almost immediate recovery with stick pressure release" (1940s) to a modern pilot's "totally inadequate stall warning and vicious departure"

..."As noted earlier the addition of a 20 pound bobweight helped, though it was by no means a cure-all."

Using a bob weight is not an indication of stick force... I hope it`s clear.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why were Mustang pilots so prone to hard blackouts during high speed pullouts?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were? So prone compared to what...? Wasn`t all pilots prone to blackout given the high TAS speeds involved?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why did Mustang pilots state that nothing in the ETO could turn with a Mustang at 400 mph?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please.. not that pilot mantra.. "nothing turns with my P-38"... "nothing rolls with my P-38"... "nothing zoom climbs with my P-51".... subjective stories of pilots who never really had the opportunity to compare under equal conditions... booooooring!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Every bit of evidence extant points to the Mustang having very effective elevators at high speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post that evidence, because so far, you haven`t.

If you want evidence, here it is :

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. "

From a well known site from a well known pilot.


And :

http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/web/special/ethell/pirep3.html

"The fighter is so well balanced, with just the right compromise between maneuverability and stability, any pilot can look smooth and capable in only a few hours. ***The only real drawbacks are ever increasing control pressures as speed increases, particularly over 300 mph,*** and immense fluctuations in yaw with power or speed changes, requiring a fair amount of fiddling with the trim wheels. It is also incredibly hot (120oF or more under that bubble at low level) and loud (130+ dB) inside...or freezing cold at altitude. Heat, air conditioning and noise proofing were future concerns in World War II. This can make flying the aircraft for any length of time extremely fatiguing. I know why 20-year-old pilots were recruited to fly these fire breathers."

Also if I find it, I can post results of SoETP pilots evaluation - Mustang had amongst the heaviest stickforces of US fighters, being 20 lbs/G iirc (for comparison, Spitfire had 4 lbs/G). This agrees well with often quoted Bf 109E stickforces at high speeds.


There`s loads of evidence the Mustang was heavy in pitch manouvers.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Having said that, it is possible that elevator effectiveness is too positive on those aircraft that traditionally had good high speed elevators i.e., the Mustang, Fw 190, Spitfire, and Thunderbolt but that is another issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I believe that Il-2`s elevator effectiveness is G-force and stick force oriented, control surface effectiveness is left out.. this gives a very linear, and unrealistic stick behaviour - "light elevator" planes being way too manouverable at very high speeds, ie. Spitfire, FW 190 etc., "heavy pitch" planes looses elevator effectiveness too quickly.

In real life, the P-51 had heavy elevators.
In AEP, it is mismodelled with light elevators... perhaps because somebody thought that if the P-51 had REALLY lightweight ailerons, then it must also have light elevator, too.... **brrp** wrong!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

Aaron_GT
04-05-2004, 12:47 PM
"Where did you get that data from Kurfurst__ ?"

Wasn't posted by Kurfurft
but by Pzkpfw

VF-10_Snacky
04-05-2004, 01:03 PM
This is why P51 pilots spent the first hour burning off the 85gal in that aux tank behind thier set because of the CFG problems it caused.
It was not in the original design of the airframe to have a 85gal aux tank right behind the pilot. That's around 510lbs behind the pilot

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

lrrp22
04-05-2004, 01:47 PM
None of your quotes address the issue of high speed elevator response. Of course stick forces became heavier as speed increased- that doesn't mean that the Mustang lost elevator effectiveness. I believe your 'The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang.' quote refers to speeds below 300 mph and goes on to say that they become considerably heavier above that speed.

I agree that pilot accounts can be suspect, but why do you summarily dismiss the accounts of numerous U.S. combat pilots and then go on to quote observations from current warbird pilots?

If you inference is that the 109G/K handled better at high speeds than the Mustang and that the Mustang was below average in that regard, then I don't think you will convince anyone but yourself and Huckebein.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Isegrim,

If elevator forces were so high, why did North American add a bob weight (also added to Spitfires) to the Merlin Mustang's elevator control cable to avoid pulling excessive G's at high speed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BoB weights were used to cure to some extent the Spitfire`s and Mustang`s tendency for tightening up the turn - as both of these planes had poor high AoA stall characteristics. In particular on the Mustang, bob weights were to give some safety vs. instability problems caused by the rear tank, which was the source of the frequent structural failures of the Merlin engined P-51.

