PDA

View Full Version : P51C speed



FA_Whisky
10-04-2004, 01:31 AM
According to the plane data from the object viewer the P51C also has the V-1650-7 engine.
SO, that means: 1490Hp Normal and 1720Hp combat.

Should the P51C in the game not be as fast as the P51d down low than?? It is clearly not so the object viewer is wrong or it is moddeled with the V-1650-3 engine (1380Hp normal and 1620Hp military).

FA_Whisky
10-04-2004, 01:31 AM
According to the plane data from the object viewer the P51C also has the V-1650-7 engine.
SO, that means: 1490Hp Normal and 1720Hp combat.

Should the P51C in the game not be as fast as the P51d down low than?? It is clearly not so the object viewer is wrong or it is moddeled with the V-1650-3 engine (1380Hp normal and 1620Hp military).

Resident_Jock
10-04-2004, 01:44 AM
Horsepower isn't everything. The C-model had a more aerodynamic profile and lighter weight, meaning it had a greater top speed. The earliest flyable model, the B, is actually the fastest of the 3 because the C's Malcom Hood and the D's bubble canopy create more drag than the "fastback" mustang.

DaBalllz
10-04-2004, 03:10 AM
The P-51C should be faster than the P-51D at
all altitudes. racers after the end of WWII
knew this and initally sought out low time
P-51Cs, but they were rare even then.

P-51Bs were as fast as a C model at sea level.
Maybe a bit faster.
A P-51B was faster than a P-51D despite the lower
power numbers.

One note, as the P-51Ds were introduced so was
115/145 grade av/gas. Tweaked to make use of
the higher grade fuel, the D model was likely as fast
or faster than an un tweaked B or C model.


The BS and hyperbole mute the facts quite a bit
but the "C" model should be about 10-20 mph
faster than a "D" at all altitudes.

The P-51B and C were more areodynamicly clean
and posessed a thinner wing.

Oleg is CLEARLY wrong on this one.


Da...

Maple_Tiger
10-04-2004, 04:38 AM
Main reasone why the D is faster then the B/C at low altitudes, is becaues of the supercharger differences. There geered differently.

DaBalllz
10-04-2004, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Main reasone why the D is faster then the B/C at low altitudes, is becaues of the supercharger differences. There geered differently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it bassackwards...
The P-51C-10 had the same gearing in the supercharger
as the P-51D, same engine exactly.

The P-51B had gearing more suitable for low altitudes
and was superior at sea level to both the
P-51C-10 and the P-51D.

Earlier versions as the P-51C were exactly the
same in EVERY respect as the P-51B.

The only difference was the manufacturing location.

A P-51B should easily out run a P-51D at sea level
and perhaps it will be close at 25,000'.

A P-51C-10 should out run a P-51D at all altitudes
easily.

Paul Mantz knew this, and dominated the Bendix
air races with a team of P-51C-10s.

These planes had minor modifications and could
sustain 480+ for over a thousand miles at 25,000'!

Try that with a P-51D...

Da...


Da...

WUAF_Badsight
10-04-2004, 11:28 PM
has anyone tried to relay this info to Maddox Games staff ?

if it was faster , then it should be faster

faustnik
10-04-2004, 11:31 PM
Hmmm...I understood it the same way as Maple. Where's SkyChimp when you need him?

FA_Whisky
10-05-2004, 02:58 AM
So, in the game the P51C should be at least just as fast as the P51D. They have the same V1750-7 engine, the same gearing. The bubble canopy gives the P51D more drag, so.......
The P51C should be faster. This mean either the FM of the P51C is wrong or the engine listed in the object viewer is not the one moddeled. (Should be the V1750-3 than.)

k5054
10-05-2004, 03:48 AM
The dash 7 engine was indeed differently geared to give better low altitude performance. Some Bs and Cs had -7 engines, and their performance is just a fraction better than the D because of the drag. More like 2mph than 20 though. The original B is listed as faster than the D not because of the drag but because that top speed is reached at a higher altitude, with a -3 engine, and with the same power you gain 4mph with every 1,000ft.
The speed difference between a C with the -7 and a D would be within the differences caused by bomb racks, normal a/c variation, weight, paint finish etc. The C would have a climb and turn advantage due to the weight being less.

Some C models were built with the -7, some had it fitted as an engine swap later. I've no idea what is modelled in FB.

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-05-2004, 05:57 AM
I just like the "charlie" model, so that's what I fly given the opportunity.

