PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: Now a P-51 Mustang Question (no arguing, I promise!)



XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:04 AM
In the developement updates, the P-51B and P-51C are pictured:



P-51B
http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/P-51B_1.jpg


The P-51B-1NA was produced without the fuselage fuel tank. A portion of the P-51B-5NA line was produced without that tank, but the later part of that run had them installed (they were redesignated P-51B-7NA). The P-51B-10NA and P-51B-15NA were produced with the fuselage tank.

Additionally, P-51Bs accepted after February 1944 were equipped with the Packard Merlin V-1650-7 engine. Earlier planes had the V-1650-3 engine. The -3 engine had much better high altitude performance.



P-51C
http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/P-51C_5.jpg


The P-51C was basically a Dallas produced P-51B. Some of the P-51C-1NTs were produced without the fuselage tank, but a portion of the run was built with the tanks and they became P-51C-3NTs. P-51C-10NTs were produced with the fuselage fuel tank.

Additionally, early P-51Cs had the V-1650-3 engine. P-51Cs accepted after July 1944 had the V-1650-7 engine. Again, the V-1650-3 had much better high altitude performance.



Now, my question: Which ones do you plan to model?



My respectful suggestion would be to model:

P-51B-1NA -or- P-51B-5NA without the fuselage tank, and with the V-1650-3 engine.

P-51C-3NT with the fuselage tank, and with the V-1650-3 engine.


This would give us the greatest diversity of Mustangs. Since we already have the P-51D-5NT with the fuselage tank and V-1650-7 engine.



Thanks!





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg



Message Edited on 11/07/0304:07AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:04 AM
In the developement updates, the P-51B and P-51C are pictured:



P-51B
http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/P-51B_1.jpg


The P-51B-1NA was produced without the fuselage fuel tank. A portion of the P-51B-5NA line was produced without that tank, but the later part of that run had them installed (they were redesignated P-51B-7NA). The P-51B-10NA and P-51B-15NA were produced with the fuselage tank.

Additionally, P-51Bs accepted after February 1944 were equipped with the Packard Merlin V-1650-7 engine. Earlier planes had the V-1650-3 engine. The -3 engine had much better high altitude performance.



P-51C
http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/P-51C_5.jpg


The P-51C was basically a Dallas produced P-51B. Some of the P-51C-1NTs were produced without the fuselage tank, but a portion of the run was built with the tanks and they became P-51C-3NTs. P-51C-10NTs were produced with the fuselage fuel tank.

Additionally, early P-51Cs had the V-1650-3 engine. P-51Cs accepted after July 1944 had the V-1650-7 engine. Again, the V-1650-3 had much better high altitude performance.



Now, my question: Which ones do you plan to model?



My respectful suggestion would be to model:

P-51B-1NA -or- P-51B-5NA without the fuselage tank, and with the V-1650-3 engine.

P-51C-3NT with the fuselage tank, and with the V-1650-3 engine.


This would give us the greatest diversity of Mustangs. Since we already have the P-51D-5NT with the fuselage tank and V-1650-7 engine.



Thanks!





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg



Message Edited on 11/07/0304:07AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:53 AM
Here is a speed chart I have for the P-51B versus the F4U-1 Corsair.

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/fast.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:47 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Additionally, P-51Bs accepted after February 1944
- were equipped with the Packard Merlin V-1650-7
- engine. Earlier planes had the V-1650-3 engine.
- The -3 engine had much better high altitude
- performance.



No Skychimp, -7 did not had worse high altitude performance, it was exactly the same high altitude performance with -3. The reason why it had lower critical altitude is because you read a chart where max MP for -3 was 61" not 67" MP. V-1650-3 allowed to use 67" MP had the same critical altitude with V-1650-7. But this allowance happend late and -3 was still less powerful than -7 even on 67"MP. -7 was a better engine.

The decrease in speed came from the bubble canopy.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/06/0309:49PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:36 AM
hiyas Huckie. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Droping by to remind us how bad the mustangs are supposed to be again?