To qoute AHT:

..."The manouvering qualities of the MERLIN powered P-51B/C amd D/K airplanes were more complex than those of the allison engined versions. In turning flight these Mustangs could be stable or unstable longitudinally depending on how much fuel in that tank was in the fuselage tank added on to increase range. Pulling high g in a quick turn with considerable fuel in that tank would mean stick reversal where pilot would have to brace himself to oppese backward travel of the stick. The actual motion of the stick was much less apparent than the reversal of force obtained. The pilot definately had to apply a push force to prevent a further tightening of the turn, which, if unopposed, could result in a high speed stall and possible wing structural failure. Turns at above 250 mph IAS and above four g were particularly dangerous."

..."MERLIN Mustangs accelerated stall behaviour is labeled anywhere between "sharp buffet warnings and almost immediate recovery with stick pressure release" (1940s) to a modern pilot's "totally inadequate stall warning and vicious departure"

..."As noted earlier the addition of a 20 pound bobweight helped, though it was by no means a cure-all."

Using a bob weight is not an indication of stick force... I hope it`s clear.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why were Mustang pilots so prone to hard blackouts during high speed pullouts?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were? So prone compared to what...? Wasn`t all pilots prone to blackout given the high TAS speeds involved?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why did Mustang pilots state that nothing in the ETO could turn with a Mustang at 400 mph?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh please.. not that pilot mantra.. "nothing turns with my P-38"... "nothing rolls with my P-38"... "nothing zoom climbs with my P-51".... subjective stories of pilots who never really had the opportunity to compare under equal conditions... booooooring!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Every bit of evidence extant points to the Mustang having very effective elevators at high speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post that evidence, because so far, you haven`t.

If you want evidence, here it is :

"The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. "

From a well known site from a well known pilot.


And :

http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/web/special/ethell/pirep3.html

"The fighter is so well balanced, with just the right compromise between maneuverability and stability, any pilot can look smooth and capable in only a few hours. ***The only real drawbacks are ever increasing control pressures as speed increases, particularly over 300 mph,*** and immense fluctuations in yaw with power or speed changes, requiring a fair amount of fiddling with the trim wheels. It is also incredibly hot (120oF or more under that bubble at low level) and loud (130+ dB) inside...or freezing cold at altitude. Heat, air conditioning and noise proofing were future concerns in World War II. This can make flying the aircraft for any length of time extremely fatiguing. I know why 20-year-old pilots were recruited to fly these fire breathers."

Also if I find it, I can post results of SoETP pilots evaluation - Mustang had amongst the heaviest stickforces of US fighters, being 20 lbs/G iirc (for comparison, Spitfire had 4 lbs/G). This agrees well with often quoted Bf 109E stickforces at high speeds.


There`s loads of evidence the Mustang was heavy in pitch manouvers.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Having said that, it is possible that elevator effectiveness is too positive on those aircraft that traditionally had good high speed elevators i.e., the Mustang, Fw 190, Spitfire, and Thunderbolt but that is another issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I believe that Il-2`s elevator effectiveness is G-force and stick force oriented, control surface effectiveness is left out.. this gives a very linear, and unrealistic stick behaviour - "light elevator" planes being way too manouverable at very high speeds, ie. Spitfire, FW 190 etc., "heavy pitch" planes looses elevator effectiveness too quickly.