Aaron_GT
10-05-2004, 06:00 AM
In addition to that there were all sorts of fuel grades and manifold pressures used at various points so you have to look at the pressure being developed (assuming the gauges are correct - I don't know if DeviceLink offers a way to get MP figures out) and compare those with the test results. I haven't checked to see if the latest patch changed anything, but previously the B at least was running at early 1944 pressures. The B's speed at sea level is more or less ok for the early 1944 MP pressures, but too low for the boosted later 1944 performance. Hopefully in BoB we will get fuel and MP tuning options and eventually the P51 in that sim too.

faustnik
10-05-2004, 10:54 AM
Form the book Luftwaffe Test Pilot, Hans-Werner Lerche:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/LWp51test.jpg

p1ngu666
10-05-2004, 11:24 AM
http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/p51bvsc.jpg

http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/p51cvsd2.jpg

the earlier models seem less alive, more sluggish too dont they? or is it just me?
i dont fly em much, despite the sig

VW-IceFire
10-05-2004, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Form the book _Luftwaffe Test Pilot_, Hans-Werner Lerche:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/LWp51test.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats a fascinating report. So the turn isn't all that badly modeled like a bunch of guys were saying.

I like that. Very encouraging http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maple_Tiger
10-05-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daballlz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maple_Tiger:
Main reasone why the D is faster then the B/C at low altitudes, is becaues of the supercharger differences. There geered differently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it bassackwards...
The P-51C-10 had the same gearing in the supercharger
as the P-51D, same engine exactly.

The P-51B had gearing more suitable for low altitudes
and was superior at sea level to both the
P-51C-10 and the P-51D.

Earlier versions as the P-51C were exactly the
same in EVERY respect as the P-51B.

The only difference was the manufacturing location.

A P-51B should easily out run a P-51D at sea level
and perhaps it will be close at 25,000'.

A P-51C-10 should out run a P-51D at all altitudes
easily.

Paul Mantz knew this, and dominated the Bendix
air races with a team of P-51C-10s.

These planes had minor modifications and could
sustain 480+ for over a thousand miles at 25,000'!

Try that with a P-51D...

Da...


Da... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well, thats what I was told.

Plus, that is basicaly the way it is in FB.

In FB, both the B/C and D have the same MP from about 0 altitude to about 3200m.

D-20NA


0-3200: 67 MP..Then starts to drop.

5000m: 51 MP

5600m: Second stage supercher kicks in. MP is back to 67.


B/C


0-4400: 67MP.. Then starts to drop off.

5000m: 61MP

6000m: 51MP

6300m: Second stage supcharger kicks in. MP is back to 67.

faustnik
10-05-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Thats a fascinating report. So the turn isn't all that badly modeled like a bunch of guys were saying.

I like that. Very encouraging http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Especially when you consider most of the yahoos on the DF servers are running 25% fuel. Lerche ran his P-51B with little fuel and the thing was VERY fast and maneuvrable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

SkyChimp
10-05-2004, 06:06 PM
The P-51B-1-NA, P-51B-5-NA, and the P-51C-1-NT were equipped with the high-altitude rated V-1650-3 engine.

The P-51B-10-NA, P-51B-15-NA, and P-51C-5-NT, P-51C-10, and all subsequent P-51Ds and P-51Ks had the medium-altitude rated V-1650-7 engine.

Generally, the -3 engine will produce lower speeds at sea level, and slower climb rates down low, than the same plane equipped with the -7 engine.

Planes equipped with the -3 will be markedly faster and have better climb rates at high altitude than the same -7 engined planes.

WUAF_Badsight
10-05-2004, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Thats a fascinating report. So the turn isn't all that badly modeled like a bunch of guys were saying.

I like that. Very encouraging http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Especially when you consider most of the yahoos on the DF servers are running 25% fuel. Lerche ran his P-51B with little fuel and the thing was VERY fast and maneuvrable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PFFFT

faustnik
10-05-2004, 10:47 PM
I calls it like I sees it Badsight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FA_Whisky
10-06-2004, 04:17 AM
So, is it time to ask Oleg?
Is the objectvieuwer wrong(P51C has 1750-7 engine there)?
Or is the FM wrong(looks like its moddeled with the 1750-3 engine)

Maple_Tiger
10-06-2004, 04:51 AM
The P-51C we have is the NT-10. This should have the V-1670-7 and is says it does. However, from looking at the performance data Oleg has typed there for the C-NT-10, you would think it was for the V-1670-3.

Obviously, there is something wronge. From flying the NT-10, I beleave that it is the V-1650-3 Merlin engine that it actualy in the NT-10. If that is the case, then they messed up.

Baltar
10-06-2004, 07:48 AM
Where can I get that IL2 Compare program??