Huckebein_FW wrote:
"The decrease in speed came from the bubble canopy."

Huck there's this little thing called Areodynamics...
you may want to read up on it a bit if you can understand it. I'd like for you to explain to me how you came to the revalation that a bubble canopy causes reduction in air speed. it's a bubble canopy....not an almost flat windshield like an IL-2 or a Bf-109. Ever see a bubble with a flat surface? I never have...but i bet that you have. fact is a bubble has no flat surfaces to reduce air flow or Aerodynamics {oops there's that big word again} and as such causes less drag than say a Bf-109's vertical winshiled. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my USAAF 8th AF Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:12 AM
Not to be mean Copperhead but isn't the Razorback 47D faster than the bubble-27 for that reason? The same went for similar marks of Spitfires with hood changes?

BTW Being civil costs you nothing, even if you do dislike the other participant.

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A><font size=0>

Message Edited on 11/07/0303:14PM by hobnail

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:20 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- No Skychimp, -7 did not had worse high altitude
- performance, it was exactly the same high altitude
- performance with -3. The reason why it had lower
- critical altitude is because you read a chart where
- max MP for -3 was 61" not 67" MP. V-1650-3 allowed
- to use 67" MP had the same critical altitude with
- V-1650-7. But this allowance happend late and -3 was
- still less powerful than -7 even on 67"MP. -7 was a
- better engine.
-
- The decrease in speed came from the bubble canopy.


Sorry, Huckebein, but you are wrong. In fact so wrong, I'll just use the "elephant-gun" on your argument right off the bat:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/dash3_1.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/dash3_2.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/dash3_3.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/dash3_4.jpg


Still contend the -3 and the -7 had the same critical altitudes and same high altitude performance?

And the reason the B/C was faster than the D had more to do with weight than anything else. The canopy contributed to a more instability in the D than to any loss of speed.

Lemme know if you need anything else.


And please, don't go crapping in this thread. It wasn't intended for you.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg



Message Edited on 11/07/0307:24AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:56 AM
Not crapping, but I am pretty sure that a bubble cannopy would cause more drag, as long as the windshield on the razorback was the same. If you look at the cars they build to break the land-speed record they all have razorback style cannopys. I don't know if it would make a huge difference, but with a bubbletop, the airflow would have to drop back down causeing turbublence aft of the bubble, much like a wing with a thick cross-section. But I think the advantage of the bubbletop far outweighs the little extra drag it causes. I personally cant wait for the earlier stangs, I think they are the best looking ones.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:07 AM
No, I agree there was more drag. But there was also a weight difference between the P-51B (with fuselage tank) and the P-51D: 9,600 lbs versus 10,100 lbs.

And not only that, but at higher altitudes, the P-51B and it's V-1650-3 engine was developing a couple hundred more horse-power than the P-51D and it's V-1650-7 engine.

The P-51D was a little faster at SL than the P-51B, but the B had the advantage at higher altitudes.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:12 AM
Yeah I was kinda directing that at Copperhead, I don't buy all Hucks stuff, but he sometimes comes through with info/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BTW where did the extra weight on the D come from, more armor or did changing the aft fuselage section add some weight.

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:15 AM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- Yeah I was kinda directing that at Copperhead, I
- don't buy all Hucks stuff, but he sometimes comes
- through with info
-
- BTW where did the extra weight on the D come from,
- more armor or did changing the aft fuselage section
- add some weight.

The fuselage modification added some weight, as well as 2 more .50 caliber machine guns.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:22 AM
i miss understood the statemnt. there was no comapirson to the razor back being made. i read it as a general statement. so with out a comparision it is easy to misunderstand the intent of the statment. had he said...."the Bubble canopy on the P-51 caused more drag & was less aerodynamic than the razorback p-51's....that would have been more clear. & i would have agreed. However that is not what Herr Huckie said. & i WAS being civil. as civil as i can force myself to be when bombarded with propaganda all the time.
Every time someone post something positive about a US/VVS/GB aircraft 1 of 2 ppl (sometimes others as well) have to chime right in & trash it. it's late, i'm tired. good night.

sorry about the thread Chimp. didn't mean to foul it up.