In real life, the P-51 had heavy elevators.
In AEP, it is mismodelled with light elevators... perhaps because somebody thought that if the P-51 had REALLY lightweight ailerons, then it must also have light elevator, too.... **brrp** wrong!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw
04-05-2004, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Do you have perhaps absolute numbers, i.e radius of turn/turn time at given altitude/G-load/speed etc ? I would be especially interested for 20 000 ft for a comparison.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No altitude was given, all rates were established by minimum stall speed @ *3g
Ie:

P-51D-15 - 159mph IAS
Gross weight- 9500lbs
Wing area (sq.feet) - 233.19
Maximum Lift Coefficient - 1.89
Minimum Turn radius Index No - 21.5
Ranking % - 179
Best-Worst - 5th

F4U-1D - 172.5mph IAS
Gross weight - 11803lbs
Wing area (sq.feet)- 314
Maximum Lift Coefficient - 1.48
Minimum Turn radius Index No - 25.4
Ranking % - 212
Best-Worst - 8th

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p.603


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Kurfurst__
04-06-2004, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
None of your quotes address the issue of high speed elevator response.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All say Mustang elevator was relatively heavy.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Of course stick forces became heavier as speed increased- that doesn't mean that the Mustang lost elevator effectiveness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s really interesting.

Stickforces increase -&gt; pilot can apply less and less elevator -&gt; and still you say elevator effectiveness doesn`t decrease at all...?

Interesting theory!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I believe your 'The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang.' quote refers to speeds below 300 mph and goes on to say that they become considerably heavier above that speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s another quote, from another guy, in another 109, and not about the pitch but the roll rate... and doesn`t say it`s worser than Mustang above 300mph.. otherwise correct.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I agree that pilot accounts can be suspect, but why do you summarily dismiss the accounts of numerous U.S. combat pilots and then go on to quote observations from current warbird pilots?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

99.9% Wartime US pilots never flew any Bf 109s or 190s, or other enemy, or even friendly plane... they couldn`t set up

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you inference is that the 109G/K handled better at high speeds than the Mustang and that the Mustang was below average in that regard, then I don't think you will convince anyone but yourself and Huckebein. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There`s evidence the Mustang`s elevator forces were considered excessive. By US pilots... Very high : 20 lbs + /G.... This limits pilots ability to pull tight turns at high speeds. There`s hard evidence the Mustang was WELL below avarage in high speed pitch handling.

There`s also evidence the 109 handled rather better than the common opionion holds, at high speeds... even heaviest 109K could do rather tight turns at 400-420mph. I have the flight test. But I don`t claim anything in relative to the P-51 and Bf 109 elevator behaviour at high speeds, because I don`t have comparable information. That`s why I asked for Mustang turn capabilities at 20 000 ft. I am still waiting for information about the Mustang`s turn time, and radius at 400mph. I believe it was a lot more limited than in AEP - there it is equal to the Spitfire etc. This is I believe is wrong.


Also, here are quote from SoETP trials:
(all test done below and up to 10 000 ft)


---------------------------------------------

Behavior during accelrated stall:

Most predictable and controllable: P-47 and F6F. Both could be flown at will into the pre-stall buffet, which at no time was heavy enough to present problems with tracking, and held at maximum usable lift coefficient with ease. Sideslip became noticeable as wing heaviness correctible with rudder. There was little tendency to depart controlled
flight. The FG-1 suffered severe airframe buffet shortly before the stall, but at the stall there was a strong g-break and rapid right wing drop--no matter which direction the turn. Careful left rudder could prevent wing drop,
but then at the stall the aircraft became very unpredictable, bucking and porpoising, with a tendency to a sudden departure. The P-51 gave no warning whatsoever of an accelerated stall. At the stall, the aircraft departed with complete loss of control, achieving 270-degree of roll before recovery. Departure was accompanied by violent
aileron snatch strong enough to rip the control stick from the hand. In short, the P-51 suffered from a Part I deficiency.

SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE at METO at 10,000 ft.

The F6F out-turned the other three by a conclusive margin (1g). The other three were all about the same.
Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed, implying very rapid energy loss when turning at the structural limit. The F6F was in light airframe buffet at 6g at Vmax; the P-47 experienced light buffet at 4.8g. The FG-1 and P-51 were buffet-free up to 6g.


MANEUVERING STABILITY stick forces/g at Vmax

FG-1--5 lbs/g (too light)
P-47--7.5 lbs/g (ideal)
F6F--12.5 lbs/g (barely acceptable)
P-51--over 20 lbs/g (excessive)


AIR-TO-AIR TRACKING 210 KIAS at 10,000 ft. (straight & level into a 3g turn to the left building to 4g followed by a hard reversal into a 4g right turn.)

FG-1 best, followed by P-47, F6F and, trailing badly, the P-51. Lateral corrections in the P-51 were difficult thanks to the very high stick forces. During one run-thru, an effort at a longitudinal tracking correction that put 4.5g on the plane led to a sudden departure and spin.
-------------------------------------------------


This is also relevant to the thread :

ROLL PERFORMANCE

1g 360-degree right (left slower--F6F worst, P-51 best)
FG-1--81 deg./sec.
F6F--78 deg./sec.
P-51--75 deg./sec.
P-47--74 deg./sec.

3g 180 degree right (left slower--P-51 and F6F best, FG-1 worst)

P-47--66 deg./sec.
FG-1--58 deg./sec.
P-51--55 deg./sec.
F6F--48 deg./sec.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

Aaron_GT
04-06-2004, 10:13 AM
Kurfurst wrote:
"Stickforces increase -&gt; pilot can apply less and less elevator -&gt; and still you say elevator effectiveness doesn`t decrease at all...?"

It's not impossible that both are true. It
might be hard to move the elevator, but it
might still produce a good pitch force when
even deflected a little. If you look at roll
rates for the P51, at high speed the ailerons
can't be fully deflected, but roll rate is
still high.

On the whole I'd place good credence on
test pilots who have had the chance to fly
a variety of types under controlled conditions,
either during WW2, or more recently. Also I'd
place a bit more credence on combat reports
filed at the time rather than recollections
20 years later. This is not a criticism of
pilots who were in combat, just an acceptance
of the way human memory is fallible, especially
when the events happened under periods of
stress. I wouldn't be surprised if we set up
a dogfight server with a dozen people we'd get
at least some conflicting accounts of what
happened if people reported on the events. It's
human nature.

lrrp22
04-06-2004, 10:20 AM
Again, none of these figures refer to high speed elevator response.

I am not arguing that the Mustang had 'light' elevators at low to moderate speeds, or even at high speed. I *am* stating that like its ailerons, which weren't spectacular at lower speeds, the Mustang's elevators maintained effectivenes at high speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
None of your quotes address the issue of high speed elevator response.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All say Mustang elevator was relatively heavy.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Of course stick forces became heavier as speed increased- that doesn't mean that the Mustang lost elevator effectiveness. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s really interesting.

Stickforces increase -&gt; pilot can apply less and less elevator -&gt; and still you say elevator effectiveness doesn`t decrease at all...?

Interesting theory!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I believe your 'The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang.' quote refers to speeds below 300 mph and goes on to say that they become considerably heavier above that speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s another quote, from another guy, in another 109, and not about the pitch but the roll rate... and doesn`t say it`s worser than Mustang above 300mph.. otherwise correct.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I agree that pilot accounts can be suspect, but why do you summarily dismiss the accounts of numerous U.S. combat pilots and then go on to quote observations from current warbird pilots?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

99.9% Wartime US pilots never flew any Bf 109s or 190s, or other enemy, or even friendly plane... they couldn`t set up

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you inference is that the 109G/K handled better at high speeds than the Mustang and that the Mustang was below average in that regard, then I don't think you will convince anyone but yourself and Huckebein. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There`s evidence the Mustang`s elevator forces were considered excessive. By US pilots... Very high : 20 lbs + /G.... This limits pilots ability to pull tight turns at high speeds. There`s hard evidence the Mustang was WELL below avarage in high speed pitch handling.

There`s also evidence the 109 handled rather better than the common opionion holds, at high speeds... even heaviest 109K could do rather tight turns at 400-420mph. I have the flight test. But I don`t claim anything in relative to the P-51 and Bf 109 elevator behaviour at high speeds, because I don`t have comparable information. That`s why I asked for Mustang turn capabilities at 20 000 ft. I am still waiting for information about the Mustang`s turn time, and radius at 400mph. I believe it was a lot more limited than in AEP - there it is equal to the Spitfire etc. This is I believe is wrong.