<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my USAAF 8th AF Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

Message Edited on 11/06/0311:23PM by Copperhead310th

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:49 AM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- i miss understood the statemnt. there was no
- comapirson to the razor back being made. i read it
- as a general statement. so with out a comparision it
- is easy to misunderstand the intent of the statment.
- had he said...."the Bubble canopy on the P-51 caused
- more drag & was less aerodynamic than the razorback
- p-51's....that would have been more clear. & i would
- have agreed. However that is not what Herr Huckie
- said. & i WAS being civil. as civil as i can force
- myself to be when bombarded with propaganda all the
- time.
- Every time someone post something positive about a
- US/VVS/GB aircraft 1 of 2 ppl (sometimes others as
- well) have to chime right in & trash it. it's late,
- i'm tired. good night.

Hucklebein is talking about the difference between the two models pictured in the first post of this thread. Both are razorbacks, but one has a protruding "bubble" canopy (not sure what the correct term for this type of canopy was), or at least I thought he was.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 07:23 AM
AKD, the picture of the P-51C shows a British modification known as the "Malcom Hood", which is a separate canopy design than the P-51D's bubble. The Malcolm hood replaced the three piece canopy of the P-51B with a single piece of blown perspex that slid back. It probably caused a bit more drag due to its wider form, but without the B's framing, the overall drag was probably a wash. I believe Huck was referring to the D's bubble canopy causing more drag than the B model's razorback, which is correct.

SkyChimp, thanks for the Merlin data. I'm not up to speed on the different engines in the Ami fighters, and this helps.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

edited for spelling
"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif


Message Edited on 11/07/03 01:44AM by Blottogg

Message Edited on 11/07/0301:44AM by Blottogg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:09 PM
Oh, Skychimp posting again from AHT, the ultimate collection of errors. I guess you want the american planes modelled after AHT right?

Why don't you post original documents, not those erronous hand made documents with zero credibility from AHT?

You have there an AHT chart saying that 45"MP could not be kept above 23,000 ft. I have and you have the original Flight Operation Instruction Chart for P-51D with V-1650-7 saying that -7 has no problems in keeping 46"MP at 25,000ft and the engine wasn't at max RPM, it had 2700RPM, additional boost was available. So yes -7 could keep 46"MP up to 29,000 like -3 could.

What Dean did was that he copied the -3 chart from Navy comparison between Corsair and Mustang, and put it there. Of course in the good USN tradition it gives superoptimistic values. At 29,000ft instead of 970HP like the real V-1650-3 could develop they put a completely bogus value of 1300HP.

Post original SEFC charts for V-1650-3/7 and spare me of propagandistic material from AHT.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/51B_SEFC.jpg


http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/51FOIC.gif



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:03 PM
So how many HP was the P-51D running at when it got max full speed? Or is that a lie too?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:31 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- So how many HP was the P-51D running at when it got
- max full speed? Or is that a lie too?


You have the power ratings in SEFC chart.

At full speed and 29,000ft both engines had around 1000HP, -7 being slightly more powerfull on the same boost. That's valid at high speed too, at high altitude the difference between static and dynamic power at max speed is small.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:55 PM
Copperhead - I have to say that your BRAIN is greatly (!!) undermodelled

Huckebein wrote:
"No Skychimp, -7 did not had worse high altitude performance, it was exactly the same high altitude performance with -3. The reason why it had lower critical altitude is because you read a chart where max MP for -3 was 61" not 67" MP. V-1650-3 allowed to use 67" MP had the same critical altitude with V-1650-7. But this allowance happend late and -3 was still less powerful than -7 even on 67"MP. -7 was a better engine.

The decrease in speed came from the bubble canopy."

Then you said:
"Huck there's this little thing called Areodynamics...
you may want to read up on it a bit if you can understand it. I'd like for you to explain to me how you came to the revalation that a bubble canopy causes reduction in air speed. it's a bubble canopy....not an almost flat windshield like an IL-2 or a Bf-109. Ever see a bubble with a flat surface? I never have...but i bet that you have. fact is a bubble has no flat surfaces to reduce air flow or Aerodynamics {oops there's that big word again} and as such causes less drag than say a Bf-109's vertical winshiled."

and afterwards:
"I miss understood the statemnt. there was no comapirson to the razor back being made. i read it as a general statement. so with out a comparision it is easy to misunderstand the intent of the statment. had he said...."the Bubble canopy on the P-51 caused more drag & was less aerodynamic than the razorback p-51's....that would have been more clear. & i would have agreed. However that is not what Herr Huckie said. & i WAS being civil. as civil as i can force myself to be when bombarded with propaganda all the time"


Huck wrote about the difference between razorback Ponys and "bubble" Ponys during his whole (first) post in this thread. What did YOU think he did...huh? If you are unable to understand the meaning of words you better not post here...especially if it is in such a rude an brainless way (trying to advice people on things you personally don't have a single clue)
Maybe reading a post before replying to it would be an amazing step forward! Just try one time, Copperhead, it ain't so hard at all /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me109_g12.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
11-07-2003, 07:01 PM
I THINK I remember reading the Malcom hood was either the same or less drag than the conventional canopy - in my book the 'b' model mustang with the malcom hood is the apex of mustang development. The hood was reputed to offer superior downward visibility and very nearly equal - to the full bubble in all other directions. It's the mustang version I'm most looking forward to.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 07:11 PM
Gen.Firehawk161 wrote:
- Copperhead - I have to say that your BRAIN is
- greatly (!!) undermodelled

- Huck wrote about the difference between razorback
- Ponys and "bubble" Ponys during his whole (first)
- post in this thread. What did YOU think he
- did...huh? If you are unable to understand the
- meaning of words you better not post
- here...especially if it is in such a rude an
- brainless way (trying to advice people on things you
- personally don't have a single clue)
- Maybe reading a post before replying to it would be
- an amazing step forward! Just try one time,
- Copperhead, it ain't so hard at all

My reply Firehawk......
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/emo/Fingers.gif


<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my USAAF 8th AF Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 07:35 PM
Copperhead you fully deserve a permanent ban.
You are the one who threaten to kill with your bare hands the "nazis" on this board.
Your place is in a mental institution. Seek professional help.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 07:39 PM
- WWMaxGunz wrote:
-- So how many HP was the P-51D running at when it got
-- max full speed? Or is that a lie too?
-
-
- You have the power ratings in SEFC chart.
-
- At full speed and 29,000ft both engines had around
- 1000HP, -7 being slightly more powerfull on the same
- boost. That's valid at high speed too, at high
- altitude the difference between static and dynamic
- power at max speed is small.


Interesting is that late DB605 variants also got 1000HP at the same altitude, which is quite remarcable considering that DB605 used a small one stage external supercharger compared with the huge two stage internal supercharger on Merlin.

About the fuel consumption we had already discussed. DB605 is 50% more fuel efficient at combat power than Merlin, for engines with similar power ratings.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/07/0302:08PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 09:54 PM
LOL Copperhead!

That's exactly the sort of answer I expected from such a troll like you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Replies such as "you damn Luftchickens" really shows your intellectual level...
I think you need some serious counceling so you don't bounce off the walls when you get down some...


Anyway: I just hope you get some good psychological treatment

(*admins* ban this ...)

http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/messerschmitt/me109_g12.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 12:23 AM
what is that "additonal Emergency Power" that pops up in the HUD (1.2 RC1) when you go above 100% and CANT be disabled ??

should 110% not be enough as WEP ?

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 02:14 AM
Well, Huck, I see you couldn't resist coming back and taking a dump in my thread, and at the same time displaying a fundemental lack of knowledge about that which you attempt to speak. To bad for you.

I'll address your points, in the order made.



Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Oh, Skychimp posting again from AHT, the ultimate
- collection of errors. I guess you want the american
- planes modelled after AHT right?
-
- Why don't you post original documents, not those
- erronous hand made documents with zero credibility
- from AHT?