Also, here are quote from SoETP trials:
(all test done below and up to 10 000 ft)


---------------------------------------------

Behavior during accelrated stall:

Most predictable and controllable: P-47 and F6F. Both could be flown at will into the pre-stall buffet, which at no time was heavy enough to present problems with tracking, and held at maximum usable lift coefficient with ease. Sideslip became noticeable as wing heaviness correctible with rudder. There was little tendency to depart controlled
flight. The FG-1 suffered severe airframe buffet shortly before the stall, but at the stall there was a strong g-break and rapid right wing drop--no matter which direction the turn. Careful left rudder could prevent wing drop,
but then at the stall the aircraft became very unpredictable, bucking and porpoising, with a tendency to a sudden departure. The P-51 gave no warning whatsoever of an accelerated stall. At the stall, the aircraft departed with complete loss of control, achieving 270-degree of roll before recovery. Departure was accompanied by violent
aileron snatch strong enough to rip the control stick from the hand. In short, the P-51 suffered from a Part I deficiency.

SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE at METO at 10,000 ft.

The F6F out-turned the other three by a conclusive margin (1g). The other three were all about the same.
Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed, implying very rapid energy loss when turning at the structural limit. The F6F was in light airframe buffet at 6g at Vmax; the P-47 experienced light buffet at 4.8g. The FG-1 and P-51 were buffet-free up to 6g.


MANEUVERING STABILITY stick forces/g at Vmax

FG-1--5 lbs/g (too light)
P-47--7.5 lbs/g (ideal)
F6F--12.5 lbs/g (barely acceptable)
P-51--over 20 lbs/g (excessive)


AIR-TO-AIR TRACKING 210 KIAS at 10,000 ft. (straight & level into a 3g turn to the left building to 4g followed by a hard reversal into a 4g right turn.)

FG-1 best, followed by P-47, F6F and, trailing badly, the P-51. Lateral corrections in the P-51 were difficult thanks to the very high stick forces. During one run-thru, an effort at a longitudinal tracking correction that put 4.5g on the plane led to a sudden departure and spin.
-------------------------------------------------


This is also relevant to the thread :

ROLL PERFORMANCE

1g 360-degree right (left slower--F6F worst, P-51 best)
FG-1--81 deg./sec.
F6F--78 deg./sec.
P-51--75 deg./sec.
P-47--74 deg./sec.

3g 180 degree right (left slower--P-51 and F6F best, FG-1 worst)

P-47--66 deg./sec.
FG-1--58 deg./sec.
P-51--55 deg./sec.
F6F--48 deg./sec.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 10:47 AM
To add the rest of the section to the quote Isegrim used from AHT:

*The MERLIN powered P-51B/C and D/K
airplanes had internally sealed and balanced aielerons which tended to keep stick forces light. Generally the roll rate performance of these ailerons at high speeds equalled or was slightly improved over the earlier P-51, but low speed performance was substantially increased.

Although one pilot at a confrence rated P-51D ailerons as "best in show", another noted "weak ailerons at low speed", and a US Navy evaluation of a P-51B said "The P-51B lateral control at low speeds is marginal, and would not be suffcient for carrier operations".

The P-51D flight msnual indicated lateral control at low speeds tended to be slightly mushy, but control was still good. Even after the horizontal tails of the P-51B/C airplanes were strenghened to withstand the very high speed snap maneuvers resulting from the directional instability noted earlier, slow rolls were prohibited.

This was because the inverted snap maneuver which often occured during the portion of the slow roll where controls were well crossed was catching the pilot unawares, and the violence of the maneuver was causing many bumps and bruises, scratches, and torn flight suits. This is where the dorsal fin and reverse boost rudder tab were incorperated, and the slow roll restriction was then lifted.

The P-51B was # 1 in US late war US fighters in roll rate tests with 50lb stick, had a 90 deg/sec RR @ 360mph IAS (4 sec roll).

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p.350.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue April 06 2004 at 10:30 AM.]

Kurfurst__
04-06-2004, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Kurfurst wrote:
"Stickforces increase -&gt; pilot can apply less and less elevator -&gt; and still you say elevator effectiveness doesn`t decrease at all...?"

It's not impossible that both are true. It
might be hard to move the elevator, but it
might still produce a good pitch force when
even deflected a little. If you look at roll
rates for the P51, at high speed the ailerons
can't be fully deflected, but roll rate is
still high.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes it`s not impossible, provided the elevator maintained good effectiveness in high speeds, which is rather doubtful - all non-metal surfaces tend to loose some effectiveness. It could be deflected only to a limited extent..

The Mustang ailerons are of different case.. they could be deflected almost fully for very high speeds, ie. I have docs that state for 45 deg/sec roll rate, only 23 lbs force was required... with half deflection, most likely full or almost full was possible at 50lbs. but this is aileron, not elevator. The Mustang`s ailerons had very limited (+-10deg) max. deflection, this is one reason why they don`t become very heavy at speeds (and reason for poor roll rate at low speeds). Elevator always has larger deflections... Another difference that the Mustang`s ailerons were metal covered - the elevator was on the other hand, fabric covered.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
"Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed,0. *Check!* Range, 650 meters. *Check!* Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast. Tube I., ready? *Tube I. ready!* Tube I.... *Tube I.* Fire! *Fire. Torpedo running!*


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

Kurfurst__
04-06-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Again, none of these figures refer to high speed elevator response. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at least in your read. Others would say that "excessive stick forces at Vmax", same opinion expressed by many different pilots about heavy stickforce at high speeds all point towards decreased elevator authority.

Of course if one wants to pretend there`s really nothing, it`s his choice, but hardly a convincing stance - at least in regard the subject itself.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I *am* stating that like its ailerons, which weren't spectacular at lower speeds, the Mustang's elevators maintained effectivenes at high speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, maintain it. But beware, belief departs from facts that the latter is backed up. There`s nothing from you that would point towards the P-51 maintaining good elevator response at high speeds. You have to yet materialize something in this regard. Sharing your subjective feelings is nice, but doesn`t helps us at all the decide on the objective case of subject.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
"Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed,0. *Check!* Range, 650 meters. *Check!* Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast. Tube I., ready? *Tube I. ready!* Tube I.... *Tube I.* Fire! *Fire. Torpedo running!*


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

lrrp22
04-06-2004, 11:54 AM
That's stick force, not elevator effectivenes. The Mustang's elevators were designed much like its ailerons- relatively wide but narrow in chord.

Also it is quite likely that the Mustang's vMax at 10,000 ft was considerably higher than the others as well- standard boosted Mustang's 415+ mph vs. Thunderbolt's 375, probably more for the Hellcat.

BTW, the vast majority of P-51D's (and some C's) featured metal elevators.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
Again, none of these figures refer to high speed elevator response. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at least in your read. Others would say that "excessive stick forces at Vmax", same opinion expressed by many different pilots about heavy stickforce at high speeds all point towards decreased elevator authority.

Of course if one wants to pretend there`s really nothing, it`s his choice, but hardly a convincing stance - at least in regard the subject itself.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I *am* stating that like its ailerons, which weren't spectacular at lower speeds, the Mustang's elevators maintained effectivenes at high speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, maintain it. But beware, belief departs from facts that the latter is backed up. There`s nothing from you that would point towards the P-51 maintaining good elevator response at high speeds. You have to yet materialize something in this regard. Sharing your subjective feelings is nice, but doesn`t helps us at all the decide on the objective case of subject.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
"Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed,0. *Check!* Range, 650 meters. *Check!* Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast. Tube I., ready? *Tube I. ready!* Tube I.... *Tube I.* Fire! *Fire. Torpedo running!*


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Tue April 06 2004 at 11:12 AM.]

Skalgrim
04-20-2004, 03:52 PM
with 320km/h ias need p51 5sec for 360dec, that is inferior to 109g

Mark Hanna had say 109g roll better as p51 until 480km/h ias (300mph) and is much better turner slow speed,

that would mean, 109 more danger for p51 at high altitude, because there is ias speed much low

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Tue April 20 2004 at 04:02 PM.]