Funny you should say AHT has no credibility. You don't have the book, and AFAIK, have never even perused it, yet you feel qualified to comment on its accuracy.

And had you seen the book, you'd know that only one of the 4 charts I posted comes from that book. Why don't you guess where the others came from? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And while you are guessing away, why don't you entertain all of us with a list of errors in AHT, the page numbers, and what the correct information should be. I'd be interested to know, since you obviously know.



- You have there an AHT chart saying that 45"MP could
- not be kept above 23,000 ft.

Huck. You don't understand, and its obvious that you don't. I'll try to explain so you do.



- I have and you have the
- original Flight Operation Instruction Chart for
- P-51D with V-1650-7 saying that -7 has no problems
- in keeping 46"MP at 25,000ft

First of all, all the altitudes on the Flight Operation Chart are rounded to the nearest 5,000. As I've explained to you before, this chart depicts close approximations, not exact figures. Didn't you think it was a we bit odd that every altiude is a nice round number?

Second, the highest altitude that could be reached at 46" hg was 23,400 feet. And that was at 2,700 rpm. That was the Normal Power Critical Altitude. Anything above that and the manifold pressure goes down. There was no way to achieve a higher manifold presssure at 23,400 feet, and no way to maintain it if you went higher.

Your next comment illustrates your confusion...



- and the engine wasn't at max RPM,
- it had 2700RPM, additional boost was
- available. So yes -7 could keep 46"MP up to 29,000
- like -3 could.

Remember now, Normal Power is defined as 46" hg at 2,700 rpm.

At critical altitude, the throttle is in the full forward position. Critical altitude is the maximum altitude that a given power setting can be maintained. For Normal Power, that altitude was 23,400 feet.

At 23,400 feet, there was no way to achieve a higher manifold pressure. At critical altitude, there is no place for manifold pressure to go but down. There was no addition boost available because the throttle was in the full forward position. (The P-51B/C/D did not have any chemical or methanol boost system.)

Take a look at the charts I posted. Can you see that each successively lower power setting has a higher critical altitude?

At 67"hg and 3,000 rpm (combat power) and high blower, critical altitude was 19,300 feet.

At 61" hg and 3,000 rpm (military power) and high blower, critical altitude was 21,400 feet.

At 46" hg and 2,700 rpm (normal power) and high blower, critical altitude was 23,400 feet. At 23,400 feet, there was no way to achieve a higher manifold pressure because the throttle was fully forward. So your statement that extra boost was available is wrong. And 46" hg manifold pressure was insufficient to crank the engine faster than 2,700 rpm. So your statement that the engine wasn't at max rpm is also wrong.

At critical altitude, there is no way to achieve a higher power. That's fundemental about critical altitude. You need to study up on this.



- What Dean did was that he copied the -3 chart from
- Navy comparison between Corsair and Mustang, and put
- it there.

Um, no he didn't. That's the original USN chart.



- Of course in the good USN tradition it
- gives superoptimistic values. At 29,000ft instead of
- 970HP like the real V-1650-3 could develop they put
- a completely bogus value of 1300HP.

You must be seeing something other than what I posted. The speed chart contains no HP values. It simply shows speed at Combat Power and Full throttle above critical altitude.

Care to explain just what the heck you and talking about here? Actually, don't bother. I don't think you really know.



- Post original SEFC charts for V-1650-3/7 and spare
- me of propagandistic material from AHT.

Did you guess yet where the other 3 charts came from?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 02:39 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
Copperhead you fully deserve a permanent ban.
You are the one who threaten to kill with your bare hands the "nazis" on this board. Your place is in a mental institution. Seek professional help.


Huckie dont mis quote me.
what i said was that if i ever met a nazi i'd proably kill him with my bare hands. I NEVER said anything about killing anyone who posted here. So..het it straight next time before you start mouthing off. geee what the Fk are you huckie a freakin shrink? at least i dont idolize the most evil dictatorship in world history. Seek professional help? why? i'm perfectly happy with myself. I just dont take any BS. mabey you should get some help your self there buddy.