ZG77_Nagual
04-20-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>&gt;I dont have numbers to quote this. I would enjoy doing a test flight program
&gt;with the Mustang such as done by the EAA for some of the homebuilt aircraft as
&gt;flown usually by Dave Moruss(sp?).
&gt;
&gt;My guesses are:
&gt;
&gt; full aileron 3G pull
&gt;200kt 20 lb 20 lb
&gt;250kt 25 lb 30 lb
&gt;300kt ? high! 45 lb
&gt;
&gt;These numbers would be interesting to research and verify.
&gt;
&gt;V. Lenoch


Your figures are remarkably accurate. I have data that indicates that the
P-51D, at corner speed, measures 48 lbs in a 3g pull. Up to 86 Lbs at
5g's. The P-47D, OTOH, requires just 16 lbs at 3g and 27 lbs at 5g's.
The testers state that the Mustang was a true "two hander". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mustang Thread (http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p51.html)

It's worth noting that you can apply alot of force backward against a stick - particularly when you are strapped in. The blue angles, for example, have the power assist turned down or off in the F-18a - this results in 30lbs forward stick force while flying level - while it's unlikely this increases as much as in a ww2 fighter with G's pulled - it is done to enhance precision control - it would also help with tensing in high-g maneuvers. One of the 109's issues, supposedly, in roll at high speeds (a separate issue from elevator response, of course) was the small cockpit - which allowed little side to side leverage.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Tue April 20 2004 at 04:15 PM.]

WUAF_Co_Hero
04-20-2004, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Wish I saw that many Zekes whenever I fly. I could really pad my kill count then!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said it!! Infact, I don't think I've been shot down by a zeke in a 38 yet in AEP... they're just horrible a/c IMO.. lol

Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a day...

Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.

lbhskier37
04-21-2004, 01:43 AM
idk about the people complaining about the P38s. I don't know the exact specs, but they sure are good planes in here. I think one problem is that current US pilots were former VVS pilots and got used to UFO turning Yaks and Las, so they dont know how to handle a real airplane. After flying 190s most of the time, american birds all seem easy to fly and super deadly. P38 especailly because you can actually climb with it.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

WhiskeyRiver
04-21-2004, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:

the p-51's were extremely fast and had a climb rate that compared to aep, it would rival the la-7...but oleg wont allow american plane's to have its true speed, roll rate, or climb rate; this is extremely obvious...it's never been fixed or adjusted since version 1.0. every time an american bird is even close to spec's in a beta patch that got leaked, the russian and jerri driver's claim its 'overmodeled'...and in the final, it gets turned into a mediocre plane.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Concerning the P-51 ROC It was not as pronounced as its speed was compared to other fighters.

Ie, the P-51B/C useing _Combat power_ had an Rate of Climb of 3400fpm @ medium altitude, ROC dropped steadily, as the P-51 gained altituide by 25,000ft ROC had fallen to 2500fpm. The P-51D useing _Combat power_, had a ROC of 3200-3300fpm @ medium altitude, which dropped steadily to 2000fpm @ 25000ft.


The P-51B/C/D/K ROC was _not_ its strongpoint, in fact it was outclimbed by many of its adversaries, as well as other US fighters, Ie, the top 3 climbing US fighters in order, were:

1. P-63A.
2. F4U-4.
3. P-38J/L.

Later P-47s also outclimbed the P-51D/K. Since the P-63A never served in USAAF operationaly, & the F4U-4 showed up at wars end, the P-38J/L was in essence the fastest climbing, US fighter in operational service.

Concerning roll:

_P-51B-1 50lb stick force_:

@ 150 mph IAS = 50 deg/sec
@ 200 mph IAS = 70 deg/sec
@ 250 mph IAS = 87 deg/sec
@ 300 mph IAS = 95 deg/sec
@ 350 mph IAS = 91 deg/sec
@ 400 mph IAS = 77 deg/sec


As we can see the P-51B had a good rol rate @ higher speeds. The best rolling US fighters were the P-51B, P-40F & P-63A, the P-40F, outrolled all US fighters upto 300mph IAS, then the P-51B took over. So if you want to check the P-51B roll rate use the above data to compare vs ACE model.

Now lets look ar turn rate, as its an essentisl part of manouverability Ie, US fighters with the best turn radius, in an clean configureation; flaps retracted, no external stores etc, were:.


1. FM2
2. P-63A
3. P-61
4. F6F
5. P-51D/K
6. P-38L
7. P-47D30
8. F4U-1


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Sun April 04 2004 at 01:47 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the F8F? Everything I've read points out the F8F as the best in ROC and turn rate.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

WhiskeyRiver
04-21-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>&gt;I dont have numbers to quote this. I would enjoy doing a test flight program
&gt;with the Mustang such as done by the EAA for some of the homebuilt aircraft as
&gt;flown usually by Dave Moruss(sp?).
&gt;
&gt;My guesses are:
&gt;

&gt; full aileron 3G pull
&gt;200kt 20 lb 20 lb
&gt;250kt 25 lb 30 lb
&gt;300kt ? high! 45 lb
&gt;
&gt;These numbers would be interesting to research and verify.
&gt;
&gt;V. Lenoch


Your figures are remarkably accurate. I have data that indicates that the
P-51D, at corner speed, measures 48 lbs in a 3g pull. Up to 86 Lbs at
5g's. The P-47D, OTOH, requires just 16 lbs at 3g and 27 lbs at 5g's.
The testers state that the Mustang was a true "two hander". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p51.html

It's worth noting that you can apply alot of force backward against a stick - particularly when you are strapped in. The blue angles, for example, have the power assist turned down or off in the F-18a - this results in 30lbs forward stick force while flying level - while it's unlikely this increases as much as in a ww2 fighter with G's pulled - it is done to enhance precision control - it would also help with tensing in high-g maneuvers. One of the 109's issues, supposedly, in roll at high speeds (a separate issue from elevator response, of course) was the small cockpit - which allowed little side to side leverage.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Tue April 20 2004 at 04:15 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F-18 is fly-by-wire. The stick hooked to sensors that measure how much force is being applied and in what direction. This is sent to the flight control computer which then moves the control surfaces as needed.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

PzKpfw
04-21-2004, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiskeyRiver:
[What about the F8F? Everything I've read points out the F8F as the best in ROC and turn rate.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F8F like the P-51H was not considered by Dean as a production fighter, so the F8F is not included as a production fighter, nor in any of the comparisons of US fighters capabilities etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

ZG77_Nagual
04-21-2004, 10:06 AM
Whiskey - dats just what the pilots told me a few years back - fa18s - systems are redundant to they can either set the control force, or turn off parts of it - don't know for sure but I do know 30lbs forward stick force in level flight - not for all Fa18s - just theres, then.

VFA-195 Snacky
04-21-2004, 04:52 PM
G-Limit override is never enabled in the FA18 except in the case of the Blue Angels and it's 30lbs backpressure not forward pressure because of the amount of time the BA spend in inverted flight. A 30 minute performance for a BA aviator is the same as 17 hours of hard physical labor.
Anyone who has ever pulled real G loads in something other than a whimpy roller coaster will tell you it will wear you slap out. I see all these insane neg g manuvers and sustained 7+g turns online and I can't help but laugh because there are only a fraction of folks who could withstand the physical torture involved in some of these manuvers, and thats just the manuvers that are even possible.lol

kind of OT but I would like to see Black Out and Red out modelled for external views as well.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/Corsairs.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
04-21-2004, 05:07 PM
Thanks Snacky - it was awhile ago but I thought they said the stick required 30lbs back pressure.. however, what you say makes more sense. I stand corrected.

VFA-195 Snacky
04-22-2004, 02:05 PM
Hey np I tend to know more about Jets than Props so it's always a learning experience for me in here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Thanks Snacky - it was awhile ago but I thought they said the stick required 30lbs back pressure.. however, what you say makes more sense. I stand corrected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/Corsairs.jpg