Huckebein_FW wrote:
You are the one who threaten to kill with your bare hands the "nazis" on this board.

OMG there are real live Nazi's that post here?
what a revalation.

Gen.Firehawk161 wrote:
- LOL Copperhead!
-
- That's exactly the sort of answer I expected from
- such a troll like you .
Look whos's talking shthead. you know ..it's easy for big talk using a keyboard. i wonder how you would react in person? i'm sure you would not be so brave or bold enough to hurl insults. such a thing would be foolhearty.

- Replies such as "you damn Luftchickens" really shows
- your intellectual level...

Luft~chickens was a term i gave to a couple buddies of mine that i fly with on HL. Generaly means "too scared to face a US aircraft in any thing german that's not uber such as a 109e or F. I use it as a general term for LW fans. was a joke really. but if it offends you then so be it.

- I think you need some serious counceling so you
- don't bounce off the walls when you get down some...

I dont need any counceling. I am just fine. I have all the comforts that life as a natural born US citzen enjoys. I have 3 beautifull children & a godson, all the comforts anyman could ask for. I own my home & land out right. both my vehichles are paid for. all i have to do is pay my utilites & tend my garden. I work when & if i want to.
i have all the time i want for the persiuts of life liberty & my time is my own.I am compleatly happy with my life & withmy self. I secure with the person i am & i contenually strive to better myself even more. I wish some ppl could have it this good. so you see firehawk i dont need any counsaling. However i'm sure that you & huck, issy, Broadlammer & a few other could benifit from it. it seems your sence of right & wrong & good & evil are in serious need of adjustment.

Lastly....if any of you would like to discuss this futher or just have it out & get it over with, you can do so on
the 310th open forum. the link is in my sig. lets take this out of the ORR & someplace a little more privet.
it dosnt belong here. if you would wish to ATTEMPT to insult me....please do so in privete. ether by PM/Email/ or on a forum where we can more freely speek our minds like CWOS or the 310th public forums.





<CENTER>
http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1022.jpg

<FONT COLOR="White">Ghost Skies Matches Starting soon!
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="blue">
Please visit the 310th FS & 380th BG Online @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange" http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="RED">
A proud member Squadron of Ghost Skies Forgotten Battles Tournament League.
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> 310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> Get my USAAF 8th AF Squadron Insignia Files @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=display&skinid=4206')
<FONT COLOR="purple">Slainte Mhath- Good Health to you!

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 04:12 AM
Copperhead, I just want to remind you of your original post, and perhaps help you understand that you reap what you sow. I'm hoping that you will eventually catch on that it is your own behavior that typically brings you into conflict with others, and hoping that you will take responsibility for this behavior when your reap what you sow, instead of always trying to place the blame on others:

Copperhead310th wrote:
- hiyas Huckie.
- Droping by to remind us how bad the mustangs are
- supposed to be again?
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
- "The decrease in speed came from the bubble canopy."
-
- Huck there's this little thing called
- Areodynamics...
- you may want to read up on it a bit if you can
- understand it.

If you bait and insult people, you will get the same in return. If you want to act like a child, then don't expect those lacking in restraint or maturity to not respond in kind.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 04:50 PM
Bump

Oleg, sorry this got off track.

Any comment?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 10:29 AM
this community really knows how to have a normal civilized discussion... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

//F16 =txmx=
http://www.f16vs.tk

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 12:32 PM
of course OT,
skychim ,
what a wonderful castle in the background in your sig , very very nice .
where is that castle ?

Boandl

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 02:49 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
- of course OT,
- skychim ,
- what a wonderful castle in the background in your
- sig , very very nice .
- where is that castle ?
-
- Boandl


In Europe!

I don't know.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 06:02 PM
The castle is Neuschwanstein in Bavaria, Germany.


<center><img src= "http://perso.wanadoo.fr/christophe.arribat/stoffwjabo.jpg" height=205 width=385>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

British Air Marshall, Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 09:03 PM
bump

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:35 AM
Bumparoo

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg